Appreciative Inquiry

Caroline Brazill

Professor Craig

30 October 2011

“I’m going to ask you questions today that will change your life,” began Deborah Maher, a woman in her mid-fifties. Mrs. Maher works at a consulting firm in Washington, DC, that specializes in a new field of problem solving techniques: appreciative inquiry. She spoke to a group of American University students in the Compass Fellows program to get us thinking about what our own personal strengths were and how we could utilize those strengths when developing a social venture. The material that she presented peaked my interest; I wanted to know more about when exactly appreciative inquiry can be harnessed.

Appreciative inquiry is a flip from traditional problem solving techniques that was developed at Case Western University. Its tagline, “Turning problem solving into solution finding,” promotes a positive, strength-based innovation. Mrs. Maher displayed the traditional problem solving approach before moving to the appreciative inquiry approach. In traditional problem solving, an individual (1) identifies a problem, (2) conducts a root cause analysis, (3) analyzes possible solutions, and finally (4) develops an action plan, or treatment.

Appreciative inquiry outlines completely different steps to solution finding. In the appreciative inquiry model, an individual (1) appreciates or values what is already present, (2) imagines what might be, (3) dialogues and designs to determine what should be, and (4) creates what will be. The underlying assumption of appreciative inquiry is asking, “What’s working here?” rather than “What needs to be fixed?”

To be honest, I wasn’t completely convinced when Mrs. Maher began speaking. The whole process she detailed sounded a bit naïve: imaging and dialoguing our way to a perfect future peaked with a rainbow. But the more she spoke, the more I was convinced; appreciative inquiry represents a shift in the way we think, from automatically negative (what’s wrong) to automatically positive (what’s working and how can we make it even better). I remembered our international relations textbook chapter about decision-making. There are models that assert that leaders rely on standard operating procedures and cost benefit analysis, but could appreciative inquiry soon join these ranks?

I dove into more research. It turns out that appreciative inquiry has really taken off over the past decade, in sectors such as business, healthcare, environment, and social services. In June 2004, Then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan convened the Global Compact Leaders Summit at the UN Headquarters in New York. This Summit employed the appreciative inquiry methodology. Over 500 leaders gathered, “to explore the global struggle for corporate responsibility” (APA Consulting). The United States Navy also held a three-day appreciative inquiry conference in 2001.

In international development, a group known as APA (Appreciative Planning and Action) Consulting hosted a major conference in Nepal. The 2009 World Appreciative Inquiry Conference featured 400 top leaders, businessmen, and other representatives from 40 countries who focused on strength-based approaches for change and development. The goal of the conference was to highlight and dialogue about stories of success in international development around the world. One of the programs that the conference highlighted was a women’s empowerment initiative in Nepal. Advocates of appreciative inquiry founded a program that reaches rural women and conducts action-oriented sessions to helps them celebrate their sense of self-reliance and inspires them to continue to make sustainable change for themselves and their villages.

Appreciative inquiry is a relatively new thought process and solution finding approach that is relevant to and has been successful in a wide range of fields including government and international relations. Its innovative and refreshing design has the potential to influence development and policy. I am interested to see what other positive changes appreciative inquiry inspires and propels.

Tears of Gaza and Irredentism

William Vazquez

Professor Craig

World Politics 001H

Date of Submission: 29 October 2011

Merriam-Webster defines “irredenta” as “a territory historically or ethnically related to one political unit but under the political control of another.” (Merriam-Webster, Irredenta) It also defines “irredentism” as “a political principle or policy directed toward the incorporation of irredentas within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related political unit.” (Merriam-Webster, Irredentism) The issue of who has the correct claim to land that has caused conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians is an ongoing example of this. In an effort to establish dominance in the territory, both sides have savagely attacked one another for centuries. Vibeke Løkkeberg’s Tears from Gaza attempted to capture the magnitude of this conflict through the eyes of some those left to deal with the consequences: the civilians. Actions taken by reporters and non-government organizations like Løkkeberg’s group seem to serve as more effective means of getting out the message of what is truly going on. The same can be said of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” group, who screened this documentary in order to raise awareness of the extremity of the violence that had been occurring in the Gaza Strip alone. Ultimately it served as a horrifying example of the price of irredentist military policy. Over the black screen a few sections of text were depicted, telling how an Israeli bombing campaign over the course of twenty days from December 2008 to January 2009 on the Gaza Strip had claimed the lives of nearly 1,387 people, 776 of which were women and children. Those left injured number in the tens of thousands. It was one thing to read about the destruction. It was another to see the faces of the families left behind.

The film starts off by focusing on the statements of three children in June 2009: Yahya, Rasmia, and Amira. Yahya states that he wants to become a doctor so that he can help those injured by the Israelis while Amira states that she wanted to become a lawyer to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. As Yahya is shown talking about how he and his brothers would play with their father at the beach before his murder during the attacks, a battleship can be seen floating by menacingly. While he is at a religious ceremony in a bombed out mosque, drones can be overheard above the districts, watching and waiting. Despite all of the destruction and terrible living conditions they are left with, Yahya and his family still try to enjoy life, dancing to music in front of the camera, as well as celebrating the soon to be wedding of his older brother. As their wedding car strolls along and happy people passing by honk their horns, a helicopter flies low overhead. The older brother later explains how he not happy: he lost his father, a grandfather, and has only one uncle still alive. He has no way of paying off his debt. Meanwhile the children at home have no mattresses or comfort, only a television on which they frequently see commercials promoting the Israeli military, with machine guns bursting, tank cannons firing, and heavy metal music blasting. Even when Yahya goes out on a boat, the camera captures the naval guard firing at a boat that went past the three mile limit from the coast.

The film then jumps back to the events of January 2009, as fighter jets swoop in and bomb entire neighborhoods and homes. It is one thing to see the attack, but to see the crowds rushing to the rubble, digging through it to try and save the injured buried beneath as well as salvage the bodies, is heart breaking. Civilians rush to use garden hoses with low water pressure in an attempt to put out the fires. Clips of video captured by Palestinian people show the bodies being pulled out and any functioning cars being used as makeshift ambulances. Yahya’s mother states: “May God punish them.” She reminisces how Israeli soldiers closed her family into a house and would not let them out, instead shooting through the walls. Any people caught running at night were shot on sight, and traveling through the streets involved weaving through corpses. The dead were then put into body bags and the families who lost them would not get to see them.

Due to the lack of proper materials, cinder blocks are used as headstones for the dead. Rasmia is shown again after depictions of tanks rolling through the night to attack, soldiers being dropped off by helicopters, and phosphorous bombs exploding the set anything they touched instantly on fire. She states how she had to leave her dead parents behind and lead her little injured brother over the bodies in the street to safety. Even at the UNRWA camp, with its dozens of tents of refugees, where they went to be safe, bombs were dropped, killing her uncle and more of her family. She sleeps in a dilapidated home eating sandy food, with little or no water, and only a small black blanket as a bed. It is even stated that she goes into wild episodes of hallucinations, reliving the terrible events of that night and seeing the bodies as she climbed over them flash before her eyes.

Amira is finally shown with her new family after losing every member of her family during the attacks. They had been at home when a knock on the door drew her father to the front door. The door exploded due to a rocket, and when she and her siblings went to find their father, Amira was injured from behind in the legs by a rocket. Her siblings went to get help and never returned. She passed out and eventually came back to try and get to her father, only to be fired up by Israeli soldiers again and have her father completely destroyed by another rocket. She later learned her brothers were gunned down while seeking help, and she wishes that she had gone with them.

Intermittently the documentary cuts back to the events of January 2009, even showing the insides of hospitals, which are filled with so many injured and dying that unclean operating tables have to be used, with little time to even clean off the blood from the last patient. Little infants and toddlers are shown with blast injuries, bullet injuries, burns, and more. One man breaks down on camera, screaming how the soldiers were inhuman and murdered all of his children. At the morgue, children are brought before the camera, their lifeless bodies shown close so the people could explain how the bullet holes told a story: the size and depth of the injuries meant that these children had been shot at close range in a manner consistent with execution. One of the bodies is wrapped on a cloth and held above a crowd that cheers to the statement: “May God punish Israel.” The film closes with statements from the children once more before closing into the blackness that it started with.

The American University website gives a brief explanation of the movie, also stating that “The film depicts the ability of women and children to handle their everyday life after a traumatic war experience.” (AU Middle East Studies) This confirms that the actions taken during the course of that period of time were not simply attacks for no reason – they were an act of war. Throughout the film though, I must say that I never heard or saw who exactly the Israeli soldiers were fighting against. If it was any of the unarmed civilians who happened to be cut down and decimated by the bombs and bullets, then clearly the fight was in their favor. Whatever their mission directives were, the devastation they inflicted in order to promote their right to inhabit that land or be safe in their own was complete.

Due to their roots in the territory, the state of Israel’s location on where Palestine once stood has left each side with deep-seeded hatred for the other. There seems to be no way to truly delineate the lines where each state should be: a reason why the Palestinian bid for statehood has gone before the UN Security Council for some kind of confirmation. Long ago the Balfour Declaration had declared an international “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” (mfa.gov) Since then the lines have been completely muddled, as violent conflicts between the militant factions of the remainder of Palestine and the Israeli military have torn the territory apart. Most of these conflicts are usually not directed at the military at all. As depicted in Tears of Gaza, the implementation of irredentist policies result in the destruction of entire families, lives, and homes. While this was not shown in the film, attacks were made on two UN schools during this assault. “The UN was particularly incensed over targeting of the schools, because Israeli forces knew they were packed with families as they had ordered them to get out of their homes with leaflet drops and loudspeakers. It said it had identified the schools as refugee centres to the Israeli military and provided GPS coordinates.” (Guardian) With what aim were these attacks perpetrated? By focusing less on the militant factions and more on civilians, I believe the drive was to break the spirits of the people in order to establish authority in the Gaza Strip and ultimately control that irredenta as Israel sees it. What did this accomplish though?

Tears of Gaza captures the true consequences of these irredentist attacks. Rather than gloss over the situation with a general statement of statewide response, it shows through eyewitness accounts that while some spirits are broken, many in their despair and loss turn to anger, wishing nothing but the worst upon all of Israel. Israel becomes one solid target of hatred for the crimes on the people depicted here, with no known reason for the attacks ever revealed. The Balfour Declaration also stated that Great Britain “…will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Yet still those same people have been bombed and massacred in an attempt to completely control the territory rather than peacefully coexist. I am sure Amira’s family was not planning to fire a rocket into an Israeli home before their own was destroyed by several. Yet while implementing these attacks in order to establish territorial dominance, the people of the Gaza Strip are dehumanized and forced to cope with the aftermath. Does this justify retaliation, like today when rockets were fired into southern Israel, killing at least one man? (haaretz, Rocket Attacks) The cycle of carnage seems to know no end, as a response to this attack from the Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated: “If the rocket fire does not stop, there will be immediate consequences in the coming days.” (haaretz, Lieberman)

Ultimately I am still unsure of who has the truly correct irredentist claim to the overall territory of the former state of Palestine and its current broken segments of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The military actions depicted just in Tears of Gaza and the subsequent outcries against these actions tell me that militant irredentism is no way to go about achieving peace. In a world struggling to achieve international peace and to win the “war on war,” conflicts like this over territorial control serve only to exacerbate the problem. Ultimately the irredentist claims must be silenced, weapons stowed, and some even establishment made if there is ever to be peace and if the lost souls and those lost behind are to ever find peace as well. Even if something is achieved though, the scars of this act of war and the many before and after it may never heal.

Works Cited

Balfour, Arthur J. "The Balfour Declaration." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

McGreal, Chris, and Hazem Balousha. "Gaza's Day of Carnage - 40 Dead as Israelis Bomb Two UN Schools | World News | The Guardian." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. The Guardian, 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

Merriam-Webster. "Irredenta - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

Merriam-Webster. "Irredentism - Definition and More from Merriam-Webster." Merriam-Webster. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

Ravid, Barak. "Lieberman: If Gaza Rocket Fire Does Not Stop, There Will Be Consequences - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. 29 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

"Tears of Gaza." American University Washington D.C. | Schools, Colleges, Undergraduate, Graduate, Admissions, Academics, Degrees, Faculty. Students for Justice in Palestine, 2 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

Yagna, Yanir, and Haaretz. "Israeli Killed as a Result of Rocket Barrage on Southern Israel - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. 29 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2011. .

Terrorism: Who's who in the Salvadoran Civil War

The term “terrorism” has been defined in a number of ways by a variety of scholars. For the most part, each definition has yielded a limited understanding of the actual phenomenon. This is especially true when analyzing the wave of situations that occurred in El Salvador leading up to and during the Salvadoran Civil War of 1980-1992.

Terrorism is usually viewed as the illegitimate and violent actions of specific groups that violate the authority of rightfully established political entities. However, an understanding of terrorism hinges on accepting definitions of social and political reality expressed by groups that differ in their public support and power. In nations undergoing turbulent movements – such as civil wars or internal revolutions – it is necessary to decide which group represents the sovereign interests of the people.

In this paper I will explore the various actors and motives that operated in El Salvador during the Civil War to clarify the real meaning of terrorism in this situation. My argument is that in this case, and perhaps in other dynamic revolutions, the state of El Salvador, represented by the right-wing militant government ARENA, acted more like a terrorist organization than the guerrillas and revolutionaries that fought to overthrow the regime.

From the United States’ perspective during this time period, the guerrillas, known as the Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN), were the terrorists. The Reagan administration was convinced that FMLN was just a puppet of the Soviet Union, working through Cuban and Nicaraguan proxies. In virtually every Latin American nation the local left was permeated by Cuban influence. Fidel Castro and the Cubans did not invent the armed struggle of the region, however. There was a long tradition of taking up arms in the region, dating back to the nineteenth century. Those who did so were nationalists, radical liberals, and in El Salvador, Marxists (Castaneda 212). As the Cuban Revolution began to mellow, there was an emergence of new organizations throughout Latin America, shifting north. A “second wave” of guerrilla movements developed, particularly in El Salvador (Castaneda 215).

In the early 1980s, the right-wing forces of El Salvador, led by Roberto D’Aubuisson, organized a number of “death squads” to murder suspected guerrilla sympathizers and innocent peasants alike. Individuals, even entire families, were slaughtered in their homes or disappeared. When Archbishop Oscar Romero decided to protest these outrages, D’Aubuisson had him shot at the altar. In deference to American sensibilities – and at the command of American authorities – the D’Aubuisson death squads were abandoned. D’Aubuisson disappeared, temporarily, into the shadows (Central America 100). The extreme right, organized as the ARENA party, selected a nominal leader more congenial to U.S. sensibilities – Alfredo Cristiani, a wealthy businessman educated at Georgetown, well-versed in the phrases that would please the stream of American support into his country. The United States planned to place Cristiani in power once Duarte’s term came to a close (Castaneda 64). However, as noted by Richard Goodwin, the crowd attending the inauguration of Cristiani “reserved its loudest cheers for the entrance of Roberto D’Aubuisson” (Central America 99). Lacking any official position, D’Aubuisson was clearly the leader. His advisors occupied key security positions in the government. The new government of El Salvador, led by Cristiani, was merely the old gang with a new front man. So occupied with finding a new democratic leader in El Salvador, the Reagan Administration did not take the time to weed out the corrupt and violent leaders of El Salvador’s past regimes. The vice-president to Cristiani, hand-picked by D’Aubuisson, reinstated the death squads.

In 1980, there was a series of attacks on the civilian population, as well as executions, particularly against the rural population. Massacres also occurred, such as one at the Sumpul River, the Lempa River, and El Mozote, all of which occurred in 1980 and 1981. Organized terrorism, in the form of the death squads, escalated the violence. Military groups engaged in a systematic murder campaign with total impunity, while government institutions, as well as the foreign supporters of the government turned a blind eye. The murder of Archbishop Romero exemplified the limitless power of these groups (UN Security Council).

The opposition forces under the military control of the FMLN had a better record of respecting the civilian population. Their targets tended to be military (security forces, police stations, army barracks) and strategic (bridges and lines of communication). However, the preponderance of violence – particularly directed against innocent civilians – originates from government action, ARENA. In a letter to former US Secretary of State Hair, Amnesty International observed that the “analysis of all available data suggests that the majority of the reported violations, including torture, ‘disappearance,’ and deliberate cold-blooded killings, have been carried out by the security forces and have been directed against people not involved in guerrilla activities” (Taylor 112). If this isn’t terrorism, then what is?

According to the Reagan administration’s definition of terrorism, the term is used to describe all the activities of the opposition forces, while the documented terrorism of the security forces if ignored or rationalized since it may be necessary to keep the Salvadoran regime in power (Taylor 117). In the administration’s eyes, FMLN was the terrorist group, because it was fighting against authority, despite the fact that it was backed my a majority of the civilian population.

El Salvador is an illustrative case involving a variety of issues that play heavily on the perception and definition of terrorism. Terrorism lends itself to political and strategic expressions that arouse public concern and moral judgment – the situation that existed in El Salvador. In El Salvador, the issues center on the sovereign rights of the people and the actions of the government. Terrorism is not limited to “leftist” or revolutionary groups. Terrorism is also an activity of “rightists” or reactionary organizations. Terrorism is not the sole province of the “out-groups”. Quite often it is the mode of operation of a regime, as proven in El Salvador, where a kind of official terrorism seems to be practiced. This use of the term terrorism would be consistent with the general definition, being the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a specific set of objectives or goals, but contradicts many definitions of terrorism that link terrorism to those who challenge existing regimes with which the United States is allied.

Works Cited

Castaneda, Jorge. Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War. New York: Random House, 1993. Print.

Central America: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1990.

Taylor, Harry. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: “La Matanza”. 1982.

UN Security Council, Annex, “From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:

Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador.” United States Institute of Peace, 1993. Print.

An African Answer

“You fight,” explained pastor James Wuye, “Because you do not know how to talk.” In this scene of the film An African Answer, the pastor and his cohort, imam Muhammad Ashafa, were in the final stages of implementing their peacemaking model in a community in Africa that was severely crippled by ethnic conflict. An audience composed of students, faculty, and community members had the opportunity to view the brand new film in its entirety and engage in a question and answer session with the two peacekeepers. Interestingly enough, the two men were both part of opposing militias in Nigeria; Ashafa wanted to kill Christians, while Wuye wanted to kill Muslims. Each man eventually realized that he did not desire a lifestyle driven by hatred, and so, they banded together with a mentality of empowerment and peace. The pair first brought their model to Nigeria, and, because of its success, expanded their efforts throughout Africa.

In 2007, the results of the general election in Kenya were highly disrupted. The violence that erupted as a result of these tensions made headlines around the world, and communities across the country teetered on the edge of genocide. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was invited to Kenya to mediate the disputes, and he was able to arrange a political compromise that salvaged stability at an administrative level. However, the country was still in dire need of peace at the grassroots level. The clashing of ethnic groups caused thousands of civilians to flee their neighborhoods, hoping to escape the conflicts.

The pastor and the imam were invited to Kenya to share their model of peacekeeping. This model had previous success in Africa, most notably in Nigeria. The pair set their sights on a community called Burnt Forest, which was seen as the epicenter of the ethnic conflict. The approach generated by the two peacekeepers focused on facilitating dialogue between the two clashing ethnic groups, the Kikuyu and the Kalinsins. They gathered community members and leaders who were interested in participating in their three-day workshop. The workshop was part of a peacemaking model with specific methodology - a lasting solution for peace must be generated by the community itself.

The first day of activities began with exactly this goal in mind. The pastor and the imam shared their personal stories, and then asked multiple participants to do the same. The team then split the participants along ethnic lines, asking each side to list their dislikes about the other. Of course, tension was very high in the room, but the discussion then progressed carefully; members from the opposing group were able to respond to the grievances of the other. Participants were then asked to list what each group could respect about the other. The imam and the pastor then facilitated a round table discussion between community leaders to further discuss the topics addressed during the day. Again, each side was able to respond to the ideas of the other. Community members left the workshop eagerly awaiting the next day’s events.

Day two’s activities were just as interactive and focused. Individuals wrote down the hurts, pains, and wrongs that the opposing group imposed on them. These papers were then burned and offered to God. Members walked to this sacrificial ceremony hand in hand, in Kikuyu-Kalinsin pairs. At the ceremony, the pastor and imam spoke of past pains being offered, gone, and forgotten; the team emphasized that God is the only one who is able to truly reconcile a community. Participants then signed up for action committees to implement the ideas and solutions that were generated between the groups.

On the final day, the imam and the pastor traveled to the homes of community leaders and members of peace committees, to further their dialogue and show respect toward the host community. All participants then gathered to take their message of peace into Burnt Forest. The group marched through the village, asserting the message that they wanted peace. The march ended at the new peace office in town. The entire event came to an end after ritual song, dance and prayer—used as tools to solidify a commitment to reconciliation.

During the question and answer session of the presentation to American University, the imam and the pastor enthusiastically reported on the situation in Burnt Forest today. The main market, once segregated along ethnic lines, is now assimilated and functioning as one whole. The situation is entirely peaceful, and those who fled their homes have moved back. In fact, the community of Burnt Forest is spearheading the peace process for the whole country of Kenya; its residents vow that a repeat of violence and ethnic clashes will not occur.

The duo also answered questions about their methodology and their profession. Imam Ashafa asserted that peacemakers must be, above all, sensitive to culture. He told the audience, “You must use the lenses of the people to get to their hearts.” Pastor Wuye also spoke of a need for creativity within the peacemaking profession. The pair also emphasized flexibility in addressing and developing models for peace. They told those interested in peacemaking to never forget the “intra” level—using advocacy to empower communities to be the change they wish to see. “Empathize,” elaborated the imam, “do not sympathize. Because when you sympathize you take a side. When you empathize, you feel the reaction of the people.”

Overall, the film and discussion were extremely interesting because both elements introduced the audience to a successful methodology that has facilitated great success: get them talking. The most attractive aspect of the film, the speakers and the presentation as a whole was an air of humility: imam Ashafa and pastor never enter a community thinking they are above or better than its members; they are equipped with experiences that allow them to relate to a sense of hatred and frustration, as well as a willingness to help others overcome their own obstacles to peace.

Winning the War on War: Goldstein Talk

After some brief introductory remarks, Joshua Goldstein addressed the crowd by stating, “Peace has been the dream of humanity for thousands of years.” He acknowledged that all generations have known war, but that over time, the intensity of wars throughout the globe has decreased. Compared to the millions of soldier casualties in WWII, the number of people who were killed last year in war was less than the number of people who died from tumbling from their beds. However, there has been an increase in the number of civilians dying from wars throughout the globe. While some estimates state that ninety percent of all deaths in war now are from civilians, the true statistic is closer to a 50/50 ratio. Casualty rates vary greatly depending upon the war and the type of war.

Goldstein discussed how the contours of war have changed over the past few centuries — national armies are no longer seen fighting each other and nuclear arms reductions have reduced the number of nuclear warheads that could initiate a nuclear war. National armies typically have the highest number of casualties on the battlefield and nuclear arms provide one of the greatest threats of widespread destruction.

Goldstein’s talk in the SIS building directly related to the third chapter of the International Relations textbook that spoke about “the waning of war.” Liberalist theory explains why peace is more prevalent, but realist theory continues to explain why fighting has not entirely ceased. Liberals see that the current globalization has been contributing world peace by fostering mutually beneficial cooperation both politically and economically while realists see power via military strength and emphasis upon self-interest as a reason of why wars will never be entirely obsolete and why world peace is unachievable (Goldstein). Private organization, such as the NGOs Goldstein later mentioned, would play a greater role in this liberal theory compared to the realist point of view.

The idea that the the type of war has changed from national armies fighting each other across battlefields to guerilla war with no front lines has the potential to support both liberal and realist theories. Liberals would probably view this as an irrefutable decrease in war. In terms of casualties, this is true. Realists would argue that guerilla war, while having fewer casualties, has greater ability to terrorize the psyche of the people living within nations whose troops are at war. With more developed weapons and improved medical techniques, such wars can inflict incredible horrors upon soldiers and with quicker technologies and easy access to social media, reports about the horrors of war have a greater ability to be reported to citizens and have an impact.

Goldstein continued on to specifically talk about peace and achieving it, illustrating his point with the example of China’s peaceful rise to power that has occurred in the past few decades. He stated that China has been able to maintain its legitimacy by delivering prosperity to its citizens. In this century, China has provided an example of a great power climbing through peace and economic strength, not war.

Goldstein did not mention, however, the fact that China has emphasized building a large military force in the past few decades. Its strength is increasing and China’s massive military is irrefutable. In the 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Report on China’s Military stated, “While remaining focused on Taiwan as a primary mission, China will, by 2020, lay the foundation for a force able to accomplish broader regional and global objectives. By the latter half of this decade, it is likely that China will be able to project and sustain a modest sized force—perhaps several battalions of ground forces or a naval flotilla of up to a dozen ships—in low-intensity operations far from China. It is unlikely, however, that China will be able to project and sustain large forces in high-intensity combat operations far from China until well into the following decade.” (Erickson) As nations experiencing catch-up economic growth rapidly become wealthier and internationally more powerful, they may create a challenge to the current hegemon in the international system: the United States. If states gain the military strength for wars, will they take advantage of this option and choose to become embroiled in wars across the globe? Goldstein failed to mention the idea that fewer wars may have partly resulted from what the hegemonic stability theory dictates as well.

Despite the fewer casualties and more peaceful ascensions to power and economic strength, Goldstein says, “It’s as if we all grew wings on our backs and then started complaining about the weight.” He returned to his thesis of how global peace is increasing but mentioned that no one wants to be the one to declare peace for our generation and then be proven incorrect. In the media, war reporters focus on and highly publicize the “worst” issues in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Peace doesn’t create a sensationalized headline that sells newspapers. This is one reason that the news media is partly responsible for perpetuating the idea that the world is becoming a more war-torn and violent place, in Goldstein’s opinion. Overall, reporters don’t focus on whether war is decreasing or not — they focus on the horrors of war. This focus on the horrors of war may have resulted from the goal of media outlets to generate exciting, attention-grabbing stories in order to create a profit (Famine Media: The Politics of Representation, a Roundtable Discussion).

Determining if peace is increasing on a yearly basis is difficult because keeping statistics on the changes in war can be incredibly demanding. It is very easy for numbers to become inflated, as was the case with the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Direct battle deaths are the easiest to count, whereas civilian deaths rely heavily upon estimates.

In addition to fewer dead soldiers, the geographical areas covered by war have also drastically changed. Eastern European, South African, and Central American wars have ceased, as well as many conflicts in Western Africa, according to Goldstein. While fewer soldiers are dying and less of the world is directly entangled in conflict, Goldstein explained why peace is not directly around the corner and why there is a scale to determine the level of peace and war experienced in the world. War can range from global thermonuclear to civil war and peace can range from ceasefire to “world peace.” Peace goes from ceasefire to disarmament to a civil society to a stable peace to world peace in Goldstein’s opinion. The first step to peace is always ceasefire — peace will only come after people stop trying to kill each other, Goldstein stated. Ceasefires can be initiated by individuals, NGOs, and/or diplomats. In order to get the ceasefire to have some permanence, peacekeepers can help. Optimistically, Goldstein believes that war can be pushed down the scale in the next two decades, and that war will become less prevalent and less violent.

In prehistoric times, people were extremely violent, and, while there have been peaks and valleys over the century (such as the explosion of violence in the early 20th century), there has been much less war comparatively in modern day. A more peaceful global climate, Goldstein says, has been achieved, in part, through the reduction of nuclear weapons. Also, prosperity makes war less attractive. Generally, there has been economic growth in the recent years with the rapid increase in globalization and a reduction in poverty.

Democracies and peacekeepers also play an important role in the increase of peace worldwide. Traditionally, democracies don’t fight each other and there are a lot more democracies in the world today compared to one hundred or even fifty years ago. The United Nations and other peacekeeping organizations are intended to reduce war. Goldstein referenced statistics that stated that in 1990, “half of all the ceasefires broke down and returned to war.” In the past decade, however, only 12% of ceasefires returned to war. Simple improvements in peacekeeping, such as uniform changes, has helped peacekeepers to avoid being casualties of war.

However, the main problem for peacekeepers is that they are provided with limited research and that it is difficult for them to assess the situation on the ground. Goldstein emphasized that the central idea and challenge for peacekeepers is that they never have enough research to work with. Many failures in the field can be attributed to the fact that those in the field don’t have enough research because accurate statistics are difficult to determine in war.

Goldstein mentioned that, on average, Americans pay $700 every month to the military, whereas UN peacekeeping operations only receive $2 every month. Goldstein believes that the United States should double its peacekeeping budget. Peacekeepers can more effectively do what U.S. soldiers would be sent in to do. His final recommendation was that before peacekeeping, ceasefire, and war, diplomatic efforts should be made. Preventative peacekeeping measures tend to be a lot less expensive and a lot more effective. He warned that there is currently a bill in Congress, however, that threatens to eliminate all peacekeeping funding. To Goldstein, there is a lot of work left to do for the upcoming generations and that even if one war exists somewhere in the world, it is too much.

The fact that Congress is threatening to eliminate all peacekeeping funding is, from my point of view, quite shocking. It would seem as if there should be more media attention on this act of Congress, but it has been largely ignored. It begs the question of how to get people to care more about peace and effective preventative measures. Can the media spend more attention on “drier” subjects such as Congress passing a budget bill in order to garner attention in the public or is this fighting against human nature’s natural affinity for gripping, oftentimes violent, news stories? People often complain of the news being too violent, but increased support from advertisers and the willingness of viewers to continue to tune in to news shows seems to contradict this sentiment.

The question remains as to how future generations can continue to reduce war, as Goldstein’s thesis suggests. How much focus should the international system and individual states place upon peacekeeping as opposed to war? Last year alone almost 1.6 trillion dollars was spent on defense budgets around the world as opposed to the meagre 7.26 billion dollars that was the UN’s peacekeeping budget in 2010 (Shah, The UN Budget Process). In the United States, should funding be reduced from military expenditures and instead be spent on peacekeeping efforts? In 2010, the United States contributed 1.887 billion dollars to UN peacekeeping (The UN Budget Process). In addition to contributing more to UN peacekeeping efforts, where else can the United States send funding that will be used effectively? As a great power, the United States has the ability to set a precedent on how to reduce war and increase peace by not using force.

As Goldstein mentioned, keeping statistics on war and peace is challenging and is sometimes impossible. Reliable techniques of predicting the outbreaks of wars do not exist, which can make it equally as difficult to predict peace (Call). If Goldstein’s research on the increase of peace is dwarfed by the research being done at even the CDC, which he admitted, how can his listeners and readers be sure that this increase in peace is not just a random, unnatural occurrence and that the world will once more be engulfed in a period of intense war in the future? Determining whether or not this is true would involve studying intrastate and interstate relationships to see if a true positive peace is being achieved in our lifetime.

Call, Charles T., and Elizabeth M. Cousens. "Ending Wars and Building Peace." Columbia International Affairs Online. International Peace Academy, Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ipa9895/ipa9895.pdf.

Erickson, Andrew S. "Key Quotes from 2010 U.S. Department of Defense Report on China’s Military." 17 Aug. 2010. Web. <http://www.andrewerickson.com/2010/08/key-quotes-from-2010-u-s-department-of-defense-report-on-china’s-military/>. Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. New York: Longman, 2010. Print.

Hook, Steven W. Democratic Peace in Theory and Practice. Kent, OH: Kent State UP, 2010. Print.

Shah, Anup. "World Military Spending." Global Issues. 2 May 2011. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world- military-spending.

"The UN Budget Process." Better World Campaign, 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/the-un-budget-process.html.