GOVERNMENT RESPONSE PAPER
IS THIS TRUE JUSTICE?
Justice is responsible for making sure the country is taken care of and that all dangers or problems be taken care of as well. It is essential that the citizens be treated equally, and they all get the freedom to share what they think. Justice can never be served without equality and freedom involved, or problems will arise.
Locke fits the idea of justice the best out of the three (Locke, Hammurabi, Machiavelli). One of the things he said was "government exists to preserve justice and equality". Both Hammurabi and Machiavelli said government was here to hold power and order, but, neither of them mentioned anything about equality. Infact, Hammurabi said that the rich are good and the poor are bad. Machiavelli believed humans are basically bad and not to be trusted.
Governments using inequality or not granting freedom to its citizens have been known to have problems. Countries with dictatorships or communist governments are becoming obsolete because people are finally speaking against their one sided beliefs. The Ceaucescu Revolution was a good example of a dictatorship brought down by its people. The people were driven beyond the limit and over powered their bad governmental leaders for both their own good and their nations well being. Another instance where this was displayed was when the Berlin Wall was torn down by the people of Germany. They tore down the barrier that was made by their leaders that had kept them from their families for over 30 years. The laws of Hammurabi and Machiavelli would be going through these problems if they were still being frequently used today.
Locke also said that "government which does not bring about public benefit should be disposed", this goes right along with the defintion of justice. If the government is lying about everything or hiding important things from its people, it must be disposed. They are elected to help us and let us know about our nation and if they are telling us lies, or keeping stuff from us, they are not benefiting the public. If the public wants to know, then it shouldn't be the government who decides if information benefits the public or not. It is their duty to share it with us. We elect people who say they will do this and if elected to represent our nation, keep us informed. But when they do get elected, they turn on us and lie to us. The U.S. displayed the use of this when the people revolted against Richard Nixon and drove him out of office for his lies. When the government or people in it are corrupt it is crucial that we "dispose" them.
Although our government may not be following Locke's laws or may be as perfect as we want, we should be glad that they don't use the laws of Machiavelli or Hammurabi. If we used their laws we would all be in trouble. Never the less, true justice can't happen for anyone if equality and freedom are not involved. People must be able to speak their mind and be kept well informed on the status of what's occuring in their nation, city or whatever.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Jury Duty
SUMMONS FOR JURY DUTY
TO: GREETINGS:
You are hereby summoned to appear before the County Court of Burleson County, Texas, on the 3rd floor of the Burleson County Courthouse, Caldwell, Texas at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday January 23, 1997, to serve on the petit jury in the civil and criminal courts of Burleson County, Texas.
The law allows certain exemptions from jury service. If you claim one of the exemptions listed below, please mark the correct box, sign and date this form, and return it to the County Clerk's office at least 3 days before the date set forth above.
CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION: The following persons may exempt themselves from jury service:
[ ] Person more than 65 years of age.
[ ] A person who has legal custody of a child or children under the age of 10 years
when jury service would necessitate leaving the children without supervision.
[ ] A student attending a public or private secondary school.
[ ] A person who is enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher
education.
[ ] An officer or employee of the Senate, House of Representatives, or of any
department, commission board, office, or other agency in the legislative branch of
State Government.
[ ] The primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid unable to care for himself.
These are the only exemptions allowed by the law. You may not claim an exemption for any other reason, such as inconvenience, illness, personal hardship, economic conditions, or business or employment obligations. These are excuses which the Presiding Judge will consider after the Jury Panel is called into court. If you do not meet one of the exemptions set forth above, do not call the Judge of the Court or the County Clerk to be excused; neither of them has the authority to excuse you until the case is called for trial, except for emergencies.
Under penalty of perjury, I do hereby certify that I am exempt because of the reason checked above.
_______________________ __________________________________
DATE YOUR SIGNATURE
NOTE: For various reasons, a case may be postponed. Please call the County Clerk's office at 567-4326 by 4:00 p.m. the day before the trial to determine if you presence is necessary.
FAILURE TO RETURN THIS FORM CLAIMING AN EXEMPTION, OR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME AND DATE SET FORTH ABOVE, WILL BE CONSIDERED CONTEMPT OF COURT AND A FINE MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST YOU.
TO: GREETINGS:
You are hereby summoned to appear before the County Court of Burleson County, Texas, on the 3rd floor of the Burleson County Courthouse, Caldwell, Texas at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday January 23, 1997, to serve on the petit jury in the civil and criminal courts of Burleson County, Texas.
The law allows certain exemptions from jury service. If you claim one of the exemptions listed below, please mark the correct box, sign and date this form, and return it to the County Clerk's office at least 3 days before the date set forth above.
CERTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION: The following persons may exempt themselves from jury service:
[ ] Person more than 65 years of age.
[ ] A person who has legal custody of a child or children under the age of 10 years
when jury service would necessitate leaving the children without supervision.
[ ] A student attending a public or private secondary school.
[ ] A person who is enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher
education.
[ ] An officer or employee of the Senate, House of Representatives, or of any
department, commission board, office, or other agency in the legislative branch of
State Government.
[ ] The primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid unable to care for himself.
These are the only exemptions allowed by the law. You may not claim an exemption for any other reason, such as inconvenience, illness, personal hardship, economic conditions, or business or employment obligations. These are excuses which the Presiding Judge will consider after the Jury Panel is called into court. If you do not meet one of the exemptions set forth above, do not call the Judge of the Court or the County Clerk to be excused; neither of them has the authority to excuse you until the case is called for trial, except for emergencies.
Under penalty of perjury, I do hereby certify that I am exempt because of the reason checked above.
_______________________ __________________________________
DATE YOUR SIGNATURE
NOTE: For various reasons, a case may be postponed. Please call the County Clerk's office at 567-4326 by 4:00 p.m. the day before the trial to determine if you presence is necessary.
FAILURE TO RETURN THIS FORM CLAIMING AN EXEMPTION, OR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME AND DATE SET FORTH ABOVE, WILL BE CONSIDERED CONTEMPT OF COURT AND A FINE MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST YOU.
Joseph P Kennedy II
United States Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II is a Democratice representative from the
State of Massachusetts. He represents the district formerly represented by Thomas "Tip"
O'Neil, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States. His formal
education includes a bachelor's degree from the University of Massachusetts in l976. He is
married to the former Beth Kelly and is the father of two children. His father was the late
Senator Robert Kennedy of New York and his uncle was the late President John F. Kennedy.
Congressman Kennedy's political background includes a strong family history in public
service. Upon his graduation, his occupation was to form a non profit company devoted to
providing heating oil at affordable prices for the poor and the working poor. He successfully
manged this company before being elected to Congress in l986. His interests in Congress
have included affordable health care, as well centering on price fixing issues in the home heating
oil industry. He has also been mentioned for national office due to the prominence of his surname
and his activities in the national Democratic party.
Joseph Kennedy has shown himself to be politically to the left of the Democratic party
in Congress. While his district includes both blue collar workers and the elite of Cambridge,
he has demonstrated a committment to liberal postions on welfare, labor issues, and taxation.
If he were to become a national figure, the suspicion is that he might move slightly toward a
more moderate political position in order to enhance his national appeal.
State of Massachusetts. He represents the district formerly represented by Thomas "Tip"
O'Neil, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States. His formal
education includes a bachelor's degree from the University of Massachusetts in l976. He is
married to the former Beth Kelly and is the father of two children. His father was the late
Senator Robert Kennedy of New York and his uncle was the late President John F. Kennedy.
Congressman Kennedy's political background includes a strong family history in public
service. Upon his graduation, his occupation was to form a non profit company devoted to
providing heating oil at affordable prices for the poor and the working poor. He successfully
manged this company before being elected to Congress in l986. His interests in Congress
have included affordable health care, as well centering on price fixing issues in the home heating
oil industry. He has also been mentioned for national office due to the prominence of his surname
and his activities in the national Democratic party.
Joseph Kennedy has shown himself to be politically to the left of the Democratic party
in Congress. While his district includes both blue collar workers and the elite of Cambridge,
he has demonstrated a committment to liberal postions on welfare, labor issues, and taxation.
If he were to become a national figure, the suspicion is that he might move slightly toward a
more moderate political position in order to enhance his national appeal.
John Paul Stevens BIO
JOHN PAUL STEVENS Bio
John Paul Stevens, the 101st Justice to serve on the supreme court of the United States, and the first appointed by President Gerald R. Ford. John Paul Stevens became a member of the high court in December of 1975. Stevens, a middle aged man, with a reputation as a sharp-minded, hardworking lawyer, and first rate judge was given the highest evaluation from the American Bar Association committee that examined his record. ³A superb judicial craftsman² and a Judge¹s judge,² are two of the praises that Stevens has received from the United States Court of Appeals.
Stevens was voted into the supreme court with a vote of 98-0. In that time, Stevens was considered by the press, to be a moderate or moderate conservative in his legal thinking, and would take sides with other justices Powell, Stewart, and White.
John Paul was born on Apr. 20, 1920. Stevens, the youngest out of 4 sons, Stevens was also considered to be the smartest of the 4 . At the age of six, his brother Ernest Stevens noted to a New York Post reporter, ³I guess we always knew he was going to make something of himself. He was always awfully smart....When John was six, he could play better bridge then most adults today>²
Stevens attended the University of Chicago High School, and then later went to the University its self. In 1941, he left the University with a Phi Betta Kappa key, and a B.A. degree. He joined the navy, after the U.S entered World War 2. Stevens was stationed in Washington D.C, as a intelligence officer on the staff of admiral Chester W. Nimitz. He worked with a group assigned to break Japanese codes. for doing this, he was awarded the Bronze Star. After he returned to Chicago, (at the end of the war) he enrolled himself into Northwestern University School of Law to earn his J.D. degree, where he graduated first in his class. Not long after that, he was admitted into the Order of the Coif and the Phi Delta Phi law society.
From 1947 to 48, Stevens spent the year as a clerk to supreme court justice Wiley Rutledge. After that, he joined his first law firm, Poppenhausen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond. A Chicago based firm, that he was inducted to as an Associate.
This was in 1948. With expert guidance from a Senior in the firm, Stevens acquired the expertise in antitrust, that law, that stood him a good stead during 51 and 52, for when he spent time on the Capitol in D.C as an associate counsel of the house Judiciary committee¹s subcommittee on the study of monopoly power and then from 1953 to 55 where he was a member of the attorney generals national committee to study antitrust laws.
Finally on December of 1975, John Paul Stevens became Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens where he served a lengthily term and ruled justly over all of the cases placed before him.
John Paul Stevens, the 101st Justice to serve on the supreme court of the United States, and the first appointed by President Gerald R. Ford. John Paul Stevens became a member of the high court in December of 1975. Stevens, a middle aged man, with a reputation as a sharp-minded, hardworking lawyer, and first rate judge was given the highest evaluation from the American Bar Association committee that examined his record. ³A superb judicial craftsman² and a Judge¹s judge,² are two of the praises that Stevens has received from the United States Court of Appeals.
Stevens was voted into the supreme court with a vote of 98-0. In that time, Stevens was considered by the press, to be a moderate or moderate conservative in his legal thinking, and would take sides with other justices Powell, Stewart, and White.
John Paul was born on Apr. 20, 1920. Stevens, the youngest out of 4 sons, Stevens was also considered to be the smartest of the 4 . At the age of six, his brother Ernest Stevens noted to a New York Post reporter, ³I guess we always knew he was going to make something of himself. He was always awfully smart....When John was six, he could play better bridge then most adults today>²
Stevens attended the University of Chicago High School, and then later went to the University its self. In 1941, he left the University with a Phi Betta Kappa key, and a B.A. degree. He joined the navy, after the U.S entered World War 2. Stevens was stationed in Washington D.C, as a intelligence officer on the staff of admiral Chester W. Nimitz. He worked with a group assigned to break Japanese codes. for doing this, he was awarded the Bronze Star. After he returned to Chicago, (at the end of the war) he enrolled himself into Northwestern University School of Law to earn his J.D. degree, where he graduated first in his class. Not long after that, he was admitted into the Order of the Coif and the Phi Delta Phi law society.
From 1947 to 48, Stevens spent the year as a clerk to supreme court justice Wiley Rutledge. After that, he joined his first law firm, Poppenhausen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond. A Chicago based firm, that he was inducted to as an Associate.
This was in 1948. With expert guidance from a Senior in the firm, Stevens acquired the expertise in antitrust, that law, that stood him a good stead during 51 and 52, for when he spent time on the Capitol in D.C as an associate counsel of the house Judiciary committee¹s subcommittee on the study of monopoly power and then from 1953 to 55 where he was a member of the attorney generals national committee to study antitrust laws.
Finally on December of 1975, John Paul Stevens became Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens where he served a lengthily term and ruled justly over all of the cases placed before him.
Jesus The First Anarchist
JESUS : THE FIRST ANARCHIST
an essay by George Stark
"In God We Trust," reads the American dollar, mouths the American government. The bosses put their hands on bibles and take office, they put their hands on bibles and swear to be truthful and honest and follow the teachings of the people's God.
But are they following God's will? Have they ever been?
JESUS: AN ANARCHIST?
Throughout history Jesus Christ has been regarded as a revolutionary, but an anarchist?
Yes, the answer. As time has passed and covered the once passionate spirit in commonality, however, Jesus' true meaning has been lost in Sundays and collection baskets. Jesus' true meaning is that of the anarchist.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," said Jesus to his disciples in one of many stories in which he shunned wealth and society's view of 'success'. We see in the story of the poor widow's contribution Jesus' message of devaluing money, and placing the true importance on the spirit in which it is given. We see Jesus sit down and observe how the people give money to the treasury, and his commentary on the donations shocks his disciples.
"Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood," says Jesus, teaching us an important lesson, one he stressed throughout his ministry.
Jesus taught that the poor would be raised up, that the powerful, the bosses as modern day anarchists say, will be layed low. Jesus talks of the kingdom of God, we today talk of Anarchy.
The gospel of Luke, chapter 12, presents to us a wonderful group of stories in which Jesus' underlying Anarchism is revealed. Luke 12:15, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possesions." And what is capitalism but a system by which the greedy and scrupulous are made stronger, the dependant and the honest pushed aside? Luke 12:18-21, "There was a rich man... and he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!" But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?' Thus will it be for himself but is not rich in what matters to God." And what, asks the capitalist as he sits in church on Sunday, matters to God? Your neighbor matters to God, says Jesus. The way you treat him and the way you must love him and care for him. That is what matters to God.
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and body more than clothing... instead, seek [God's] Kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides." This is the bible that the president of the United States of America has sworn upon, weeks before renewing trade with China, America's current Most Favored Nation. The same China that has enslaved the country of Tibet in what is no less than a modern day holocaust, killing over a million Tibetans and exiling over 100,000 since 1950. 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed, 1 in 20 monks are allowed to practice. Wildlife has been depleted to extinction, famines have occured for the first time in history, natural resources are devasted. Peaceful demonstrations by nuns and monk and laypeople have led to deaths, and Tibetans are a minority in their own country. The U.S. congress heard all of this, including testimonies by numerous senators and citizens of Tibet against renewal of China's trade status, and in the end voted to renew China's Most Favored Nation status. The Chinese government arrests those who speak out as political prisoners, torturing them and holding them in sub-human conditions. The Tibetan culture is nearly gone, but goddamn those Chinese make a great automobile.
In the face of these atrocities done in the name of the dollar, would Jesus be a capitalist today? Would he sit in his high rise while the wretched of the earth struggled and died below his feet? Or would he love, serve, and protect his brothers, in the way that his God loved him, in the way that is the nature of humans, the nature of Anarchists?
"Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy," says Jesus, and provide it, by loving your neighbor.
an essay by George Stark
"In God We Trust," reads the American dollar, mouths the American government. The bosses put their hands on bibles and take office, they put their hands on bibles and swear to be truthful and honest and follow the teachings of the people's God.
But are they following God's will? Have they ever been?
JESUS: AN ANARCHIST?
Throughout history Jesus Christ has been regarded as a revolutionary, but an anarchist?
Yes, the answer. As time has passed and covered the once passionate spirit in commonality, however, Jesus' true meaning has been lost in Sundays and collection baskets. Jesus' true meaning is that of the anarchist.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," said Jesus to his disciples in one of many stories in which he shunned wealth and society's view of 'success'. We see in the story of the poor widow's contribution Jesus' message of devaluing money, and placing the true importance on the spirit in which it is given. We see Jesus sit down and observe how the people give money to the treasury, and his commentary on the donations shocks his disciples.
"Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood," says Jesus, teaching us an important lesson, one he stressed throughout his ministry.
Jesus taught that the poor would be raised up, that the powerful, the bosses as modern day anarchists say, will be layed low. Jesus talks of the kingdom of God, we today talk of Anarchy.
The gospel of Luke, chapter 12, presents to us a wonderful group of stories in which Jesus' underlying Anarchism is revealed. Luke 12:15, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possesions." And what is capitalism but a system by which the greedy and scrupulous are made stronger, the dependant and the honest pushed aside? Luke 12:18-21, "There was a rich man... and he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!" But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?' Thus will it be for himself but is not rich in what matters to God." And what, asks the capitalist as he sits in church on Sunday, matters to God? Your neighbor matters to God, says Jesus. The way you treat him and the way you must love him and care for him. That is what matters to God.
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and body more than clothing... instead, seek [God's] Kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides." This is the bible that the president of the United States of America has sworn upon, weeks before renewing trade with China, America's current Most Favored Nation. The same China that has enslaved the country of Tibet in what is no less than a modern day holocaust, killing over a million Tibetans and exiling over 100,000 since 1950. 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed, 1 in 20 monks are allowed to practice. Wildlife has been depleted to extinction, famines have occured for the first time in history, natural resources are devasted. Peaceful demonstrations by nuns and monk and laypeople have led to deaths, and Tibetans are a minority in their own country. The U.S. congress heard all of this, including testimonies by numerous senators and citizens of Tibet against renewal of China's trade status, and in the end voted to renew China's Most Favored Nation status. The Chinese government arrests those who speak out as political prisoners, torturing them and holding them in sub-human conditions. The Tibetan culture is nearly gone, but goddamn those Chinese make a great automobile.
In the face of these atrocities done in the name of the dollar, would Jesus be a capitalist today? Would he sit in his high rise while the wretched of the earth struggled and died below his feet? Or would he love, serve, and protect his brothers, in the way that his God loved him, in the way that is the nature of humans, the nature of Anarchists?
"Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy," says Jesus, and provide it, by loving your neighbor.
James Buchannon
James Buchanan
James Buchanan was born in April 23, 1791 in a cabin in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania.
James father came to America as a Scotch-Irish in 1783. At the age of six his family
moved to Mercersberg PA. where his father would open a general store . James was the
second of eleven in his family. James was able to go to school where he lived but when
he was not studying he was helping his father in the shop.
James father made James work hard and taught James that he must be ready to take
care for his brothers and sister when James father died. At the age of sixteen James
father sent him to Dickinson College in Carlisle PA. James was a serious student but he
also wanted to have a good time. He began to smoke a drink with the other students, and
later was expelled from college. He begged for them to take him back, and he would turn
over a new leaf. He was allowed to return and graduated on high honors. After college he
left and went to study law in Lancaster PA. James worked hard and later became a
successful lawyer. He made more than 11,000 a year. James became a canidate for the
Pennsylavania legislature in 1814. But the war of 1812 was growing fast. The British Had
just burned down Washingto D.C. James volunteered to serve his country so he joined a
calvary company. Buchanan returned for the election and won a seat in legislature in
1814. He served another term and returnd to Lancaster.
James Buchanan became a popular person in Lancaster and was invited to many
partys and dinners. At one party he met a girl named Ann Coleman. They later got
engaged. In the spring of 1819 there were rumors that James was seeing another girl. Ann
got upset and went to stay with her sister in Philadelphia. Later she died over an
overdose of landuam. James promised to never marry again.
James went back to politics to try to forget about Ann. The federlists party was
looking for someone to run for candidate for congress. James agreed and in 1820 he was
elected to House of Represtatives. He served for 10 years. During the time in Congress
Buchanan changed his part to Democratic. In 1831 President Jackson asked James to
become minister to Russia. James agreed and went to Russia the next year. While he was
in Russia he made the first trade agreements between United States and Russia. When he
came back to the USA he was elected to the Senate. There he would serve till 1845.
By 1844 he waited for the president nomination and gave all his support to James
Polk. James Polk won the nomination and election. Then President Polk assigned James
Buchanan to the secratary of state. While Polks term of President a war brokeout between
USA and Mexico. James Buchanan as Secratary of State arranged a peace treaty in 1848.
By this treaty United States purchased all the land from Texas to the Pacific Ocean.
When Polk left office Buchanan also retired. For four years he lived in the country
and bought a Mansion near Lancaster PA.
James could not stay away from politics. In 1852 he was a canidate for the running
of president. He was beaten by Franklin Pierce
President Pierce made James minister to Great Britain in 1853. While Buchanan was
in england congress passed the Kansas-Nebrasa Act it permitted slavery in regions of the
Northwest. When the Democratic met in 1856 to pick a candidate for president they
wanted someone who would be wanted by the north and the south. They elected
Buchanan and he beat Millard Fillmore in the race. Buchanan became the first bachelor to
become president. He also became the first man from PA to become president. On March
4, 1857 James was elected president.
Two days after Jame's inauguration the Supreme Court declared the Dred Scott
case that Congress did not have any power over slavery. James played a big role in
slavery. After James retired from politics he went back to Lancaster were he would die
seven years later.
James Buchanan was born in April 23, 1791 in a cabin in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania.
James father came to America as a Scotch-Irish in 1783. At the age of six his family
moved to Mercersberg PA. where his father would open a general store . James was the
second of eleven in his family. James was able to go to school where he lived but when
he was not studying he was helping his father in the shop.
James father made James work hard and taught James that he must be ready to take
care for his brothers and sister when James father died. At the age of sixteen James
father sent him to Dickinson College in Carlisle PA. James was a serious student but he
also wanted to have a good time. He began to smoke a drink with the other students, and
later was expelled from college. He begged for them to take him back, and he would turn
over a new leaf. He was allowed to return and graduated on high honors. After college he
left and went to study law in Lancaster PA. James worked hard and later became a
successful lawyer. He made more than 11,000 a year. James became a canidate for the
Pennsylavania legislature in 1814. But the war of 1812 was growing fast. The British Had
just burned down Washingto D.C. James volunteered to serve his country so he joined a
calvary company. Buchanan returned for the election and won a seat in legislature in
1814. He served another term and returnd to Lancaster.
James Buchanan became a popular person in Lancaster and was invited to many
partys and dinners. At one party he met a girl named Ann Coleman. They later got
engaged. In the spring of 1819 there were rumors that James was seeing another girl. Ann
got upset and went to stay with her sister in Philadelphia. Later she died over an
overdose of landuam. James promised to never marry again.
James went back to politics to try to forget about Ann. The federlists party was
looking for someone to run for candidate for congress. James agreed and in 1820 he was
elected to House of Represtatives. He served for 10 years. During the time in Congress
Buchanan changed his part to Democratic. In 1831 President Jackson asked James to
become minister to Russia. James agreed and went to Russia the next year. While he was
in Russia he made the first trade agreements between United States and Russia. When he
came back to the USA he was elected to the Senate. There he would serve till 1845.
By 1844 he waited for the president nomination and gave all his support to James
Polk. James Polk won the nomination and election. Then President Polk assigned James
Buchanan to the secratary of state. While Polks term of President a war brokeout between
USA and Mexico. James Buchanan as Secratary of State arranged a peace treaty in 1848.
By this treaty United States purchased all the land from Texas to the Pacific Ocean.
When Polk left office Buchanan also retired. For four years he lived in the country
and bought a Mansion near Lancaster PA.
James could not stay away from politics. In 1852 he was a canidate for the running
of president. He was beaten by Franklin Pierce
President Pierce made James minister to Great Britain in 1853. While Buchanan was
in england congress passed the Kansas-Nebrasa Act it permitted slavery in regions of the
Northwest. When the Democratic met in 1856 to pick a candidate for president they
wanted someone who would be wanted by the north and the south. They elected
Buchanan and he beat Millard Fillmore in the race. Buchanan became the first bachelor to
become president. He also became the first man from PA to become president. On March
4, 1857 James was elected president.
Two days after Jame's inauguration the Supreme Court declared the Dred Scott
case that Congress did not have any power over slavery. James played a big role in
slavery. After James retired from politics he went back to Lancaster were he would die
seven years later.
Jail
In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of
popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early
Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them
for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that
they were a "colony of heaven," and had to obey God rather than man. They were too
God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as
infanticide and gladiatorial contest.
Things are different now. The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an
uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the
presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's
silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not
recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of
millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.
Maybe again, I have been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status
quo to save our nation and the world? Maybe I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the
church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to
God that some souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing
chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom [justice] ...
Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been kicked out of their churches and lost support
of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have gone with the faith that right defeated is stronger
than evil triumphant. These men have been the leaven in the lump of the race. Their witness has been
the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have
carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote these words from the confines of the Birmingham jail. "The noble
souls" to whom he referred were the precious ones who were willing to lay down their lives for the
freedom of others. This group of warriors fought the "good fight of faith" knowing that the victory
was won by "loving not their lives even unto death." The evils of that day were conquered by their
undaunted trust in God and by the cross in action. Sons and daughters, parents and grandparents
were beaten, ridiculed and scorned, jailed and even killed.
Sadly enough, as Martin Luther King states in his letter, the majority of the church of that day stood
by paralyzed by their need to conform to the status quo. And, I might add, paralyzed by their own
fears, petty excuses and criticisms of those who challenged the unjust system of that time.
Today, once again, the church is challenged to rise up and fight the battle. Once again, Satan has
waged war against the hearts and minds of God's people. But this time the battle fields are in front
of the abortion mills of America where the most innocent are being offered to the blood thirsty gods
of this age, convenience and selfishness. God's most precious gifts to mankind are being ripped
apart in their mother's wombs while the church's silence holds back the awesome power of victory
which the church alone controls.
As a pastor of a local church in downtown Birmingham, "Doers of the Word," I work a lot with
youth. We have several outreaches to the youth of the city, prison (juvenile) ministry, music ministry,
etc. I minister to the worst kids in Jefferson County, Alabama. There is gang activity everywhere in
Birmingham. In one recent incident, gang members came out and stood in front of our church and
tried to stare down some of our young people. Several of them have come into our Bible studies. I
have personally seen many of these kids come out of gangs, lay down the gun and pick up the
Sword of the Spirit.
On Holy Week of 1994, I saw approximately 50 teens arrested near the University of Alabama for
simply praying on a sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic. These kids are the cream of the crop. It
broke my heart to see these kids go to jail for praying on the sidewalk. A few days before the
arrests, we took our young people on a tour of the Civil Rights Institute here in Birmingham. They
saw how the young people in Birmingham were let out of high school and took to the streets in
1963. They were willing to die to challenge the evil laws of their land. Our young people realized
that it was the youth who turned the tide of the Civil Rights movement. This really impacted our
young people and they haven't been the same since. Now it's their turn to take up the standard in
the pro-life movement.
God called me to train young people to do the work of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They are the
ones who are going to change our nation, not just with regards to the abortion issue, but by closing
down a crack house or a pornography shop, or whatever else God has called them to do. Adults
have to lead the young people. I took a survey in a youth detention center in Birmingham - I found
that 95 percent of the young men don't have fathers at home. They don't have role models. My
prayer is that God will raise up men to be role models - to be fathers for these young men.
We have begun to see black and white churches in Birmingham come together over the abortion
issue. We've seen black and white, young and old, come together for the sanctity of human life. In
the 1960s, the civil rights movement was mostly black. But today the pro-life movement in
Birmingham is about half white and half black - equal representation. We see people from all races
and all denominations involved in this issue. It has brought them together like no other issue has ever
done in the past.
Statistics on abortion for blacks show that approximately one-third - or 10 million black babies -
have been victims of abortion, but blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Newer studies
have shown that now there have been 12 million abortions among the black population and that
blacks now make up only eight percent of the population. This is due to 20 years of legalized
abortion. This is black genocide.
The motive of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was genocide. Former Planned
Parenthood president, a black woman named Faye Wattleton, and abortion advocates, such as
Jesse Jackson, do not represent the majority of blacks. The overwhelming majority (statistics
indicate over 70 percent) of black people believe that abortion is wrong. But the so-called leaders
are really speaking for only a minority of blacks.
I personally went to some of the black civil rights leaders in Birmingham regarding the events we
had planned for Holy Week, but we did not get a response from them. They have not come out nor
have they made any statements at all in support of what our young people are doing. It is a travesty
that the so-called civil rights leaders of Birmingham would not speak up on behalf of the children.
But there is a new generation coming. This generation of young people are the ones who go to
school with the drug dealers and the gang leaders toting guns. They know that they are the only
hope. These young people don't have any fear. They don't have any jobs to lose or careers to
protect. When they are filled with the Spirit of God, they will lay down their lives for what is right.
The elderly consider what they have to lose, but young people are not afraid. If the youth can band
together; if they get a sense of belonging and unity; if they get impacted with the Spirit of God; if
there is a group that loves Jesus with all their hearts, then they will believe that they can do anything.
This is the beginning of a new move of God in Birmingham, Alabama. In the 1960s, Martin Luther
King was pleading for the church to just be the church - and today we are seeing a group of young
people who want to be like Jesus; who want to be deemed worthy to suffer for what they believe;
who will risk going to jail for what they believe. It is time for the church to recapture the sacrificial
spirit of the early church. I have seen more young people respond to this call than adults. There is a
real difference in this generation. They are willing to sacrifice for what they believe.
The "gates of hell" cannot prevail against the church. Will we utilize the power of the cross to
overcome this present darkness? Who will join the ranks? Victory will only be won through
sacrifice. Who is willing to take up the cross and run toward the demon giant of child sacrifice? The
victory is ours if we heed the call to battle.
Pastor "A.J." serves as a full-time minister of a youth congregation in downtown Birmingham,
Alabama.
popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early
Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them
for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that
they were a "colony of heaven," and had to obey God rather than man. They were too
God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as
infanticide and gladiatorial contest.
Things are different now. The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an
uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the
presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's
silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not
recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of
millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.
Maybe again, I have been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status
quo to save our nation and the world? Maybe I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the
church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to
God that some souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing
chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom [justice] ...
Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been kicked out of their churches and lost support
of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have gone with the faith that right defeated is stronger
than evil triumphant. These men have been the leaven in the lump of the race. Their witness has been
the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have
carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote these words from the confines of the Birmingham jail. "The noble
souls" to whom he referred were the precious ones who were willing to lay down their lives for the
freedom of others. This group of warriors fought the "good fight of faith" knowing that the victory
was won by "loving not their lives even unto death." The evils of that day were conquered by their
undaunted trust in God and by the cross in action. Sons and daughters, parents and grandparents
were beaten, ridiculed and scorned, jailed and even killed.
Sadly enough, as Martin Luther King states in his letter, the majority of the church of that day stood
by paralyzed by their need to conform to the status quo. And, I might add, paralyzed by their own
fears, petty excuses and criticisms of those who challenged the unjust system of that time.
Today, once again, the church is challenged to rise up and fight the battle. Once again, Satan has
waged war against the hearts and minds of God's people. But this time the battle fields are in front
of the abortion mills of America where the most innocent are being offered to the blood thirsty gods
of this age, convenience and selfishness. God's most precious gifts to mankind are being ripped
apart in their mother's wombs while the church's silence holds back the awesome power of victory
which the church alone controls.
As a pastor of a local church in downtown Birmingham, "Doers of the Word," I work a lot with
youth. We have several outreaches to the youth of the city, prison (juvenile) ministry, music ministry,
etc. I minister to the worst kids in Jefferson County, Alabama. There is gang activity everywhere in
Birmingham. In one recent incident, gang members came out and stood in front of our church and
tried to stare down some of our young people. Several of them have come into our Bible studies. I
have personally seen many of these kids come out of gangs, lay down the gun and pick up the
Sword of the Spirit.
On Holy Week of 1994, I saw approximately 50 teens arrested near the University of Alabama for
simply praying on a sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic. These kids are the cream of the crop. It
broke my heart to see these kids go to jail for praying on the sidewalk. A few days before the
arrests, we took our young people on a tour of the Civil Rights Institute here in Birmingham. They
saw how the young people in Birmingham were let out of high school and took to the streets in
1963. They were willing to die to challenge the evil laws of their land. Our young people realized
that it was the youth who turned the tide of the Civil Rights movement. This really impacted our
young people and they haven't been the same since. Now it's their turn to take up the standard in
the pro-life movement.
God called me to train young people to do the work of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They are the
ones who are going to change our nation, not just with regards to the abortion issue, but by closing
down a crack house or a pornography shop, or whatever else God has called them to do. Adults
have to lead the young people. I took a survey in a youth detention center in Birmingham - I found
that 95 percent of the young men don't have fathers at home. They don't have role models. My
prayer is that God will raise up men to be role models - to be fathers for these young men.
We have begun to see black and white churches in Birmingham come together over the abortion
issue. We've seen black and white, young and old, come together for the sanctity of human life. In
the 1960s, the civil rights movement was mostly black. But today the pro-life movement in
Birmingham is about half white and half black - equal representation. We see people from all races
and all denominations involved in this issue. It has brought them together like no other issue has ever
done in the past.
Statistics on abortion for blacks show that approximately one-third - or 10 million black babies -
have been victims of abortion, but blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. Newer studies
have shown that now there have been 12 million abortions among the black population and that
blacks now make up only eight percent of the population. This is due to 20 years of legalized
abortion. This is black genocide.
The motive of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was genocide. Former Planned
Parenthood president, a black woman named Faye Wattleton, and abortion advocates, such as
Jesse Jackson, do not represent the majority of blacks. The overwhelming majority (statistics
indicate over 70 percent) of black people believe that abortion is wrong. But the so-called leaders
are really speaking for only a minority of blacks.
I personally went to some of the black civil rights leaders in Birmingham regarding the events we
had planned for Holy Week, but we did not get a response from them. They have not come out nor
have they made any statements at all in support of what our young people are doing. It is a travesty
that the so-called civil rights leaders of Birmingham would not speak up on behalf of the children.
But there is a new generation coming. This generation of young people are the ones who go to
school with the drug dealers and the gang leaders toting guns. They know that they are the only
hope. These young people don't have any fear. They don't have any jobs to lose or careers to
protect. When they are filled with the Spirit of God, they will lay down their lives for what is right.
The elderly consider what they have to lose, but young people are not afraid. If the youth can band
together; if they get a sense of belonging and unity; if they get impacted with the Spirit of God; if
there is a group that loves Jesus with all their hearts, then they will believe that they can do anything.
This is the beginning of a new move of God in Birmingham, Alabama. In the 1960s, Martin Luther
King was pleading for the church to just be the church - and today we are seeing a group of young
people who want to be like Jesus; who want to be deemed worthy to suffer for what they believe;
who will risk going to jail for what they believe. It is time for the church to recapture the sacrificial
spirit of the early church. I have seen more young people respond to this call than adults. There is a
real difference in this generation. They are willing to sacrifice for what they believe.
The "gates of hell" cannot prevail against the church. Will we utilize the power of the cross to
overcome this present darkness? Who will join the ranks? Victory will only be won through
sacrifice. Who is willing to take up the cross and run toward the demon giant of child sacrifice? The
victory is ours if we heed the call to battle.
Pastor "A.J." serves as a full-time minister of a youth congregation in downtown Birmingham,
Alabama.
Jack and Roger
Jack and Roger
Jack and Roger are two allegorical characters in the story: "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. They are both characterized as killers but they are very different from one another. The two young boys start off with the same intentions but as the story progresses we begin to see the differences in their personalities. While Jack's power hunger grows, Roger's sadistic nature also grows as well.
The character of Jack is an obvious id, he is a power hungry ruthless killer that would do anything for power. Jack is not always a killer, the events on the island lead up to his behavior. For example, when Ralph, Simon and Jack are in the forest and they see the pig for the first time Jack does not kill it no doubt from the taboo of killing. The second time he meets the pig he kills it with his knife and this is only the beginning of the change in his behavior. Jack's wanting of meat turns into obvious bloodlust later on in the novel, for example he kills the mother pig without even thinking if it was wrong: "Kill the pig, cut her throat, bash her head in!". Jack's decapitation of the dead mother pig proves that he is no longer the Jack that could not kill the pig but a much more blood-thirsty one that only wants to kill and not be rescued. Although Jack is not satanic like Roger, he loses all sense of reason, he is nevertheless a killer. Jack tries his best to do what is best for the boys but his power hunger actually makes the situation much worse: "The chief snatched one of the few remaining spears and poked Sam in the ribs" (P.182) Jack's own name has even become a taboo, he has almost god-like power and uses it for 'evil'. If it were not for the rescue of the boys, Jack's power-hunger and bloodlust would have eventually gotten them all killed.
The character of Roger is also an id but he is a satanic killer. Unlike Jack Roger's bloodlust can never be satisfied. He is a brutal killer and a perfect example of this is when he kills Piggy with the giant rock. Roger also has a mind of his own, he is a free spirit that does not follow orders. For example, Jack never ordered him to drop the rock on Piggy, it was purely Roger that did it on his own free will. He is a sick and twisted individual, another example of this is the way he brutally kills the mother pig. He would also show no hesitation to take a human life, not only does he kill Piggy but he also sharpens a stick at both ends for Ralph so he was obviously going to do to him what he did to the mother pig. Roger is just a worse version of Jack and like Jack too control of Ralph's power he would have taken control of Jack's power with an even more sadistic culture then the one that Jack has created.
Jack and Roger are both killers, one more ruthless and power-hungry then the other. Ralph lost his power to a person more sadistic, what is to say that Jack will not lose his power to Roger? and who would have been next after Roger? eventually the culture would become so sadistic and ruthless that death would be a regular event. Jack and Roger are both sadistic killers and one might argue that it does not matter if you are a killer or a ruthless killer because either way you are still a killer but one can also argue: "Do you honestly think that the boys would be the same is it were Roger and not Jack that became chief?
Jack and Roger are two allegorical characters in the story: "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. They are both characterized as killers but they are very different from one another. The two young boys start off with the same intentions but as the story progresses we begin to see the differences in their personalities. While Jack's power hunger grows, Roger's sadistic nature also grows as well.
The character of Jack is an obvious id, he is a power hungry ruthless killer that would do anything for power. Jack is not always a killer, the events on the island lead up to his behavior. For example, when Ralph, Simon and Jack are in the forest and they see the pig for the first time Jack does not kill it no doubt from the taboo of killing. The second time he meets the pig he kills it with his knife and this is only the beginning of the change in his behavior. Jack's wanting of meat turns into obvious bloodlust later on in the novel, for example he kills the mother pig without even thinking if it was wrong: "Kill the pig, cut her throat, bash her head in!". Jack's decapitation of the dead mother pig proves that he is no longer the Jack that could not kill the pig but a much more blood-thirsty one that only wants to kill and not be rescued. Although Jack is not satanic like Roger, he loses all sense of reason, he is nevertheless a killer. Jack tries his best to do what is best for the boys but his power hunger actually makes the situation much worse: "The chief snatched one of the few remaining spears and poked Sam in the ribs" (P.182) Jack's own name has even become a taboo, he has almost god-like power and uses it for 'evil'. If it were not for the rescue of the boys, Jack's power-hunger and bloodlust would have eventually gotten them all killed.
The character of Roger is also an id but he is a satanic killer. Unlike Jack Roger's bloodlust can never be satisfied. He is a brutal killer and a perfect example of this is when he kills Piggy with the giant rock. Roger also has a mind of his own, he is a free spirit that does not follow orders. For example, Jack never ordered him to drop the rock on Piggy, it was purely Roger that did it on his own free will. He is a sick and twisted individual, another example of this is the way he brutally kills the mother pig. He would also show no hesitation to take a human life, not only does he kill Piggy but he also sharpens a stick at both ends for Ralph so he was obviously going to do to him what he did to the mother pig. Roger is just a worse version of Jack and like Jack too control of Ralph's power he would have taken control of Jack's power with an even more sadistic culture then the one that Jack has created.
Jack and Roger are both killers, one more ruthless and power-hungry then the other. Ralph lost his power to a person more sadistic, what is to say that Jack will not lose his power to Roger? and who would have been next after Roger? eventually the culture would become so sadistic and ruthless that death would be a regular event. Jack and Roger are both sadistic killers and one might argue that it does not matter if you are a killer or a ruthless killer because either way you are still a killer but one can also argue: "Do you honestly think that the boys would be the same is it were Roger and not Jack that became chief?
Italian Men
One day I'ma go to a bigga hotel. Ina da morning I go downa to eatta breakfast. I
tella da waitress I wanna two pisses toast. She bring only one piss. I tell her I wanna two
pisses. She say to go to da toilet. I say you no understand, I wanna two piss on my plate.
She say you better not piss on the plate, you sonna ma bitch! I don't even know da lady
and she calla me a sonna ma bitch!
Later I go to eatta lunch at da Duke Resturaunte. Da waitress bringa me a spoon
and knife , but no fock. I tella her I wanna fock. She tella me everybody wanna fock. I
tella her, you no understand...I wanna fock onna da table! She say you better not fock
onna da table you sonna ma bitch!
So I go backa to my room inna hotel. There's no shits onna my bed. I calla da
manager and tella him I wanna shits. He tella me to go to the toilet. I say you no
understand...I wanna shits onna da bed. He say you better not shit on the bed you sonna
ma bitch!
Then I go to check out of da hotel, and da same man at the desk say "Peace to
you!" And I say "Piss on you too, you sonna ma bitch. I'm gonna go backa to Italy!!!"
tella da waitress I wanna two pisses toast. She bring only one piss. I tell her I wanna two
pisses. She say to go to da toilet. I say you no understand, I wanna two piss on my plate.
She say you better not piss on the plate, you sonna ma bitch! I don't even know da lady
and she calla me a sonna ma bitch!
Later I go to eatta lunch at da Duke Resturaunte. Da waitress bringa me a spoon
and knife , but no fock. I tella her I wanna fock. She tella me everybody wanna fock. I
tella her, you no understand...I wanna fock onna da table! She say you better not fock
onna da table you sonna ma bitch!
So I go backa to my room inna hotel. There's no shits onna my bed. I calla da
manager and tella him I wanna shits. He tella me to go to the toilet. I say you no
understand...I wanna shits onna da bed. He say you better not shit on the bed you sonna
ma bitch!
Then I go to check out of da hotel, and da same man at the desk say "Peace to
you!" And I say "Piss on you too, you sonna ma bitch. I'm gonna go backa to Italy!!!"
Is the prime minister too powerful
There are a lot of political issues in Great Britain today. United Kingdom is a large, industrialized democratic society and as such it has to have politics and therefore political issues. One of those issues how should executive branch work and whether the Prime Minister has too much power. Right now in Great Britain there is a great debate on this issue and I am going to examine it in detail. The facts I have used here are from different writings on British politics which are all listed in my bibliography, but the opinions are my own and so are the arguments that I used to support my views.
First let me explain the process through which a person becomes a Prime Minister. The PM is selected by the sovereign. He (or she) chooses a man who can command the support of majority of the members of the House of Commons. Such a man is normally the leader of the largest party in the House. Where two are rivals in a three party contest such as those which occurred in the 1920s he is usually selected from the party which wins the greatest number of seats. The Prime Minister is assumed to be the choice of his party and nowadays, so far as he can be ascertained, participation of a monarch is a pure formality. Anyone suggested for this highest political office obviously has to be a very smart and willing individual, in fact it has been suggested that he be an "uncommon man of common opinions"(Douglas V. Verney). Not all Prime Ministers fitted this bill exactly, but every on of them had to pass one important test: day-to-day scrutiny of their motives and behavior by fellow members of Parliament before they were ultimately elected to the leadership of their party. Unlike Presidents of the United States all Prime Ministers have served a long apprenticeship in the legislature and have been ministers in previous Cabinets. Many Presidents of our country have been elected and on many occasions they have never even met some of their future co-workers, such as case of Kissinger and Nixon who have never even met prior to Nixon's appointment.
Let's now examine the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Prime Minister. Unlike the United States where the President's duties are specifically written out in the Constitution, the powers of the Prime Minister are almost nowhere spelled out in a statute. Unlike his fellow ministers he does not receive the seals of office: he merely kisses the hands of the monarch like an ambassador.
The Prime Minister has four areas of responsibilities. He is a head of the Government; he speaks for the Government in the House of Commons; he is the link between the Government and the sovereign; he is the leader of the nation. He is chief executive, chief legislator and chief ambassador. As we can see the PM has an wide range of powers, maybe too wide. As head of the Government the Prime Minister has the power to recommend the appointment and dismissal of all other ministers. Far from being merely first among equals, he is the dominant figure. Ministers wait in the hall of PMs office on No.10 Dowling Street before being called into the Cabinet room. He may himself hold other portfolios such as that of Foreign Secretary(as did Lord Salisbury) or Minister of Defense(as did
Mr. Churchill). He has general supervision over all departments and appoints both the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Cabinet office keeps a record of Cabinet decisions to make sure that PM has up to date information. He controls the agenda which the office prepares for Cabinet meetings. There is a smaller Prime Minister's Private Office which consists of a principal private secretary and a half a dozen other staff drawn from civil service. Perhaps owing to American influence the two offices are becoming increasingly popular and there are signs that the Prime Minister is no longer content to be aided by nonpolitical civil servants. There is little doubt that if he chooses the PM can be in complete command of his Cabinet.
The PM must also give leadership in the House of Commons, though he usually appoints a colleague as Leader of the House. He speaks for the Government on important matters-increasingly, questions are directed to him personally-and controls the business of the House through the Future Legislation Committee of the Cabinet which he appoints mainly from the senior nondepartamental ministers. Since the success of his legislative program depends mainly on support of his party he must as a party leader attend to his duties and ensure that the machinery of his party is working properly and in the hands of men he could trust. Basically the PM controls his party and in essence he controls the Parliament, but that is not all. The PM alone can request the sovereign to dissolve the Parliament and call a new election, it is open to debate whether it is this power
to allow him the control of the party and the Parliament. I agree with this argument completely because if the PM doesn't like the way it is going with his party he can always announce new election so the Parliament pretty much backs up whatever the PM proposes. This is my main argument for this paper. In United Kingdom there is no system of checks and balances like there is in United States. In UK the PM and the Cabinet make a decision which is then almost blindly supported by the Parliament. A real democracy cannot function this way where there is one person of power and the rest can hardly do anything about it. Members of the majority party will not go against the will of PM because it means going against the will of their own party and that is unheard of in England, members of the opposing party cannot do anything because they are a minority. The Queen herself is a figure-head and does not have any real power. The PM is a link between the monarch and the Government, he keeps the Queen aware of what goes on with the Cabinet, the Government and the world at large. Although the Queen is a fictional figure and has no real power she can damage the reputation of the Government and the entire country by one careless word. It is the Prime Minister's responsibilities to keep the monarch well informed. Other ministers however can only see the monarch with the PMs permission (the monarch however can see whomever she chooses). As we can see, here is another illustration of PM
having too much power. He basically has an exclusive relationship with the monarch and controls who can see the Queen and who cannot. In US this is unthinkable, any congressman can request an audience with the President if he wants and if let's say the Chief of Staff wanted to limit that in any way then he would run into some serious problems.
Finally the PM is the leader of the nation. In time of crisis the people expect him to make an announcement and to appear on television. Increasingly he should be a man who can not only secure the confidence of House of Commons, but of the man in the street or rather the man in the armchair in front of the television. Elections are ostensibly fought between two individual parliamentary candidates, but in practice they are contests between national parties which offer their own political and economical programs. The parties convey an "image" to the nation through the voice and appearance of their leaders. The Prime Minister must outshine his rival, the Leader of the Opposition. In the 1964 election, when the Liberals doubled their vote, much importance was attached to the TV performance of the Liberal leader, Jo Grismond.
The Head of State and traditional "symbol of the Nation" may be the Queen and the Royals, but the chief executive is in reality the PM. It is to his desk that ultimately all difficult problems come whether these involve participation in NATO, the balance of payment crisis, the budget-or even the royals' love affairs(as in 1936 and again in the 80's and 90's). It is the PM that has to symbolize his country's policies abroad and it is he who must personally convince political leaders in other countries that his Government can be relied upon.
The Prime Minister is also chief legislator. Through the Future Legislation Committee, he determines which bills the House of Commons will discuss during the session, and can attach whatever importance he chooses to the Immigration Bill or Steel Nationalization Bill. With few exceptions bills are introduced in the House by the Government and if they are important they require the backing of the Premier.
Also he is the chief administrator. Not only does he supervise the departments and chair Cabinet meetings but he directs the Cabinet Office and the Office of Prime Minister. In economic affairs he decides governmental strategy in conjunction with his Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Economic Affairs, if there is one, and leaves these ministers to implement his policies. In defense policy he chairs the Defense Committee of the Cabinet, leaving the details to the Secretary of Defense(Army, Navy and Air Force) and the Chiefs of Staff. Foreign Affairs, normally the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, require the intervention of the PM when really important decisions have to be made.
As we can see the PM is potentially a very powerful figure. Everything depends on how he chooses to use this power and the success with which he delegates some of his responsibilities.
All PMs have had an inner circle of ministers to which he turns when quick decisions have to be taken. The more important departmental ministers tend to be the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but these may not compose the inner circle of the given PM. Senior ministers don't have to be the members of the inner circle. They usually are, but not all the time. The Cabinet is usually as follows: the PM, three to six inner circle members and the remainder of the Cabinet which number about fifteen. I think it is obvious to see why the PM needs an inner circle. In United States for example the President can approve the appointment of a person to a high political position without having ever met him/her. In Britain this would sound ridiculous, all major political figures know each other for years having probably gone to same schools together. The Brits believe that good friends make good decision makers which to me sounds very reasonable. This fact can be viewed from two different perspectives: some people say that when a new PM is elected he usually appoints all his friends to high positions by doing this he creates an inner clique with which he governs as an absolute ruler, the opposing view says that you need to know your colleagues for years in order to successfully work with them. Both views have a point and this is a very hot topic in British politics right now. Personally I thin
First let me explain the process through which a person becomes a Prime Minister. The PM is selected by the sovereign. He (or she) chooses a man who can command the support of majority of the members of the House of Commons. Such a man is normally the leader of the largest party in the House. Where two are rivals in a three party contest such as those which occurred in the 1920s he is usually selected from the party which wins the greatest number of seats. The Prime Minister is assumed to be the choice of his party and nowadays, so far as he can be ascertained, participation of a monarch is a pure formality. Anyone suggested for this highest political office obviously has to be a very smart and willing individual, in fact it has been suggested that he be an "uncommon man of common opinions"(Douglas V. Verney). Not all Prime Ministers fitted this bill exactly, but every on of them had to pass one important test: day-to-day scrutiny of their motives and behavior by fellow members of Parliament before they were ultimately elected to the leadership of their party. Unlike Presidents of the United States all Prime Ministers have served a long apprenticeship in the legislature and have been ministers in previous Cabinets. Many Presidents of our country have been elected and on many occasions they have never even met some of their future co-workers, such as case of Kissinger and Nixon who have never even met prior to Nixon's appointment.
Let's now examine the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Prime Minister. Unlike the United States where the President's duties are specifically written out in the Constitution, the powers of the Prime Minister are almost nowhere spelled out in a statute. Unlike his fellow ministers he does not receive the seals of office: he merely kisses the hands of the monarch like an ambassador.
The Prime Minister has four areas of responsibilities. He is a head of the Government; he speaks for the Government in the House of Commons; he is the link between the Government and the sovereign; he is the leader of the nation. He is chief executive, chief legislator and chief ambassador. As we can see the PM has an wide range of powers, maybe too wide. As head of the Government the Prime Minister has the power to recommend the appointment and dismissal of all other ministers. Far from being merely first among equals, he is the dominant figure. Ministers wait in the hall of PMs office on No.10 Dowling Street before being called into the Cabinet room. He may himself hold other portfolios such as that of Foreign Secretary(as did Lord Salisbury) or Minister of Defense(as did
Mr. Churchill). He has general supervision over all departments and appoints both the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Cabinet office keeps a record of Cabinet decisions to make sure that PM has up to date information. He controls the agenda which the office prepares for Cabinet meetings. There is a smaller Prime Minister's Private Office which consists of a principal private secretary and a half a dozen other staff drawn from civil service. Perhaps owing to American influence the two offices are becoming increasingly popular and there are signs that the Prime Minister is no longer content to be aided by nonpolitical civil servants. There is little doubt that if he chooses the PM can be in complete command of his Cabinet.
The PM must also give leadership in the House of Commons, though he usually appoints a colleague as Leader of the House. He speaks for the Government on important matters-increasingly, questions are directed to him personally-and controls the business of the House through the Future Legislation Committee of the Cabinet which he appoints mainly from the senior nondepartamental ministers. Since the success of his legislative program depends mainly on support of his party he must as a party leader attend to his duties and ensure that the machinery of his party is working properly and in the hands of men he could trust. Basically the PM controls his party and in essence he controls the Parliament, but that is not all. The PM alone can request the sovereign to dissolve the Parliament and call a new election, it is open to debate whether it is this power
to allow him the control of the party and the Parliament. I agree with this argument completely because if the PM doesn't like the way it is going with his party he can always announce new election so the Parliament pretty much backs up whatever the PM proposes. This is my main argument for this paper. In United Kingdom there is no system of checks and balances like there is in United States. In UK the PM and the Cabinet make a decision which is then almost blindly supported by the Parliament. A real democracy cannot function this way where there is one person of power and the rest can hardly do anything about it. Members of the majority party will not go against the will of PM because it means going against the will of their own party and that is unheard of in England, members of the opposing party cannot do anything because they are a minority. The Queen herself is a figure-head and does not have any real power. The PM is a link between the monarch and the Government, he keeps the Queen aware of what goes on with the Cabinet, the Government and the world at large. Although the Queen is a fictional figure and has no real power she can damage the reputation of the Government and the entire country by one careless word. It is the Prime Minister's responsibilities to keep the monarch well informed. Other ministers however can only see the monarch with the PMs permission (the monarch however can see whomever she chooses). As we can see, here is another illustration of PM
having too much power. He basically has an exclusive relationship with the monarch and controls who can see the Queen and who cannot. In US this is unthinkable, any congressman can request an audience with the President if he wants and if let's say the Chief of Staff wanted to limit that in any way then he would run into some serious problems.
Finally the PM is the leader of the nation. In time of crisis the people expect him to make an announcement and to appear on television. Increasingly he should be a man who can not only secure the confidence of House of Commons, but of the man in the street or rather the man in the armchair in front of the television. Elections are ostensibly fought between two individual parliamentary candidates, but in practice they are contests between national parties which offer their own political and economical programs. The parties convey an "image" to the nation through the voice and appearance of their leaders. The Prime Minister must outshine his rival, the Leader of the Opposition. In the 1964 election, when the Liberals doubled their vote, much importance was attached to the TV performance of the Liberal leader, Jo Grismond.
The Head of State and traditional "symbol of the Nation" may be the Queen and the Royals, but the chief executive is in reality the PM. It is to his desk that ultimately all difficult problems come whether these involve participation in NATO, the balance of payment crisis, the budget-or even the royals' love affairs(as in 1936 and again in the 80's and 90's). It is the PM that has to symbolize his country's policies abroad and it is he who must personally convince political leaders in other countries that his Government can be relied upon.
The Prime Minister is also chief legislator. Through the Future Legislation Committee, he determines which bills the House of Commons will discuss during the session, and can attach whatever importance he chooses to the Immigration Bill or Steel Nationalization Bill. With few exceptions bills are introduced in the House by the Government and if they are important they require the backing of the Premier.
Also he is the chief administrator. Not only does he supervise the departments and chair Cabinet meetings but he directs the Cabinet Office and the Office of Prime Minister. In economic affairs he decides governmental strategy in conjunction with his Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Economic Affairs, if there is one, and leaves these ministers to implement his policies. In defense policy he chairs the Defense Committee of the Cabinet, leaving the details to the Secretary of Defense(Army, Navy and Air Force) and the Chiefs of Staff. Foreign Affairs, normally the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, require the intervention of the PM when really important decisions have to be made.
As we can see the PM is potentially a very powerful figure. Everything depends on how he chooses to use this power and the success with which he delegates some of his responsibilities.
All PMs have had an inner circle of ministers to which he turns when quick decisions have to be taken. The more important departmental ministers tend to be the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but these may not compose the inner circle of the given PM. Senior ministers don't have to be the members of the inner circle. They usually are, but not all the time. The Cabinet is usually as follows: the PM, three to six inner circle members and the remainder of the Cabinet which number about fifteen. I think it is obvious to see why the PM needs an inner circle. In United States for example the President can approve the appointment of a person to a high political position without having ever met him/her. In Britain this would sound ridiculous, all major political figures know each other for years having probably gone to same schools together. The Brits believe that good friends make good decision makers which to me sounds very reasonable. This fact can be viewed from two different perspectives: some people say that when a new PM is elected he usually appoints all his friends to high positions by doing this he creates an inner clique with which he governs as an absolute ruler, the opposing view says that you need to know your colleagues for years in order to successfully work with them. Both views have a point and this is a very hot topic in British politics right now. Personally I thin
Is Government Dominated by Big Business
Is Government Dominated by Business
Special interest groups have dominated government since the advent of America's
political system. Special interest groups or lobbies are collections of individuals who
join together to pursue common interests and to influence the decisions on public
policies. Many people view special interest groups as an integral part of the political
process, legitimized by the first amendment of the Constitution. In that way, special
interest groups are good. The point that disgusts many people is that more often then not
money overpowers the right decision; that is why Big Business is a problem. The richer
the companies and organizations, the better chance they have to persuade the government
officials.
In the United States alone there are thousands of special interest groups working
for their own cause. Some of the causes they are working for are: business, banking,
labor, environment, women, seniors, the economy, and farming just to name a few.
Some groups or businesses which partake in lobbying are: N.O.W., Green Peace, AFL-
CIO, Teamsters, Sierra Club, N.R.A., Tobacco industry and the ACLU. These groups
often work at the national, state, and local levels attempting to influence government
policy. Many groups have permanent offices in Washington DC. The primary goals of
these groups are the passing, blocking, or amending legislation to achieve a favorable
ruling for their own benefit. In Washington the groups primary targets are the House and
Senate sub-committees which are the key places where legislation is considered. The
groups often speak in front of Committee hearings to put their views on the record.
One of the most well known special interest group is the National Rifle
Association. This group has done tireless work in Washington trying to stop Gun Control
bills from passing in Congress. The worst blow that happened to the NRA was the
passing of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban. The NRA believes this is an
infringement on the constitutional rights of all Americans. Recently after a huge lobby in
Washington, the NRA forced the Senate to have another vote on the Assault Rifle ban.
The way the NRA forces the senate is as followed: the NRA gets together with some
senators that they know want to repeal the ban. The NRA gives money to the senators for
their campaigns, etc. The senators then persuade other senators and the NRA has them
on their side as well. When the NRA captures enough senators, it forces Congress to
bring it to the floor and debate about the issue. In this case, the NRA failed. However,
the NRA will continue to support the senators that are a help to the cause and will
eventually force another vote in Congress. This happens daily in Washington. All
segments of business and industry have lobbyists. It seems that private citizens are the
only group on their own.
The lumber and paper industry is an important business to many people. They too
lobby in Washington to ensure that no restrictions are put on their jobs. There is another
group fighting against the lumber industry and that is the environmentalists. The
"Greens" feel that the loggers should not be allowed to cut down as many trees as they
do. These two groups confer with senators at the state and national level trying to
persuade them to their side. However, the loggers' unions join the big companies to
protect their jobs. This is a very steep obstacle for the "Tree Huggers" to overcome. The
lumber industry wins due to the money they have at their disposal.
Political Action Committees are other groups which help in the persuasion of
Congressional people. PAC's are organizations established by private groups to support a
candidate for public office. "In 1971 PAC's became increasingly popular because the ban
on the use of corporate money to set up PAC's was lifted"(Groliers "PAC"). PAC's
contribute enormous amounts of money into the campaigns for political candidates. The
amounts are increasing every year and it is a multi- million dollar business. Single Issue
politics is also a problem. This form of politics is quite popular these days, it is when
individuals or groups support or reject a candidate based on one view of a certain issue.
The types of issues include abortion and gun control to name two.
It is now a lot easier for the Special Interest Groups to persuade the lawmakers.
The spread of direct primaries, television-based campaigning, and the decline of the
traditional political party strengths has left many legislatures vulnerable to special
interest groups. The advances in technology have strengthened these groups power since
they can be heard by more people. This access to mass medid also makes them more
appealing to the candidates.
The amount of money spent through lobbying is outrageous. "In the first half of
1996 lobby's spent at least $400 million dollars to influence the federal government"
("Lobbyists"). "One of the largest spenders being Phillip Morris which has spent an
estimated $11.3 million dollars in the first half"("Lobbyists"). This exorbitant amount of
money being spent by one of the largest tobacco companies can be attributed to the
governments recent threats made against the industry. Philip Morris is obviously trying
to coheres anyone into believing in their case.
Big Business seems to have dramatically impacted the political system of this
country. The United States is a country of equality and freedom of speech. These
lobbying groups hurt the integrity of what this country is all about. We think of the
United States as a country ruled by a democracy. The lobbying groups view this country
as their country, they tell the legislatures to do something hand them a check the receiver
will do what the group wants, not what the people want. We do not elect Congress
people to be puppets for the rich businesses and groups who are self-centered and only
care about themselves. We elect them to do what is best for the public.
I believe there has to be a limit with what the lobbies can do financially. I know
there has been attempts made to control the groups but, it is not enough. The United
States needs to continue to give people equal say in the laws which govern our society.
Our lawmakers can not listen to the voice of reason in one ear and hear the crinkling of
money in the other and have to make a decision. It is human nature to want money. It is
sad but true for the right price almost anyone can change there mind on something. The
only way for this equality to happen is to get rid of these special interest groups and
PAC's and lobbies. The answer is YES government is dominated by Big Business.
Works Cited:
"Political Action Committee." The 1995 Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.
"Lobbyists spent $400 million in first half of year." Portland Press Herald 23 Sept. 1996
Special interest groups have dominated government since the advent of America's
political system. Special interest groups or lobbies are collections of individuals who
join together to pursue common interests and to influence the decisions on public
policies. Many people view special interest groups as an integral part of the political
process, legitimized by the first amendment of the Constitution. In that way, special
interest groups are good. The point that disgusts many people is that more often then not
money overpowers the right decision; that is why Big Business is a problem. The richer
the companies and organizations, the better chance they have to persuade the government
officials.
In the United States alone there are thousands of special interest groups working
for their own cause. Some of the causes they are working for are: business, banking,
labor, environment, women, seniors, the economy, and farming just to name a few.
Some groups or businesses which partake in lobbying are: N.O.W., Green Peace, AFL-
CIO, Teamsters, Sierra Club, N.R.A., Tobacco industry and the ACLU. These groups
often work at the national, state, and local levels attempting to influence government
policy. Many groups have permanent offices in Washington DC. The primary goals of
these groups are the passing, blocking, or amending legislation to achieve a favorable
ruling for their own benefit. In Washington the groups primary targets are the House and
Senate sub-committees which are the key places where legislation is considered. The
groups often speak in front of Committee hearings to put their views on the record.
One of the most well known special interest group is the National Rifle
Association. This group has done tireless work in Washington trying to stop Gun Control
bills from passing in Congress. The worst blow that happened to the NRA was the
passing of the Brady Bill and the Assault Rifle Ban. The NRA believes this is an
infringement on the constitutional rights of all Americans. Recently after a huge lobby in
Washington, the NRA forced the Senate to have another vote on the Assault Rifle ban.
The way the NRA forces the senate is as followed: the NRA gets together with some
senators that they know want to repeal the ban. The NRA gives money to the senators for
their campaigns, etc. The senators then persuade other senators and the NRA has them
on their side as well. When the NRA captures enough senators, it forces Congress to
bring it to the floor and debate about the issue. In this case, the NRA failed. However,
the NRA will continue to support the senators that are a help to the cause and will
eventually force another vote in Congress. This happens daily in Washington. All
segments of business and industry have lobbyists. It seems that private citizens are the
only group on their own.
The lumber and paper industry is an important business to many people. They too
lobby in Washington to ensure that no restrictions are put on their jobs. There is another
group fighting against the lumber industry and that is the environmentalists. The
"Greens" feel that the loggers should not be allowed to cut down as many trees as they
do. These two groups confer with senators at the state and national level trying to
persuade them to their side. However, the loggers' unions join the big companies to
protect their jobs. This is a very steep obstacle for the "Tree Huggers" to overcome. The
lumber industry wins due to the money they have at their disposal.
Political Action Committees are other groups which help in the persuasion of
Congressional people. PAC's are organizations established by private groups to support a
candidate for public office. "In 1971 PAC's became increasingly popular because the ban
on the use of corporate money to set up PAC's was lifted"(Groliers "PAC"). PAC's
contribute enormous amounts of money into the campaigns for political candidates. The
amounts are increasing every year and it is a multi- million dollar business. Single Issue
politics is also a problem. This form of politics is quite popular these days, it is when
individuals or groups support or reject a candidate based on one view of a certain issue.
The types of issues include abortion and gun control to name two.
It is now a lot easier for the Special Interest Groups to persuade the lawmakers.
The spread of direct primaries, television-based campaigning, and the decline of the
traditional political party strengths has left many legislatures vulnerable to special
interest groups. The advances in technology have strengthened these groups power since
they can be heard by more people. This access to mass medid also makes them more
appealing to the candidates.
The amount of money spent through lobbying is outrageous. "In the first half of
1996 lobby's spent at least $400 million dollars to influence the federal government"
("Lobbyists"). "One of the largest spenders being Phillip Morris which has spent an
estimated $11.3 million dollars in the first half"("Lobbyists"). This exorbitant amount of
money being spent by one of the largest tobacco companies can be attributed to the
governments recent threats made against the industry. Philip Morris is obviously trying
to coheres anyone into believing in their case.
Big Business seems to have dramatically impacted the political system of this
country. The United States is a country of equality and freedom of speech. These
lobbying groups hurt the integrity of what this country is all about. We think of the
United States as a country ruled by a democracy. The lobbying groups view this country
as their country, they tell the legislatures to do something hand them a check the receiver
will do what the group wants, not what the people want. We do not elect Congress
people to be puppets for the rich businesses and groups who are self-centered and only
care about themselves. We elect them to do what is best for the public.
I believe there has to be a limit with what the lobbies can do financially. I know
there has been attempts made to control the groups but, it is not enough. The United
States needs to continue to give people equal say in the laws which govern our society.
Our lawmakers can not listen to the voice of reason in one ear and hear the crinkling of
money in the other and have to make a decision. It is human nature to want money. It is
sad but true for the right price almost anyone can change there mind on something. The
only way for this equality to happen is to get rid of these special interest groups and
PAC's and lobbies. The answer is YES government is dominated by Big Business.
Works Cited:
"Political Action Committee." The 1995 Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM.
"Lobbyists spent $400 million in first half of year." Portland Press Herald 23 Sept. 1996
Invaded by Immigrants
Invaded By Immigrants
Canada being a relatively new country, as far as the history of the world
goes was built by immigration. Every single resident of North America
can trace his ancestry back to the cradle of life in Europe. Even Native
Americans found their way to the new world over a frozen ice pack,
spreading out across the land, weaving a rich culture and prospering.
The Canada that we know today began only in the last 200 years.
Settlers poured in from all over the world, tempted with free land and
religious liberty Europeans settled in Canada by the thousands. They
brought with them traditions and a legal system modeled after the
English governments.
Although is undeniable that Immigration made Canada into the
strong nation that it is, I feel that Immigration as it is set up these days
does not build our country but tears it down. The open gates policy
implemented by our government leaves the Canadian social system
wide open to be abused by would-be migrants in other countries. It is
quite obvious that the system currently running is quite imperfect. This
paper will attempt to show flaws in Canada's immigration policy and
suggest new policy's which fit better with Canada's social landscape.
All over the world populations are growing at tremendous rates.
Nothing in this world happens by accident, the populations are moving
because they expect an increase in quality of life in the new country.
Country's all over the world view Canada as a great place to live, the
United Nations bills Canada as the best place to live. When third world
people look at their present situations, they think that they could instantly
improve their surroundings by moving to Canada. By pure logic it would
seem like madness to open Canada's doors wide open to any immigrant
which wishes to come to Canada. We would be swamped! But that is
precisely what Canada has done. There is no end in sight. With a growing
world population more and more people will see Canada as the premier
place to live and will come flocking to our gates.
Many Canadian's do not agree with the current immigration policy
our the idea that we should let even more immigrants in. Many issues
need to be debated and settled such as should we allow further
immigration into Canada, to what degree should immigrants segregate or
integrate, who should be allowed to immigrate, and on what conditions.
These are very serious questions and the answers to them will have a
profound effect on life in Canada and indeed all over the world.
Until the great depression at the beginning of the century Canada
had encouraged immigration from Europe, especially Britain. During the
Great Depression Immigration was brought to a halt, the reason being that
foreign workers coming to Canada looking for jobs were unwanted. Bands
of men roamed the country searching for any kind of work. After W.W.II
Canada's economy grew so fast that thousands of immigrants were let in,
mostly from Europe. The time in-between Canada shut it's gate to when it
reopened them is called the first great digestion period.
A period with no immigrants allowed Canada to set up social
programs, make jobs, and integrate the existing new citizens into our
economy. Since W.W.II the basic immigration policy has remained the
same with no such period, we have steadily let larger numbers of
foreigners into our country. In the past 60 years there has been no such
period and the population has outgrown the job base. One of the main
arguments that immigration enthusiasts use is that Immigrants will fill jobs
and produce more then they consume. At this moment Canada has
upwards of eleven percent unemployment. What use do we possibly have
for thousands of new people flooding the job market. Our economy needs
to strengthen and grow so it can support itself before we burden our
welfare system by bringing in more unneeded workers.
The issue of immigration is permanently with Canada and important
because every single Canadian can trace his lineage back to an immigrant
somewhere. The flow of people into Canada is not going to stop unless we
pass and bill to make immigration standards tougher. Lately there has
been a movement to remove discriminatory law from the Canadian
constitution and it is getting so we are too politically correct. In 1996 so
many Asians flooded Vancouver that a separate school system had too be
set up to accommodate these students who would not learn English or fit
into the full English schools. This represents astronomical costs to British
Columbia's already stretched educational system all because Canada does
not regulate the flow of immigrants from any country. This type of law
would be "discriminatory". Another example of where Canada's polite
policy falls short of common sense is that we let cancer patients, and
people who carry the virus that leads to AIDS into our country where they
are sure to cost thousands of dollars to our health care system, and those
with the virus could pass it on. Common sense says that if a immigrant is
going to cost a lot of money to support and then die without contributing to
the society then that immigrant should not be granted entrance.
If Canada wants to keep it's status as a wealthy country, and a
good place to live it had better modify it's immigration policy. Canada's
multicultural policy where immigrant's are not expected to assimilate and
the unchecked flow of immigrants from countries abroad has led to visible
minorities in Canada which do not want to be "Canadian", but want to set
up communities like the ones they once occupied in their old countries.
The Doukhobour sect in Canada declares "They have never given, nor will
they ever give their votes during elections, thereby are free from any
responsibility before God or man for the acts of any government
established by men"
A truly assimilated immigrant would be unrecognizable in the host
society. There are essentially 2 types of assimilation, the first of which is
behavioral assimilation. In behavioral assimilation all minority groups
adhere to the values of the majority and behave accordingly. This theory
could be applied to the American model. Immigrants are expected to learn
English, dress, and behave like "Americans" do.
The second type of assimilation is structural assimilation. In this
system all groups in the society have equal access and utilize the same
institutions, and social structures but do not necessarily behave or believe
alike. This theory is especially well adept to describing the Canadian
multicultural system. It has been argued that by keeping their old identities
immigrants "enrich and strengthen" our society. What this has ultimately
resulted in is isolating these groups from society. When we think of what
being Canadian means, no one is quite sure.
Multiculturalism has resulted in several visible minorities. These
minority's because they generally vote together control a considerable
portion of the vote. One of the best examples of this is The French
speaking population is the province of Quebec. The population of Quebec
makes up about thirty percent of the Canadian population yet has
succeeded in running the Canadian agenda for over 30 years. Politicians
scrambling to please this large section of voting power has given Quebec a
level of power and voice in the federal government that is ridiculous and
bordering on dangerous. Quebec has demanded special status, gets four
new seats in the house of commons at every census and has set up
discriminatory language laws in the province in order to keep it's own
English minority under check. This is a prime example of how a minority
has refused to assimilate and ends up causing problems for a country.
The more functions that a ethnic group can perform inside a closed
community the less obligation it's members will feel to learn the law,
language, and traditions of the host culture. This creates a isolated
communities where the people of the community don't feel part of the
society in which they live. One solution for this is to spread immigration
from a country out over our country, this would prevent closed community's
to a large degree. When immigrants come they swear allegiance to
Canada and they should respect our culture and try to fit in a little bit.
The plain fact is that immigration is bad for the economy. The
majority of immigrants that come to Canada have no material possessions
at all. Screening immigrants based on wealth is illegal by our constitution.
Before the Immigrants arrived on Canada's shores there was already 11%
of Canada's citizens which had no jobs. With each new arriving immigrant
this figure will increase. In 1990, spent $16 billion more in welfare
payments to immigrants that they paid back in taxes. Perhaps what is most
disturbing is that immigrants feel they can steel from us in order to maintain
a high standard of life in our country, immigrants compose 25 percent of
the prisoners in federal penitentiaries, which our taxes support.
The fact is that the immigration problem is not going to go away. By
2050 third world country's with 245 million people will have population
density's of 1,700 people per km2. Our cities are already flooded
with millions of jobless immigrants annually, this problem is only going to
get worse. As the citizens in a democracy we must give the government a
mandate to shut down, or slow down as much as possible immigration!
Canada does not have a lot of money to share with the worlds poor, we
have created a system which makes money and we cannot let immigration
get in the way of the welfare of Canada's citizens. If a potential immigrant
can show convincingly that he can bring a meaningful contribution to our
country's welfare he is welcomed, but the practice of letting immense
amounts of immigrants must be brought to a halt.
Bibliography
1. Curran, Thomas; Xenophobia And Immigration. Boston: Twayne, 1975.
2. Globerman, Steven; Immigration Delemma. Vancouver: Fraser, 1992.
3. Hawkins, Freda; Canada and Immigration. Montreal: McGill, 1970.
4. Knowles, Valerie; Strangers at Our Gates. Toronto: Dundurn,1992.
5. Malarek, Victor; Haven's Gate. Toronto: Macmillan, 1987.
6. Munro, Iain; Immigration. Toronto: Wiley, 1941.
7. Norris, John; Strangers Entertained. Vancouver: Evergreen, 1971.
8. Sharma, Satya; Immigrants and Refugees In Canada. Saskatchewan;
University, 1991.
9. Sillars, Les. "Something Stinks In Immigration." Alberta Report, August 12,
1996, pp. 12.
10. Stoffman, Daniel. "Canada's Farcical Refugee System." Readers Digest,
Sept. 1995, pp. 53-57.
11. Taylor, Rupert; Canada and the World. Waterloo; Ebsco, 1994.
Canada being a relatively new country, as far as the history of the world
goes was built by immigration. Every single resident of North America
can trace his ancestry back to the cradle of life in Europe. Even Native
Americans found their way to the new world over a frozen ice pack,
spreading out across the land, weaving a rich culture and prospering.
The Canada that we know today began only in the last 200 years.
Settlers poured in from all over the world, tempted with free land and
religious liberty Europeans settled in Canada by the thousands. They
brought with them traditions and a legal system modeled after the
English governments.
Although is undeniable that Immigration made Canada into the
strong nation that it is, I feel that Immigration as it is set up these days
does not build our country but tears it down. The open gates policy
implemented by our government leaves the Canadian social system
wide open to be abused by would-be migrants in other countries. It is
quite obvious that the system currently running is quite imperfect. This
paper will attempt to show flaws in Canada's immigration policy and
suggest new policy's which fit better with Canada's social landscape.
All over the world populations are growing at tremendous rates.
Nothing in this world happens by accident, the populations are moving
because they expect an increase in quality of life in the new country.
Country's all over the world view Canada as a great place to live, the
United Nations bills Canada as the best place to live. When third world
people look at their present situations, they think that they could instantly
improve their surroundings by moving to Canada. By pure logic it would
seem like madness to open Canada's doors wide open to any immigrant
which wishes to come to Canada. We would be swamped! But that is
precisely what Canada has done. There is no end in sight. With a growing
world population more and more people will see Canada as the premier
place to live and will come flocking to our gates.
Many Canadian's do not agree with the current immigration policy
our the idea that we should let even more immigrants in. Many issues
need to be debated and settled such as should we allow further
immigration into Canada, to what degree should immigrants segregate or
integrate, who should be allowed to immigrate, and on what conditions.
These are very serious questions and the answers to them will have a
profound effect on life in Canada and indeed all over the world.
Until the great depression at the beginning of the century Canada
had encouraged immigration from Europe, especially Britain. During the
Great Depression Immigration was brought to a halt, the reason being that
foreign workers coming to Canada looking for jobs were unwanted. Bands
of men roamed the country searching for any kind of work. After W.W.II
Canada's economy grew so fast that thousands of immigrants were let in,
mostly from Europe. The time in-between Canada shut it's gate to when it
reopened them is called the first great digestion period.
A period with no immigrants allowed Canada to set up social
programs, make jobs, and integrate the existing new citizens into our
economy. Since W.W.II the basic immigration policy has remained the
same with no such period, we have steadily let larger numbers of
foreigners into our country. In the past 60 years there has been no such
period and the population has outgrown the job base. One of the main
arguments that immigration enthusiasts use is that Immigrants will fill jobs
and produce more then they consume. At this moment Canada has
upwards of eleven percent unemployment. What use do we possibly have
for thousands of new people flooding the job market. Our economy needs
to strengthen and grow so it can support itself before we burden our
welfare system by bringing in more unneeded workers.
The issue of immigration is permanently with Canada and important
because every single Canadian can trace his lineage back to an immigrant
somewhere. The flow of people into Canada is not going to stop unless we
pass and bill to make immigration standards tougher. Lately there has
been a movement to remove discriminatory law from the Canadian
constitution and it is getting so we are too politically correct. In 1996 so
many Asians flooded Vancouver that a separate school system had too be
set up to accommodate these students who would not learn English or fit
into the full English schools. This represents astronomical costs to British
Columbia's already stretched educational system all because Canada does
not regulate the flow of immigrants from any country. This type of law
would be "discriminatory". Another example of where Canada's polite
policy falls short of common sense is that we let cancer patients, and
people who carry the virus that leads to AIDS into our country where they
are sure to cost thousands of dollars to our health care system, and those
with the virus could pass it on. Common sense says that if a immigrant is
going to cost a lot of money to support and then die without contributing to
the society then that immigrant should not be granted entrance.
If Canada wants to keep it's status as a wealthy country, and a
good place to live it had better modify it's immigration policy. Canada's
multicultural policy where immigrant's are not expected to assimilate and
the unchecked flow of immigrants from countries abroad has led to visible
minorities in Canada which do not want to be "Canadian", but want to set
up communities like the ones they once occupied in their old countries.
The Doukhobour sect in Canada declares "They have never given, nor will
they ever give their votes during elections, thereby are free from any
responsibility before God or man for the acts of any government
established by men"
A truly assimilated immigrant would be unrecognizable in the host
society. There are essentially 2 types of assimilation, the first of which is
behavioral assimilation. In behavioral assimilation all minority groups
adhere to the values of the majority and behave accordingly. This theory
could be applied to the American model. Immigrants are expected to learn
English, dress, and behave like "Americans" do.
The second type of assimilation is structural assimilation. In this
system all groups in the society have equal access and utilize the same
institutions, and social structures but do not necessarily behave or believe
alike. This theory is especially well adept to describing the Canadian
multicultural system. It has been argued that by keeping their old identities
immigrants "enrich and strengthen" our society. What this has ultimately
resulted in is isolating these groups from society. When we think of what
being Canadian means, no one is quite sure.
Multiculturalism has resulted in several visible minorities. These
minority's because they generally vote together control a considerable
portion of the vote. One of the best examples of this is The French
speaking population is the province of Quebec. The population of Quebec
makes up about thirty percent of the Canadian population yet has
succeeded in running the Canadian agenda for over 30 years. Politicians
scrambling to please this large section of voting power has given Quebec a
level of power and voice in the federal government that is ridiculous and
bordering on dangerous. Quebec has demanded special status, gets four
new seats in the house of commons at every census and has set up
discriminatory language laws in the province in order to keep it's own
English minority under check. This is a prime example of how a minority
has refused to assimilate and ends up causing problems for a country.
The more functions that a ethnic group can perform inside a closed
community the less obligation it's members will feel to learn the law,
language, and traditions of the host culture. This creates a isolated
communities where the people of the community don't feel part of the
society in which they live. One solution for this is to spread immigration
from a country out over our country, this would prevent closed community's
to a large degree. When immigrants come they swear allegiance to
Canada and they should respect our culture and try to fit in a little bit.
The plain fact is that immigration is bad for the economy. The
majority of immigrants that come to Canada have no material possessions
at all. Screening immigrants based on wealth is illegal by our constitution.
Before the Immigrants arrived on Canada's shores there was already 11%
of Canada's citizens which had no jobs. With each new arriving immigrant
this figure will increase. In 1990, spent $16 billion more in welfare
payments to immigrants that they paid back in taxes. Perhaps what is most
disturbing is that immigrants feel they can steel from us in order to maintain
a high standard of life in our country, immigrants compose 25 percent of
the prisoners in federal penitentiaries, which our taxes support.
The fact is that the immigration problem is not going to go away. By
2050 third world country's with 245 million people will have population
density's of 1,700 people per km2. Our cities are already flooded
with millions of jobless immigrants annually, this problem is only going to
get worse. As the citizens in a democracy we must give the government a
mandate to shut down, or slow down as much as possible immigration!
Canada does not have a lot of money to share with the worlds poor, we
have created a system which makes money and we cannot let immigration
get in the way of the welfare of Canada's citizens. If a potential immigrant
can show convincingly that he can bring a meaningful contribution to our
country's welfare he is welcomed, but the practice of letting immense
amounts of immigrants must be brought to a halt.
Bibliography
1. Curran, Thomas; Xenophobia And Immigration. Boston: Twayne, 1975.
2. Globerman, Steven; Immigration Delemma. Vancouver: Fraser, 1992.
3. Hawkins, Freda; Canada and Immigration. Montreal: McGill, 1970.
4. Knowles, Valerie; Strangers at Our Gates. Toronto: Dundurn,1992.
5. Malarek, Victor; Haven's Gate. Toronto: Macmillan, 1987.
6. Munro, Iain; Immigration. Toronto: Wiley, 1941.
7. Norris, John; Strangers Entertained. Vancouver: Evergreen, 1971.
8. Sharma, Satya; Immigrants and Refugees In Canada. Saskatchewan;
University, 1991.
9. Sillars, Les. "Something Stinks In Immigration." Alberta Report, August 12,
1996, pp. 12.
10. Stoffman, Daniel. "Canada's Farcical Refugee System." Readers Digest,
Sept. 1995, pp. 53-57.
11. Taylor, Rupert; Canada and the World. Waterloo; Ebsco, 1994.
International Relations of Strategic Geometry
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF ASIA
STRATEGIC GEOMETRY
"This is the only region in the world where so many combinations and permutations of two- three and four- and even two plus four or three plus three- power games can be played on the regional chessboard with all their complexities and variations."
introduction
The concept of strategic geometry comprises the notion that that the interactions and interconnections between a number of political actors within a particular system of international relations, either global or regional can be seen in terms of geometric patterns of strategic configurations. It can be a case of simple geometry, in which A interacts with B: but in a more complex system such as that of Asia, with the presence of more than one major actor, each with their distinct, sometimes conflicting political agendas, the interaction between A and B will be likely to affect C or influenced by C.
The concept of an international 'system' itself implies that events are not random, and units within the system are interrelated in some patterned way. This 'patterning' maybe envisaged or conceptualized as patterns of strategic geometry.
Any attempt to analyze the transition from a Cold War system of international relations to a post Cold War one, will incorporate an analysis of the general nature of the system itself, in this case the system of international relations in Asia; of the actors involved and their respective roles; how changes in the political environment and in specific policies of the actors shape the evolution of a new system; and finally the nature of the new system with its own actors, their new roles, and new concerns.
The concept of strategic geometry enables us to understand these changes in the political dynamics from one system to another, in our case the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era, by serving as an analytic tool. If we view the international relations of Asia, more and the interactions of the main actors in terms of strategic configurations and geometric patterns of alignments and oppositions, then we can assess changes in the political system over time by way of the changes in the strategic geometry. Some strategic configurations change, others remain the same, while new patterns of strategic geometry appear, as the old forms dissolve--the explanations behind the shifting pattern of strategic geometry is what enables us to understand the transition from the Cold War era to the post Cold War.
Geopolitical and politico-economic factors have in some cases changed the content, but not the form of the particular strategic configurations and in some cases however, we find both form and content are changed. In my essay I will focus on this dual analysis of the content and form of the major patterns of strategic geometry and their change over time from Cold War to post Cold War. In order to assess the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry, we must first see how well the concept is expressed in the international relations of Asia. Firstly I will briefly outline the general strategic concerns or tenets of the Cold War era, the roles and interactions of the actors involved, and the major strategic geometric patterns this produced. The second part of my essay will comprise an analysis of the evolution of the system, and the tenets of the new post cold war system, drawing attention at the same time to the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry to explain the transition.
quadrangles and triangles
One may even conceptualize pre -Cold War international relations in strategic geometric terms: the past is replete with instances of three-way interactions between Japan, China and the Soviet Union. According to Mandlebaum, the fate of the region has "for the last two centuries' depended 'on the fate of three major powers--China, Japan and Russia, on the stability and tranquillity of their mutual relations." Hence we may presume that it is not novel or unknown to apply the concept of strategic geometry to Asia and as I shall illustrate it will prove particularly useful in understanding the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era.
Let us begin with a simpler model of strategic geometry which existed in Europe during the Cold War. From 1948 onwards, a more or less clear-cut line divided Europe into two main political and military blocs: the communist bloc and the free world of Western Europe, resulting in an almost perfect bipolarity. However, the politics in Asia during the same period were more dynamic and nuanced than just the simple East-West divide of Europe. Here, there was none of "the sharp structural clarity of Europe," no drawing of a line, no Iron Curtain; rather, there existed a more complex web of international relations, because of the physical presence of three great powers: the Soviet Union, China and Japan. And from 1945 onwards, another great power, the United States, took up a permanent political and military residence in the region. These four major powers have dominated the East Asia region both during the Cold War and continue to do so in the post- Cold War era, hence according to Mandlebaum, "the appropriate geometric metaphor was and still is the strategic quadrangle." The interactions of these four main powers-sometimes in cooperation, other times in conflict- have shaped the international relations of Asia. How this took place during and after the Cold War is in many ways quite dissimilar. However, more importantly than the all encompassing quadrangle, it is the strategic geometry within the quadrangle that is most interesting and illustrates best, the changes and nuances in the transition from Cold War to post Cold War. The interactions within the strategic quadrangle itself, have been generally of a bilateral or triangular nature. As Mandlebaum suggests "Indeed in Asia, the structure of politics all along has been more complex than the stark bipolarity of Europe. Rather than two competing systems, Asia's international order was a clutter of triangles." The triangle is the predominant strategic geometric metaphor characterizing the nature of interactions in East Asia, especially during the Cold War and to a less intense degree in the post Cold War era.
the Cold War era
The Cold War system of international relations was a geopolitical intermixing of security, ideology and the balance of power, especially military power. Everything took root from two essential conflicts: firstly, the US-Soviet opposition and secondly, from the 1970s onwards the Sino-Soviet split; and from one essential alliance: the US-Japanese partnership. Each of these bilateral alliances or oppositions affected in some way a third party. 'The most well-known and widely debated triangle being the Sino-Soviet-US grouping with at least 4 possible configurations."
One may just turn towards one actor in the system, or one player in the Strategic Quadrangle, to see the preoccupation with strategic geometry. As Mandlebaum states: "For no country more than the Soviet Union did the underlying structure of Asian international politics revolve about a complex interconnected set of triangular relationships. The most obvious and famous of the triangles linked the Soviet Union, China and the United States, but the Soviet-US- Japan triangle was also important. In addition, five others also helped to shape Soviet policy 1. Sino-Soviet -Japanese triangle 2. Sino-Soviet-North Korean triangle 3. Sino-Soviet-Vietnamese triangle 4. Soviet-Vietnamese-ASEAN triangle 5. Sino-Soviet-Indian triangle. Though from this perspective, certain things stand out. First, China's centrality: China figures in nearly all of the triangles, not even the US affected Soviet policy to this degree. Second, the full set of triangles that impeded, shaped and invigorated the policies of Gorbachev's predecessors varied greatly in importance, all of them overshadowed by the crucial Sino-Soviet-US triangle. Indeed the others owed much of their dynamic to the course of events in this main triangle." Through the 1960s, there were 4 main triangles in the Asian political arena: Soviet Union-China-North Vietnam, Soviet Union-Japan-US, Sino-Soviet-Indian- and Soviet Union-China-North Korea. In the 1970s, however this changed not only because more triangles were added, but because they included a new kind of triangle, the Sino-Soviet-US triangle.
"Normally triangles are not thought of as a stable form in social or political relationships nor as a stabilizing influence within a larger setting. The great post-war exception was the Soviet-US-Japan triangle. Relationships among the three countries scarcely changed, apart from fluctuations in US-Soviet and US-Japanese relations from time to time. Its immobility may have been the single most stabilizing element in post war Asian politics." The Soviet-Japanese-American triangle drove Soviet policy towards Japan, since the Soviets viewed Japan as a creature of American engagement in Asia. A whole series of strategic triangles were borne out of the cold war climate which make strategic geometry very useful and illuminating model to study the international relations of Asia during the period. However, our emphasis is on the usefulness of the concept for studying the 'transition' from Cold War to post Cold War. This requires an analysis of both systems, in order to assess the process of change.
the post-Cold War era: changes in the system
Today, we are in a relatively 'open' period of history, free from the polarized nature of the Cold War, yet "more than ever each of the four powers has compelling stakes in its relations with the other three. More than ever each of the four counts as a separate and independent player, none has the power or inclination to destroy the equilibrium." But what about strategic geometry? With the disappearance of the Soviet threat is it still a useful model for the study of international relations in Asia? Or is its use limited to the great power play of the Cold War? And most importantly, how can the concept of strategic geometry lend to our understanding of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia?
First, I will briefly outline the features of the transition.
The tenets of the post Cold War system seem to be the predominance of economic considerations, national welfare and stability. Mandlebaum expresses his view of the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system, when he states: "nations, including those in East Asia, crossed into a world in which they had more to bear from dangers than enemies....dangers of political, economic, and ecological disorder...the primary stakes ceased to be security, but welfare...no longer war and peace, but the vitality of societies and the dynamism of economies."
To begin with what constitutes 'power' has changed dramatically in wake of the demise of the Soviet Union. The shift from a military to an economic definition of power, from "a geopolitical to a geoeconomic axis" resulting from "wholesale change in the entire military-strategic edifice in Asia," has in its turn, produced "a radically different range of collaborations among the four major powers." Though, military concerns still warrant a significant priority, as some of today's triangles demonstrate, especially considering the presence of three out of five of the world's nuclear powers in the region. On the whole however, today's Asia is one of mutually dependent economies "where economics is the name of the game." The concept of strategic geometry has a reduced validity or maybe more aptly termed 'economic geometry.' With the rise of the Asian tigers, and Japan's status of an economic superpower, coupled with greater regionalism such as embodied by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and ASEAN, there is more diversification of power in East Asia, at least in economic terms.
Understanding the change from a Cold War to a post Cold War system also requires an understanding of the transition in terms of military power. China and Japan are the rising military powers, while Russia is a declining one. Strategic geometry very useful in assessing the transition in these terms. Instead of Japan and the US balancing Russian military power, today Japan and the US act to balance Chinese military power. I will elaborate on this issue later, in my discussion of the Japan-US-China triangle.
Democracy and prosperity, two traditional goals are back on the US agenda after the disappearance of the Soviet threat. Yet for the US, like for the others, the post Cold War is still dominated by considerations of power and wealth; fear of the first and lure of the second keeping the US engaged in East Asia.
Russia's preoccupation with internal restructuring and the rise of Central Asia has meant that Russia's role in the strategic quadrangle has become as "less of a player than a problem." Within the quadrangle, Russia has replaced the Soviet Union. "The radical revision of Russia's surroundings not only profoundly affects Russian foreign policy and therefore indirectly East Asia, but it directly affects East Asia because of the new, intervening reality of Central Asia. From the standpoint of the others, the Soviet threat is not of warfare but of diminished national and international welfare."
China's emphasis on economic modernization. China has been the least changed by the ending of the Cold War since its great shift in course came a decade earlier, at the end of 1970s which saw the development of Deng Xiaoping's program of economic reform. The post Cold War era sees China more firmly committed to a capitalist vision, with its focus on economic modernization and growth. This in turn has produced China's 'omni-directional' foreign policy. The prospects accruing from Chinese economic modernization and at the same time, the specter of Chinese growth as it affects the other powers has given rise to new forms of strategic geometry, or provided the old forms of strategic geometry with a renewed basis.
The post Cold War era is also characterized by Japan's increasingly independent stance from the United States and its attempts at greater militarization.
A major feature of the transition form a Cold War system to a post Cold War system is the reversal in roles of the major powers. China has basically become a status-quo power, the United States has become something of a revolutionary state, seeking to transform the others and mould them in its own image ( exemplified by the stress on democracy, economic liberalization, human rights ).
We also witness the reversal of Japan's and Russia's post war roles, with Russia now being the one buffeted in the goings-on between China and Japan.
Furthermore, the continental landmass of Asia, dominated by Russia and China occupies the physical and strategic core of the area, a core that has radiated its effects through the sub-regions of the Korean peninsulas, and SEA and to the surrounding archipelagos. "Today the core is weak and unsure of itself, while the periphery is solid and confident." This change in fortune from the Cold War to the post Cold War era can be seen by way of the new strategic geometry and the rise of new triangles of interactions, especially including Korea.
Hence, we see the emergence of new actors, or old ones with new powers to influence the international relations of the region, most importantly North and South Korea and the issue of their unification, and the issue of the island of Taiwan.
These myriad of changes that constitute the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia; both changes in the general political climate and the changes in individual political agendas can be seen through the new and modified patterns of strategic geometry. I will focus on three such patterns: 1. the US-Japan-China triangle, where the form of the strategic geometry has stayed the same but its content has altered with a greater emphasis on economics 2. the content and form of triangles involving Russia 3. the new form and content of triangles involving Korea. An analysis of these three examples of strategic geometry in the post Cold War era will highlight the usefulness of the concept in analyzing the transition in the system from one era to the next.
the US-Japan-China triangle
An analysis of the US-Japan-China, an old triangle with new content illustrates many features of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations. During the Cold War "both Tokyo and Washington developed their China policies in part to thwart Moscow's designs towards China and Asia." The US and China no longer act together to balance Soviet power; the US-Japan alliance no longer serves as a weight against balancing the power of both China and the Soviet Union; and Japan and China do not architect their relationship in light of US policies. The US-Japan-China triangle in the post cold war era rather illustrates all three nations' concern with economic prosperity and trade: American policy of placing trade at the center of US-Japan relations; China's emphasis on economic modernization constituting the cornerstone of its foreign policy; Japan's policy of 'expanding equilibrium.' Today's US-Japan-China triangle also reveals Japan's increasingly independent stance from the US, the US's stress on democracy and human rights, the reversal of the roles of China and the US, greater China-Japan bilateralism. The game of power - the attempts at gaining military , and more importantly economic leverage for oneself and controlling that of the other powers- is still evident, despite the dissolution of a 'universal' threat. But it is only who's playing against who that has changed. So the concept of strategic geometry is still valid and applicable. "Potential competition and mutual distrust between China and Japan were it to grow into something large would replace the post war contest between the US and the Soviet Union as dominant feature of international politics in Asia." During the Cold War, US military presence in Asia served as a deterrence against the military power of the Soviet Union; in the post Cold War era, it is a form of reassurance against the rise of Chinese military power.
Relations with Japan is the most important bilateral relation Beijing has, after that with Washington. "PRC leaders see an intimate connection between their policies towards Washington and Tokyo. From Beijing's perspective there is a 'strategic triangle' in Asia (US, Japan and China) and it is Beijing's purpose to utilize that three way relationship to its advantage." Beijing seeks to use the prospect of improved political and economic ties with Japan to induce Washington to be more politically cooperative, relax sanctions and encourage more American investment. On the other hand, "Japan is the principal economic and security challenge looming in China's future." Despite greater bilateralism between Japan and China based on the economic stakes and increasing volume of trade, China still harbors a fear of Japanese economic domination and a deep distrust in general. America's capital, willingness to transfer technology and ability to restrain Japan all serve China's interests. The disappearance of the Soviet threat has undermined the stability of the US-Japanese partnership, hence the distance between Japan and US has meant that China has become all the more important to Washington. A closer security relationship between US and China would further diminish the strategic importance of Japan to the US. At the same time "China looms all the more important for Japan as US interest, presence and influence in Asia seem to diminish." This means America's differences with China over human rights issues could also drive a wedge between US-Japan relations, since Japan would not join the US in imposing trade sanctions on China, owing to its own bilateral stakes. However, "in the long run Japan's ability to counter the geopolitical challenge from China depends on maintaining a robust alliance with the US." Furthermore, in the post Cold War era, the island of Taiwan is reshaping politics of the Quadrangle, adding another dimension to the US-Japan-China triangle, since the US's ideological proclivities towards Taiwan are in opposition to Japan's economic proclivities towards the mainland. According to Peter Hayes, North East Asia is overlaid by twin informal strategic triangles: the US "has linked China and Japan in an informal security triangle, and the common hypotenuse between this great power triangle on the one hand, and the informal security triangle among South Korea, US and Japan on the other."
Korea
Another major strategic change involves the economic rise of South Korea and isolation of the North. The rise of North and South Korea as major players in the Asian political arena is emblematic of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in the region. "Korea was important to the US only as a strategic tripwire for its Japan centered extended deterrence in the region." Korea was symbolic of America's cold war resolve to draw the containment line in East Asia. Political alignment in the region vis-a-vis both Koreas is demonstrative of differences between Cold War and post Cold War. The evolution of triangles involving the two Koreas highlight the decreasing role of ideology, socialist confrere and geopolitical rivalry, and the increasing importance of stability, world order, regional peace and economic prosperity. During the Cold War there existed two basic triangles involving Korea: one comprising the US, Japan, South Korea and the other comprising North Korea, Soviet Union, China. Since 196 5 the US-Japan-South Korea triangle, as Kent Calder argues emerged as another key feature of the highly dynamic but unbalanced economic and security relations of the region. In 1993, the scenario was entirely different with the US-Japan-South Korea-China-Russia all against North Korea, owing to its forward nuclear policy.
The "rapid progress in Moscow-Seoul relations, coupled with an equally rapid decompression of Moscow-Pyongyang relations, has taken the sting out of the long festering ideological and geopolitical rivalry China, and the former Soviet Union engaged in over North Korea. The ending of Cold War bipolarity has meant the demise of not only the vaunted China card in the collapsed strategic triangle (North Korea-China -Soviet Union) but also the Pyongyang card in the old Sino-Soviet rivalry." The rapprochement between China and South Korea in 1992, as a means to establish regional peace, hinted a possible emergence of a triangular relationship with the PRC in the best position to influence the two Koreas. The increasing economic interaction between China and South Korea, a major inspiration and product of the rapprochement is coupled with North Korea's attempts at gradually adopting the South Korea model of economic development transmitted through China. Through this triangle we see the emphasis on political stability and economic prosperity, quite different to the post Cold War concerns involving Korea and China. The rapprochement between North and South Korea has also forced Japan to build her ties with the former. From Japan's point of view this is necessary for the building of a 'new international order,' while from North Korea's perspective this represents an opening for economic assistance from Japan. Everyone now wants a piece of the pie, even North Korea!
Moreover, during the Cold War, the US consistently supported and enhanced South Korea in its rivalry with North Korea. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the US endorsed South Korea's ambitious northern diplomacy (Nordpolitik) that was primarily designed to normalize its relations with the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe, but was also intended to ease its frozen confrontation with North Korea. During the Cold War the US regarded its military position in the Korean peninsula as a pivotal buffer to protect Japan's security interests and to counterbalance strategic ascendancy of the Soviet Union and China. According to Curtis, today "US troops serve as a buffer between the two Koreas, as a check against Japan's military expansion and as a message to China and Russia that the US will remain a Pacific power. It is the most visible evidence of the US resolve to protect US economic interests." Hence, the politics of the Korean peninsula, which have become so integral to the system of international relations in Asia can be seen in terms of a whole set of triangular interactions.
Russia
Another way in which strategic geometry is a useful concept for understanding the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system is through the disappearance and obsoleteness of some of the old triangles. Russia is such as case in point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has radically altered the face of international politics in East Asia, beginning with Gorbachev who revised three central features of post war Soviet policy in Asia by: 1. freeing it from the albatross of Sino-Soviet conflict 2. by suppressing the dominating idea of an East-West contest, shifted Soviet policy towards Japan. 3.by ending the Sino-Soviet conflict meant that China was no longer the motivation for Moscow's preoccupation with quantity and quality of arms, and hence did away with the significance of the Sino-Soviet-US triangle. "By altering Soviet priorities and by changing with whom and for what reason the Soviet Union would compete, Gorbachev brought an end to the pernicious geometry of the previous three decades. Triangles, by definition, are inherently tension filled; they are tripolarity with built in antagonism. Until, Gorbachev the quadrangle was in fact, two- perhaps-three-triangles. He terminated two triangles in which Soviet Union had a part."
In the post Cold War era, "Russia's relevance is not likely to be a factor affecting the basic equilibrium in East Asia." According to Mandlebaum, Russia and her new neighbors have become of marginal importance to the central concerns of the other three powers. The fall of communism and Russia's less intrusive role in Asia has meant that many of the old interactions and old triangles have ceased to be relevant. This power who to the greatest extent, viewed the politics of Asia in terms of strategic geometry, today, has a diminished presence, if virtually a non-existent one in the regions major strategic geometry. Asia to the Russians has become Central Asia. "The Soviet Union's security agenda whose focus divided entirely between China and US-Japanese connection, while not wholly abandoned has for the new Russia shifted dramatically towards Central Asia." Subsequently this has meant China's increased importance among East Asian states for Russia. Currently, Russia's most important ally in Asia is Kazakhstan, having taken on the role of Kazakhstan's nuclear protector (not unlike the US with Japan), but Russia also cares about internal developments within Kazakhstan and the evolution of its foreign relations, particularly with China. There maybe prospects here for a lesser regional triangle between Russia-China-Kazakhstan.
A study of the strategic geometry involving Russia today sheds light on many aspects of the shift from a Cold War to a post Cold War system. According to Mandlebaum, "the collapse of the Soviet Union has already given rise to a debate on the possibilities of a new strategic triangle involving the US, Japan and Russia." Russia's role in today's Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle is in balancing the power of both China and Japan. Russia and Japan have reversed roles in the post Cold War--Japan is now the major league player and Russia is the secondary player, buffeted by the happenings in Sino-Japanese relations. "Should the Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle revive, it will be much more dramatic than the late 19th century and Cold war versions," posits Mandlebaum. The new basis for Japan-China-Russia triangle is also to maintain a more congenial regional environment. The emphasis has shifted to stability and peace.
Today Sino-Russian bilateral relations are based on a 'constructive partnership' for accelerated economic cooperation including Russian arms sales to China and an overt 'meeting of the minds' on Central Asia. Tensions will again rise, especially since Sino-Russian competition for influence in the buffer states of inner Asia that are now emerging will be permanent. According to Mandlebaum, "we have not seen the end of their rivalry." On the other hand, is the view that neither country has much the other needs, with both looking towards Japan and America for capital. Economics is the name of the game in East Asia, and Russia looks like a minor league player to Chinese, coupled with a deep level of cultural suspicion.
On the other hand, the most crucial of the Cold War triangles, the Russia-US-China triangle seems to hold relatively little significance. However, two political games of today, might still substantiate the existence of this triangle 1.the crux of Chinese analysis-- that there is an inherent conflict between Moscow and Washington, on matters of aid and weapons build down which will provide openings for its own diplomacy 2. the weapons issue-- "the US fears China's success in skimming cream of weapons experts from Russia." The latter is a very Cold War type of concern: the issue of military strength, which continues to interlock the three major military powers.
In reference to the US-Japan-Russia triangle, the Japan-Russia part of the triangle still remains quite undeveloped.
STRATEGIC GEOMETRY
"This is the only region in the world where so many combinations and permutations of two- three and four- and even two plus four or three plus three- power games can be played on the regional chessboard with all their complexities and variations."
introduction
The concept of strategic geometry comprises the notion that that the interactions and interconnections between a number of political actors within a particular system of international relations, either global or regional can be seen in terms of geometric patterns of strategic configurations. It can be a case of simple geometry, in which A interacts with B: but in a more complex system such as that of Asia, with the presence of more than one major actor, each with their distinct, sometimes conflicting political agendas, the interaction between A and B will be likely to affect C or influenced by C.
The concept of an international 'system' itself implies that events are not random, and units within the system are interrelated in some patterned way. This 'patterning' maybe envisaged or conceptualized as patterns of strategic geometry.
Any attempt to analyze the transition from a Cold War system of international relations to a post Cold War one, will incorporate an analysis of the general nature of the system itself, in this case the system of international relations in Asia; of the actors involved and their respective roles; how changes in the political environment and in specific policies of the actors shape the evolution of a new system; and finally the nature of the new system with its own actors, their new roles, and new concerns.
The concept of strategic geometry enables us to understand these changes in the political dynamics from one system to another, in our case the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era, by serving as an analytic tool. If we view the international relations of Asia, more and the interactions of the main actors in terms of strategic configurations and geometric patterns of alignments and oppositions, then we can assess changes in the political system over time by way of the changes in the strategic geometry. Some strategic configurations change, others remain the same, while new patterns of strategic geometry appear, as the old forms dissolve--the explanations behind the shifting pattern of strategic geometry is what enables us to understand the transition from the Cold War era to the post Cold War.
Geopolitical and politico-economic factors have in some cases changed the content, but not the form of the particular strategic configurations and in some cases however, we find both form and content are changed. In my essay I will focus on this dual analysis of the content and form of the major patterns of strategic geometry and their change over time from Cold War to post Cold War. In order to assess the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry, we must first see how well the concept is expressed in the international relations of Asia. Firstly I will briefly outline the general strategic concerns or tenets of the Cold War era, the roles and interactions of the actors involved, and the major strategic geometric patterns this produced. The second part of my essay will comprise an analysis of the evolution of the system, and the tenets of the new post cold war system, drawing attention at the same time to the usefulness of the concept of strategic geometry to explain the transition.
quadrangles and triangles
One may even conceptualize pre -Cold War international relations in strategic geometric terms: the past is replete with instances of three-way interactions between Japan, China and the Soviet Union. According to Mandlebaum, the fate of the region has "for the last two centuries' depended 'on the fate of three major powers--China, Japan and Russia, on the stability and tranquillity of their mutual relations." Hence we may presume that it is not novel or unknown to apply the concept of strategic geometry to Asia and as I shall illustrate it will prove particularly useful in understanding the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War era.
Let us begin with a simpler model of strategic geometry which existed in Europe during the Cold War. From 1948 onwards, a more or less clear-cut line divided Europe into two main political and military blocs: the communist bloc and the free world of Western Europe, resulting in an almost perfect bipolarity. However, the politics in Asia during the same period were more dynamic and nuanced than just the simple East-West divide of Europe. Here, there was none of "the sharp structural clarity of Europe," no drawing of a line, no Iron Curtain; rather, there existed a more complex web of international relations, because of the physical presence of three great powers: the Soviet Union, China and Japan. And from 1945 onwards, another great power, the United States, took up a permanent political and military residence in the region. These four major powers have dominated the East Asia region both during the Cold War and continue to do so in the post- Cold War era, hence according to Mandlebaum, "the appropriate geometric metaphor was and still is the strategic quadrangle." The interactions of these four main powers-sometimes in cooperation, other times in conflict- have shaped the international relations of Asia. How this took place during and after the Cold War is in many ways quite dissimilar. However, more importantly than the all encompassing quadrangle, it is the strategic geometry within the quadrangle that is most interesting and illustrates best, the changes and nuances in the transition from Cold War to post Cold War. The interactions within the strategic quadrangle itself, have been generally of a bilateral or triangular nature. As Mandlebaum suggests "Indeed in Asia, the structure of politics all along has been more complex than the stark bipolarity of Europe. Rather than two competing systems, Asia's international order was a clutter of triangles." The triangle is the predominant strategic geometric metaphor characterizing the nature of interactions in East Asia, especially during the Cold War and to a less intense degree in the post Cold War era.
the Cold War era
The Cold War system of international relations was a geopolitical intermixing of security, ideology and the balance of power, especially military power. Everything took root from two essential conflicts: firstly, the US-Soviet opposition and secondly, from the 1970s onwards the Sino-Soviet split; and from one essential alliance: the US-Japanese partnership. Each of these bilateral alliances or oppositions affected in some way a third party. 'The most well-known and widely debated triangle being the Sino-Soviet-US grouping with at least 4 possible configurations."
One may just turn towards one actor in the system, or one player in the Strategic Quadrangle, to see the preoccupation with strategic geometry. As Mandlebaum states: "For no country more than the Soviet Union did the underlying structure of Asian international politics revolve about a complex interconnected set of triangular relationships. The most obvious and famous of the triangles linked the Soviet Union, China and the United States, but the Soviet-US- Japan triangle was also important. In addition, five others also helped to shape Soviet policy 1. Sino-Soviet -Japanese triangle 2. Sino-Soviet-North Korean triangle 3. Sino-Soviet-Vietnamese triangle 4. Soviet-Vietnamese-ASEAN triangle 5. Sino-Soviet-Indian triangle. Though from this perspective, certain things stand out. First, China's centrality: China figures in nearly all of the triangles, not even the US affected Soviet policy to this degree. Second, the full set of triangles that impeded, shaped and invigorated the policies of Gorbachev's predecessors varied greatly in importance, all of them overshadowed by the crucial Sino-Soviet-US triangle. Indeed the others owed much of their dynamic to the course of events in this main triangle." Through the 1960s, there were 4 main triangles in the Asian political arena: Soviet Union-China-North Vietnam, Soviet Union-Japan-US, Sino-Soviet-Indian- and Soviet Union-China-North Korea. In the 1970s, however this changed not only because more triangles were added, but because they included a new kind of triangle, the Sino-Soviet-US triangle.
"Normally triangles are not thought of as a stable form in social or political relationships nor as a stabilizing influence within a larger setting. The great post-war exception was the Soviet-US-Japan triangle. Relationships among the three countries scarcely changed, apart from fluctuations in US-Soviet and US-Japanese relations from time to time. Its immobility may have been the single most stabilizing element in post war Asian politics." The Soviet-Japanese-American triangle drove Soviet policy towards Japan, since the Soviets viewed Japan as a creature of American engagement in Asia. A whole series of strategic triangles were borne out of the cold war climate which make strategic geometry very useful and illuminating model to study the international relations of Asia during the period. However, our emphasis is on the usefulness of the concept for studying the 'transition' from Cold War to post Cold War. This requires an analysis of both systems, in order to assess the process of change.
the post-Cold War era: changes in the system
Today, we are in a relatively 'open' period of history, free from the polarized nature of the Cold War, yet "more than ever each of the four powers has compelling stakes in its relations with the other three. More than ever each of the four counts as a separate and independent player, none has the power or inclination to destroy the equilibrium." But what about strategic geometry? With the disappearance of the Soviet threat is it still a useful model for the study of international relations in Asia? Or is its use limited to the great power play of the Cold War? And most importantly, how can the concept of strategic geometry lend to our understanding of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia?
First, I will briefly outline the features of the transition.
The tenets of the post Cold War system seem to be the predominance of economic considerations, national welfare and stability. Mandlebaum expresses his view of the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system, when he states: "nations, including those in East Asia, crossed into a world in which they had more to bear from dangers than enemies....dangers of political, economic, and ecological disorder...the primary stakes ceased to be security, but welfare...no longer war and peace, but the vitality of societies and the dynamism of economies."
To begin with what constitutes 'power' has changed dramatically in wake of the demise of the Soviet Union. The shift from a military to an economic definition of power, from "a geopolitical to a geoeconomic axis" resulting from "wholesale change in the entire military-strategic edifice in Asia," has in its turn, produced "a radically different range of collaborations among the four major powers." Though, military concerns still warrant a significant priority, as some of today's triangles demonstrate, especially considering the presence of three out of five of the world's nuclear powers in the region. On the whole however, today's Asia is one of mutually dependent economies "where economics is the name of the game." The concept of strategic geometry has a reduced validity or maybe more aptly termed 'economic geometry.' With the rise of the Asian tigers, and Japan's status of an economic superpower, coupled with greater regionalism such as embodied by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and ASEAN, there is more diversification of power in East Asia, at least in economic terms.
Understanding the change from a Cold War to a post Cold War system also requires an understanding of the transition in terms of military power. China and Japan are the rising military powers, while Russia is a declining one. Strategic geometry very useful in assessing the transition in these terms. Instead of Japan and the US balancing Russian military power, today Japan and the US act to balance Chinese military power. I will elaborate on this issue later, in my discussion of the Japan-US-China triangle.
Democracy and prosperity, two traditional goals are back on the US agenda after the disappearance of the Soviet threat. Yet for the US, like for the others, the post Cold War is still dominated by considerations of power and wealth; fear of the first and lure of the second keeping the US engaged in East Asia.
Russia's preoccupation with internal restructuring and the rise of Central Asia has meant that Russia's role in the strategic quadrangle has become as "less of a player than a problem." Within the quadrangle, Russia has replaced the Soviet Union. "The radical revision of Russia's surroundings not only profoundly affects Russian foreign policy and therefore indirectly East Asia, but it directly affects East Asia because of the new, intervening reality of Central Asia. From the standpoint of the others, the Soviet threat is not of warfare but of diminished national and international welfare."
China's emphasis on economic modernization. China has been the least changed by the ending of the Cold War since its great shift in course came a decade earlier, at the end of 1970s which saw the development of Deng Xiaoping's program of economic reform. The post Cold War era sees China more firmly committed to a capitalist vision, with its focus on economic modernization and growth. This in turn has produced China's 'omni-directional' foreign policy. The prospects accruing from Chinese economic modernization and at the same time, the specter of Chinese growth as it affects the other powers has given rise to new forms of strategic geometry, or provided the old forms of strategic geometry with a renewed basis.
The post Cold War era is also characterized by Japan's increasingly independent stance from the United States and its attempts at greater militarization.
A major feature of the transition form a Cold War system to a post Cold War system is the reversal in roles of the major powers. China has basically become a status-quo power, the United States has become something of a revolutionary state, seeking to transform the others and mould them in its own image ( exemplified by the stress on democracy, economic liberalization, human rights ).
We also witness the reversal of Japan's and Russia's post war roles, with Russia now being the one buffeted in the goings-on between China and Japan.
Furthermore, the continental landmass of Asia, dominated by Russia and China occupies the physical and strategic core of the area, a core that has radiated its effects through the sub-regions of the Korean peninsulas, and SEA and to the surrounding archipelagos. "Today the core is weak and unsure of itself, while the periphery is solid and confident." This change in fortune from the Cold War to the post Cold War era can be seen by way of the new strategic geometry and the rise of new triangles of interactions, especially including Korea.
Hence, we see the emergence of new actors, or old ones with new powers to influence the international relations of the region, most importantly North and South Korea and the issue of their unification, and the issue of the island of Taiwan.
These myriad of changes that constitute the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in Asia; both changes in the general political climate and the changes in individual political agendas can be seen through the new and modified patterns of strategic geometry. I will focus on three such patterns: 1. the US-Japan-China triangle, where the form of the strategic geometry has stayed the same but its content has altered with a greater emphasis on economics 2. the content and form of triangles involving Russia 3. the new form and content of triangles involving Korea. An analysis of these three examples of strategic geometry in the post Cold War era will highlight the usefulness of the concept in analyzing the transition in the system from one era to the next.
the US-Japan-China triangle
An analysis of the US-Japan-China, an old triangle with new content illustrates many features of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations. During the Cold War "both Tokyo and Washington developed their China policies in part to thwart Moscow's designs towards China and Asia." The US and China no longer act together to balance Soviet power; the US-Japan alliance no longer serves as a weight against balancing the power of both China and the Soviet Union; and Japan and China do not architect their relationship in light of US policies. The US-Japan-China triangle in the post cold war era rather illustrates all three nations' concern with economic prosperity and trade: American policy of placing trade at the center of US-Japan relations; China's emphasis on economic modernization constituting the cornerstone of its foreign policy; Japan's policy of 'expanding equilibrium.' Today's US-Japan-China triangle also reveals Japan's increasingly independent stance from the US, the US's stress on democracy and human rights, the reversal of the roles of China and the US, greater China-Japan bilateralism. The game of power - the attempts at gaining military , and more importantly economic leverage for oneself and controlling that of the other powers- is still evident, despite the dissolution of a 'universal' threat. But it is only who's playing against who that has changed. So the concept of strategic geometry is still valid and applicable. "Potential competition and mutual distrust between China and Japan were it to grow into something large would replace the post war contest between the US and the Soviet Union as dominant feature of international politics in Asia." During the Cold War, US military presence in Asia served as a deterrence against the military power of the Soviet Union; in the post Cold War era, it is a form of reassurance against the rise of Chinese military power.
Relations with Japan is the most important bilateral relation Beijing has, after that with Washington. "PRC leaders see an intimate connection between their policies towards Washington and Tokyo. From Beijing's perspective there is a 'strategic triangle' in Asia (US, Japan and China) and it is Beijing's purpose to utilize that three way relationship to its advantage." Beijing seeks to use the prospect of improved political and economic ties with Japan to induce Washington to be more politically cooperative, relax sanctions and encourage more American investment. On the other hand, "Japan is the principal economic and security challenge looming in China's future." Despite greater bilateralism between Japan and China based on the economic stakes and increasing volume of trade, China still harbors a fear of Japanese economic domination and a deep distrust in general. America's capital, willingness to transfer technology and ability to restrain Japan all serve China's interests. The disappearance of the Soviet threat has undermined the stability of the US-Japanese partnership, hence the distance between Japan and US has meant that China has become all the more important to Washington. A closer security relationship between US and China would further diminish the strategic importance of Japan to the US. At the same time "China looms all the more important for Japan as US interest, presence and influence in Asia seem to diminish." This means America's differences with China over human rights issues could also drive a wedge between US-Japan relations, since Japan would not join the US in imposing trade sanctions on China, owing to its own bilateral stakes. However, "in the long run Japan's ability to counter the geopolitical challenge from China depends on maintaining a robust alliance with the US." Furthermore, in the post Cold War era, the island of Taiwan is reshaping politics of the Quadrangle, adding another dimension to the US-Japan-China triangle, since the US's ideological proclivities towards Taiwan are in opposition to Japan's economic proclivities towards the mainland. According to Peter Hayes, North East Asia is overlaid by twin informal strategic triangles: the US "has linked China and Japan in an informal security triangle, and the common hypotenuse between this great power triangle on the one hand, and the informal security triangle among South Korea, US and Japan on the other."
Korea
Another major strategic change involves the economic rise of South Korea and isolation of the North. The rise of North and South Korea as major players in the Asian political arena is emblematic of the transition from the Cold War to the post Cold War system of international relations in the region. "Korea was important to the US only as a strategic tripwire for its Japan centered extended deterrence in the region." Korea was symbolic of America's cold war resolve to draw the containment line in East Asia. Political alignment in the region vis-a-vis both Koreas is demonstrative of differences between Cold War and post Cold War. The evolution of triangles involving the two Koreas highlight the decreasing role of ideology, socialist confrere and geopolitical rivalry, and the increasing importance of stability, world order, regional peace and economic prosperity. During the Cold War there existed two basic triangles involving Korea: one comprising the US, Japan, South Korea and the other comprising North Korea, Soviet Union, China. Since 196 5 the US-Japan-South Korea triangle, as Kent Calder argues emerged as another key feature of the highly dynamic but unbalanced economic and security relations of the region. In 1993, the scenario was entirely different with the US-Japan-South Korea-China-Russia all against North Korea, owing to its forward nuclear policy.
The "rapid progress in Moscow-Seoul relations, coupled with an equally rapid decompression of Moscow-Pyongyang relations, has taken the sting out of the long festering ideological and geopolitical rivalry China, and the former Soviet Union engaged in over North Korea. The ending of Cold War bipolarity has meant the demise of not only the vaunted China card in the collapsed strategic triangle (North Korea-China -Soviet Union) but also the Pyongyang card in the old Sino-Soviet rivalry." The rapprochement between China and South Korea in 1992, as a means to establish regional peace, hinted a possible emergence of a triangular relationship with the PRC in the best position to influence the two Koreas. The increasing economic interaction between China and South Korea, a major inspiration and product of the rapprochement is coupled with North Korea's attempts at gradually adopting the South Korea model of economic development transmitted through China. Through this triangle we see the emphasis on political stability and economic prosperity, quite different to the post Cold War concerns involving Korea and China. The rapprochement between North and South Korea has also forced Japan to build her ties with the former. From Japan's point of view this is necessary for the building of a 'new international order,' while from North Korea's perspective this represents an opening for economic assistance from Japan. Everyone now wants a piece of the pie, even North Korea!
Moreover, during the Cold War, the US consistently supported and enhanced South Korea in its rivalry with North Korea. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the US endorsed South Korea's ambitious northern diplomacy (Nordpolitik) that was primarily designed to normalize its relations with the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe, but was also intended to ease its frozen confrontation with North Korea. During the Cold War the US regarded its military position in the Korean peninsula as a pivotal buffer to protect Japan's security interests and to counterbalance strategic ascendancy of the Soviet Union and China. According to Curtis, today "US troops serve as a buffer between the two Koreas, as a check against Japan's military expansion and as a message to China and Russia that the US will remain a Pacific power. It is the most visible evidence of the US resolve to protect US economic interests." Hence, the politics of the Korean peninsula, which have become so integral to the system of international relations in Asia can be seen in terms of a whole set of triangular interactions.
Russia
Another way in which strategic geometry is a useful concept for understanding the transition from a Cold War to a post Cold War system is through the disappearance and obsoleteness of some of the old triangles. Russia is such as case in point.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has radically altered the face of international politics in East Asia, beginning with Gorbachev who revised three central features of post war Soviet policy in Asia by: 1. freeing it from the albatross of Sino-Soviet conflict 2. by suppressing the dominating idea of an East-West contest, shifted Soviet policy towards Japan. 3.by ending the Sino-Soviet conflict meant that China was no longer the motivation for Moscow's preoccupation with quantity and quality of arms, and hence did away with the significance of the Sino-Soviet-US triangle. "By altering Soviet priorities and by changing with whom and for what reason the Soviet Union would compete, Gorbachev brought an end to the pernicious geometry of the previous three decades. Triangles, by definition, are inherently tension filled; they are tripolarity with built in antagonism. Until, Gorbachev the quadrangle was in fact, two- perhaps-three-triangles. He terminated two triangles in which Soviet Union had a part."
In the post Cold War era, "Russia's relevance is not likely to be a factor affecting the basic equilibrium in East Asia." According to Mandlebaum, Russia and her new neighbors have become of marginal importance to the central concerns of the other three powers. The fall of communism and Russia's less intrusive role in Asia has meant that many of the old interactions and old triangles have ceased to be relevant. This power who to the greatest extent, viewed the politics of Asia in terms of strategic geometry, today, has a diminished presence, if virtually a non-existent one in the regions major strategic geometry. Asia to the Russians has become Central Asia. "The Soviet Union's security agenda whose focus divided entirely between China and US-Japanese connection, while not wholly abandoned has for the new Russia shifted dramatically towards Central Asia." Subsequently this has meant China's increased importance among East Asian states for Russia. Currently, Russia's most important ally in Asia is Kazakhstan, having taken on the role of Kazakhstan's nuclear protector (not unlike the US with Japan), but Russia also cares about internal developments within Kazakhstan and the evolution of its foreign relations, particularly with China. There maybe prospects here for a lesser regional triangle between Russia-China-Kazakhstan.
A study of the strategic geometry involving Russia today sheds light on many aspects of the shift from a Cold War to a post Cold War system. According to Mandlebaum, "the collapse of the Soviet Union has already given rise to a debate on the possibilities of a new strategic triangle involving the US, Japan and Russia." Russia's role in today's Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle is in balancing the power of both China and Japan. Russia and Japan have reversed roles in the post Cold War--Japan is now the major league player and Russia is the secondary player, buffeted by the happenings in Sino-Japanese relations. "Should the Sino-Japanese-Russian triangle revive, it will be much more dramatic than the late 19th century and Cold war versions," posits Mandlebaum. The new basis for Japan-China-Russia triangle is also to maintain a more congenial regional environment. The emphasis has shifted to stability and peace.
Today Sino-Russian bilateral relations are based on a 'constructive partnership' for accelerated economic cooperation including Russian arms sales to China and an overt 'meeting of the minds' on Central Asia. Tensions will again rise, especially since Sino-Russian competition for influence in the buffer states of inner Asia that are now emerging will be permanent. According to Mandlebaum, "we have not seen the end of their rivalry." On the other hand, is the view that neither country has much the other needs, with both looking towards Japan and America for capital. Economics is the name of the game in East Asia, and Russia looks like a minor league player to Chinese, coupled with a deep level of cultural suspicion.
On the other hand, the most crucial of the Cold War triangles, the Russia-US-China triangle seems to hold relatively little significance. However, two political games of today, might still substantiate the existence of this triangle 1.the crux of Chinese analysis-- that there is an inherent conflict between Moscow and Washington, on matters of aid and weapons build down which will provide openings for its own diplomacy 2. the weapons issue-- "the US fears China's success in skimming cream of weapons experts from Russia." The latter is a very Cold War type of concern: the issue of military strength, which continues to interlock the three major military powers.
In reference to the US-Japan-Russia triangle, the Japan-Russia part of the triangle still remains quite undeveloped.
Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States
The Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States
Abstract: This research examines the relationship between environmental groups and the policies of the United States.
The United States political system has been historically anthropocen-tric, or human centered. Environmental groups
have been attempting to change this to a biocentric or ecocentric viewpoint, which includes the rights of animals and
the environment. These views are nature centered instead of human centered. This study will answer the question of
whether these groups have been effective at altering United States policies. This will be done through the study of
views offered by both sides. Also, a survey will be used to determine whether congressmen views are consistent with
environmentalist views. It will also present whether policy change has taken place, and if these changes have
remained intact through the study of past congressional decisions.
Research Problem
1. Research Question
Have environmental groups' strategies been successful at altering the policies of the United States?
2. Rational for the Research
This research will help environmental groups to identify the effectiveness of their strategies. This is necessary for
these groups to effectively alter the policies of the United States, which is one of the largest polluters in the world.
If their strategies are ineffective then it will be necessary for them to reassess their methods. Without the use
productive methods these groups will not be able to protect the environment. Animals, plants and the entire ecosystem
must have the same protection as humans have. An ecocentric viewpoint establishes the right of the environment to have
legal standing. This gives people the ability to defend the right of an animal to exist with the same rights as
humans. Without this protection, people will be just as negatively affected as the environment. The earth must be
thought of as a living organism, if one part is hurt then the whole planet will feel the effects. Unfortunately,
business and governments take the stance that the earth is more like a machine. That is, at times if a part is hurt it
can be repaired, without it effecting the whole system.
Literature Review
The literature on environmental groups and their influence and activities is vast. Several themes concerning the
groups' influence in changing United States policy exist. The American Psychological Association has done studies on
ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes (Thomas, 1994). Ecocentric values have arisen recently as environmental
problems have come to the public's attention. Anthropocentric values have existed much longer. They have become
institutionalized into our political and economic system.
The movement toward environmental awareness arose in the political activism in the 60's. Although these values have
recently been declining according to Finger (1993). These biocentric and anthropocentric views are also examined by
Wildes (1995). Wildes also explains the beginning of the movement in the 60's, and the number of similar theories
developed during the same era. In his study he applies neo-marxism to the relationship towards Man and Nature. By
doing this he shows how the government and industry uses the environment for its own use, often neglecting the
resulting effects.
Dodson (1995) examines if either of these opposing viewpoints offer plausible answers to current problems. Dodson
also explains how the groups interact. Through this interaction they form political policy.
Hampicke (1994) address the vulnerability of the species and ecosystems to permanent destruction. Also shown is how
conserva-tion costs are not excessive as some in our government believe.
Lichterman (1995) shows that green groups not only have problems relating towards our government, but also
multicultural obstacles. These groups must bring together several interests in order to form a unified strategy to
present to the United States government.
Environmental lobbyists have so far been unsuccessful in their efforts to amend existing environmental laws. Chemical
manufactur-ing and other industry's lobbies have been able to block their efforts. They have used promising of
campaign funding to influence Congress to support industries (Dowie, 1995).
Senator Ted Stevens opposed the building of a pipeline across Alaska's coastal plain in 1977. He pointed out the
tragic environmental costs of oil development in his home state. Now he is a part of a group of senators who are
leading efforts to roll back environmental laws (Foley, 1995).
Congress has been modifying the country's environmental policy to suit business interests during its first eight
months in power. Senator Bob Dole sponsored a risk assessment bill. This bill required that new federal human health
and safety standards be weighed against their economic costs. This bill was defeated by the Natural Resources Defense
Council lobby. Congress has also attached over fifty riders to various appropriations bills to all anti-environment
projects while minimizing public knowledge of the bills (Adams, 1995, 3). One of these riders was to a federal budget
cutting bill. This rider allowed private companies to salvage damaged trees in national lands. Other similar riders
include making it legal to consider the sale of public assets toward the reduction of the budget deficit. Another
bill passed banned the addition of more species to the Endangered Species list and allows increased logging at Tongass
National Forest (Adams, 1995, 2).
Environmental policy is positively affected by pressure from customers, shareholders, government regulations,
neighborhood groups and community groups. Although environmental policy is negatively affected by lobby pressure from
other groups. This is from empirical data from firms that have an official policy for dealing with environmental
questions (Henriques, 1996).
Tension between social equity and environmental politics has existed in the United States over the past thirty years.
This tension has existed on a social classes basis, a gender basis, a racial basis, and an economic basis. Several of
these tensions however are more perceived than real. There is a possible common grounds for these two goals (Paehlke,
1993).
Research Concepts and Hypotheses
1. Research Concepts and Variables
Change In United States policy is dependent upon the action of interest groups. These groups are only able to alter
policy if there actions are effective at promoting their cause. This can be done through the support of the people,
or the voters. It can also be done by directly lobbying Congress for the passage of a law, or lobbying to prevent a
passage of law. It is also possible to directly gain public and political attention through protests and other
actions that draw people's attention. The voting records of congressmen and their current view will be examined.
Environmental lobbying efforts will also be examined in order to conduct this research.
2. Research Propositions and Hypotheses
The United States government is anthropocentric in its attitude towards the environment. Although there was a surge
of environmental awareness in the 60's this has declined in the recent decade. Green groups have been trying to shift
this viewpoint towards a biocentric view. They are faced not only with the problem with relating to government, but
also to different cultures. With effective strategies they will be successful at influencing political decision
making. The effectiveness of their methods must be analyzed in order to ensure that what they are doing is
worthwhile.
Methodology
In order to research the effectiveness of environmental groups at altering policy of the United States government, a
close-ended questionnaire will be created. This questionnaire will be sent to congressmen. The questionnaire will
attempt to determine the congressmen's standing on different issues. These issues will be theoretical policy
choices. The policy choices will either have a biocentric standing or a anthropocentric standing. A Likert scale
will be used to determine how the congressman stands on an issue. A sample of the survey is included at the end of
this proposal.
It will also be important to determine whether the congressman is a Democrat or Republican. The state that the
congressman is from will also be important to determine. These two indicators are important because of possible
alternative influences on the congressman. Validity of the answers can be determined by comparing answers with recent
voting habits of individual respondents.
The lobbying efforts of green groups will also be studied by examining their political activities, which include
lobbying and other forms of political pressure. If there is a change in the congressmen's environmental positions
over a period of time this will need to be examined closely. The political pressure from environmental groups at the
time of change will also need to be examined.
If there has been consistent change in congressmen's views and pressure from environmental groups at that time, then
this will be considered as a positive influence by the green groups. If there is a change in policy and no pressure
from green groups is noticeable then the reasons should be deduced. The reasoning behind this change could be used to
help the environmental groups. If there has been no change in policy or policy has changed against the environment,
then the methods used by green groups will not be seen as effective. The importance of determining this is to give
the groups an opportunity to change there methods in order to be more effective.
Work Schedule
It will take about one week to prepare the survey and mailing list. After this the results should be back within four
to six weeks. While waiting for the results, the voting record of congressmen will be examined. Also during this
period, recent lobbying efforts by environmental groups will be recorded. It will then take about two more weeks to
compare the data.
References
Adams, John H. 1995. Breaking Faith. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 2.
Adams, John H. 1995. Special Report: Congress and the Environment.
Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 3.
Dodson, A. 1995. The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green
Political Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowie, Mark. 1995. Greens Outgunned. Earth Island Journal. 10, 2:
26.
Finger, Matthias. 1992. The Changing Green Movement - A
Clarification. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change. 2: 229-246.
Foley, Dana Nadel. 1995. A Congressional Sampler: Rollbacks,
Rhetoric, and Greenbacks in the World of Washington's Anti-
Greens. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 13.
Hampicke, U. 1994. Ethics and Economics of Conservation. Biology
Conservation Journal. 67, 3: 219-231.
Henriques, Irene and Perry Sadorsky. 1996. The Determinants of an
Environmentally Responsive Firm: An Empirical Approach.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30, 3:
381.
Lichterman, Paul. 1995. Piecing Together Multicultural Community:
Cultural Differences in Community Building among Grass-Roots
Environmentalists. Social Problems Journal 42, 4: 513-534.
Paehlke, Robert. 1993. Environment/Equity: Tensions in North
American Politics. Policy Studies Journal. 21, 4: 672.
Thomas, Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Journal of Social Issues. 50, 3: 65-84.
Wildes, F. T. 1995. Recent Themes in Conservation Philosophy and
Policy in the United States. Environmental Conservation
Journal. 22, 2: 143-150.
Survey
1) What is your political affiliation?
2) Which state do you represent?
Please answer the following questions in terms of (1) for strongly agree to (10) for strongly disagree.
3) Should genetic engineering be allowed to increase the production of a farm even if there is a slight risk to the
environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4) Should a nuclear power plant be allowed to be built to meet the local energy needs of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5) Should there be mandatory recycling laws even though not all areas have an existing recycling system?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6) Should residents be allowed to set thermostat readings to desired levels even though it may use more energy?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7) Should farmers be allowed to protect their livestock by hunting indigenous wild animals?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8) Should public parks be open to increased mining or logging to spur the economy of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9) Should federal laws outlawing the possession of feathers or other parts of birds of prey be strictly enforced?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10) Should industry be forced to reduce air and water pollution originating from its factories even if it means loss of employees and reduced job opportunities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11) Should the use of private automobiles be restricted in order to reduce air pollution?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12) Should the government increase taxes on products that harm the environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Abstract: This research examines the relationship between environmental groups and the policies of the United States.
The United States political system has been historically anthropocen-tric, or human centered. Environmental groups
have been attempting to change this to a biocentric or ecocentric viewpoint, which includes the rights of animals and
the environment. These views are nature centered instead of human centered. This study will answer the question of
whether these groups have been effective at altering United States policies. This will be done through the study of
views offered by both sides. Also, a survey will be used to determine whether congressmen views are consistent with
environmentalist views. It will also present whether policy change has taken place, and if these changes have
remained intact through the study of past congressional decisions.
Research Problem
1. Research Question
Have environmental groups' strategies been successful at altering the policies of the United States?
2. Rational for the Research
This research will help environmental groups to identify the effectiveness of their strategies. This is necessary for
these groups to effectively alter the policies of the United States, which is one of the largest polluters in the world.
If their strategies are ineffective then it will be necessary for them to reassess their methods. Without the use
productive methods these groups will not be able to protect the environment. Animals, plants and the entire ecosystem
must have the same protection as humans have. An ecocentric viewpoint establishes the right of the environment to have
legal standing. This gives people the ability to defend the right of an animal to exist with the same rights as
humans. Without this protection, people will be just as negatively affected as the environment. The earth must be
thought of as a living organism, if one part is hurt then the whole planet will feel the effects. Unfortunately,
business and governments take the stance that the earth is more like a machine. That is, at times if a part is hurt it
can be repaired, without it effecting the whole system.
Literature Review
The literature on environmental groups and their influence and activities is vast. Several themes concerning the
groups' influence in changing United States policy exist. The American Psychological Association has done studies on
ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes (Thomas, 1994). Ecocentric values have arisen recently as environmental
problems have come to the public's attention. Anthropocentric values have existed much longer. They have become
institutionalized into our political and economic system.
The movement toward environmental awareness arose in the political activism in the 60's. Although these values have
recently been declining according to Finger (1993). These biocentric and anthropocentric views are also examined by
Wildes (1995). Wildes also explains the beginning of the movement in the 60's, and the number of similar theories
developed during the same era. In his study he applies neo-marxism to the relationship towards Man and Nature. By
doing this he shows how the government and industry uses the environment for its own use, often neglecting the
resulting effects.
Dodson (1995) examines if either of these opposing viewpoints offer plausible answers to current problems. Dodson
also explains how the groups interact. Through this interaction they form political policy.
Hampicke (1994) address the vulnerability of the species and ecosystems to permanent destruction. Also shown is how
conserva-tion costs are not excessive as some in our government believe.
Lichterman (1995) shows that green groups not only have problems relating towards our government, but also
multicultural obstacles. These groups must bring together several interests in order to form a unified strategy to
present to the United States government.
Environmental lobbyists have so far been unsuccessful in their efforts to amend existing environmental laws. Chemical
manufactur-ing and other industry's lobbies have been able to block their efforts. They have used promising of
campaign funding to influence Congress to support industries (Dowie, 1995).
Senator Ted Stevens opposed the building of a pipeline across Alaska's coastal plain in 1977. He pointed out the
tragic environmental costs of oil development in his home state. Now he is a part of a group of senators who are
leading efforts to roll back environmental laws (Foley, 1995).
Congress has been modifying the country's environmental policy to suit business interests during its first eight
months in power. Senator Bob Dole sponsored a risk assessment bill. This bill required that new federal human health
and safety standards be weighed against their economic costs. This bill was defeated by the Natural Resources Defense
Council lobby. Congress has also attached over fifty riders to various appropriations bills to all anti-environment
projects while minimizing public knowledge of the bills (Adams, 1995, 3). One of these riders was to a federal budget
cutting bill. This rider allowed private companies to salvage damaged trees in national lands. Other similar riders
include making it legal to consider the sale of public assets toward the reduction of the budget deficit. Another
bill passed banned the addition of more species to the Endangered Species list and allows increased logging at Tongass
National Forest (Adams, 1995, 2).
Environmental policy is positively affected by pressure from customers, shareholders, government regulations,
neighborhood groups and community groups. Although environmental policy is negatively affected by lobby pressure from
other groups. This is from empirical data from firms that have an official policy for dealing with environmental
questions (Henriques, 1996).
Tension between social equity and environmental politics has existed in the United States over the past thirty years.
This tension has existed on a social classes basis, a gender basis, a racial basis, and an economic basis. Several of
these tensions however are more perceived than real. There is a possible common grounds for these two goals (Paehlke,
1993).
Research Concepts and Hypotheses
1. Research Concepts and Variables
Change In United States policy is dependent upon the action of interest groups. These groups are only able to alter
policy if there actions are effective at promoting their cause. This can be done through the support of the people,
or the voters. It can also be done by directly lobbying Congress for the passage of a law, or lobbying to prevent a
passage of law. It is also possible to directly gain public and political attention through protests and other
actions that draw people's attention. The voting records of congressmen and their current view will be examined.
Environmental lobbying efforts will also be examined in order to conduct this research.
2. Research Propositions and Hypotheses
The United States government is anthropocentric in its attitude towards the environment. Although there was a surge
of environmental awareness in the 60's this has declined in the recent decade. Green groups have been trying to shift
this viewpoint towards a biocentric view. They are faced not only with the problem with relating to government, but
also to different cultures. With effective strategies they will be successful at influencing political decision
making. The effectiveness of their methods must be analyzed in order to ensure that what they are doing is
worthwhile.
Methodology
In order to research the effectiveness of environmental groups at altering policy of the United States government, a
close-ended questionnaire will be created. This questionnaire will be sent to congressmen. The questionnaire will
attempt to determine the congressmen's standing on different issues. These issues will be theoretical policy
choices. The policy choices will either have a biocentric standing or a anthropocentric standing. A Likert scale
will be used to determine how the congressman stands on an issue. A sample of the survey is included at the end of
this proposal.
It will also be important to determine whether the congressman is a Democrat or Republican. The state that the
congressman is from will also be important to determine. These two indicators are important because of possible
alternative influences on the congressman. Validity of the answers can be determined by comparing answers with recent
voting habits of individual respondents.
The lobbying efforts of green groups will also be studied by examining their political activities, which include
lobbying and other forms of political pressure. If there is a change in the congressmen's environmental positions
over a period of time this will need to be examined closely. The political pressure from environmental groups at the
time of change will also need to be examined.
If there has been consistent change in congressmen's views and pressure from environmental groups at that time, then
this will be considered as a positive influence by the green groups. If there is a change in policy and no pressure
from green groups is noticeable then the reasons should be deduced. The reasoning behind this change could be used to
help the environmental groups. If there has been no change in policy or policy has changed against the environment,
then the methods used by green groups will not be seen as effective. The importance of determining this is to give
the groups an opportunity to change there methods in order to be more effective.
Work Schedule
It will take about one week to prepare the survey and mailing list. After this the results should be back within four
to six weeks. While waiting for the results, the voting record of congressmen will be examined. Also during this
period, recent lobbying efforts by environmental groups will be recorded. It will then take about two more weeks to
compare the data.
References
Adams, John H. 1995. Breaking Faith. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 2.
Adams, John H. 1995. Special Report: Congress and the Environment.
Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 3.
Dodson, A. 1995. The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green
Political Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowie, Mark. 1995. Greens Outgunned. Earth Island Journal. 10, 2:
26.
Finger, Matthias. 1992. The Changing Green Movement - A
Clarification. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change. 2: 229-246.
Foley, Dana Nadel. 1995. A Congressional Sampler: Rollbacks,
Rhetoric, and Greenbacks in the World of Washington's Anti-
Greens. Amicus Journal. 17, 3: 13.
Hampicke, U. 1994. Ethics and Economics of Conservation. Biology
Conservation Journal. 67, 3: 219-231.
Henriques, Irene and Perry Sadorsky. 1996. The Determinants of an
Environmentally Responsive Firm: An Empirical Approach.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30, 3:
381.
Lichterman, Paul. 1995. Piecing Together Multicultural Community:
Cultural Differences in Community Building among Grass-Roots
Environmentalists. Social Problems Journal 42, 4: 513-534.
Paehlke, Robert. 1993. Environment/Equity: Tensions in North
American Politics. Policy Studies Journal. 21, 4: 672.
Thomas, Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Journal of Social Issues. 50, 3: 65-84.
Wildes, F. T. 1995. Recent Themes in Conservation Philosophy and
Policy in the United States. Environmental Conservation
Journal. 22, 2: 143-150.
Survey
1) What is your political affiliation?
2) Which state do you represent?
Please answer the following questions in terms of (1) for strongly agree to (10) for strongly disagree.
3) Should genetic engineering be allowed to increase the production of a farm even if there is a slight risk to the
environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4) Should a nuclear power plant be allowed to be built to meet the local energy needs of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5) Should there be mandatory recycling laws even though not all areas have an existing recycling system?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6) Should residents be allowed to set thermostat readings to desired levels even though it may use more energy?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7) Should farmers be allowed to protect their livestock by hunting indigenous wild animals?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8) Should public parks be open to increased mining or logging to spur the economy of an area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9) Should federal laws outlawing the possession of feathers or other parts of birds of prey be strictly enforced?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10) Should industry be forced to reduce air and water pollution originating from its factories even if it means loss of employees and reduced job opportunities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11) Should the use of private automobiles be restricted in order to reduce air pollution?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12) Should the government increase taxes on products that harm the environment?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)