Nur Google es….?

When was the last time you used gooogle? When was the last time you were in Europe? When was the last time you used google, while you were in Europe? As an article on the New York Times has pointed out (Click Article), if you were in Europe and wanted to used your g-mail account, you might never get to! In summary of the article, google attempted to gain full control of the “gmail” trademark against other companies, such as electronic postal service ran by  Daniel Giersch, a “German venture capitalist” which delivered from Germany to Switzerland. Gmail, which stands for “Giersch mail,” was chosen by it’s company a few months before google but google states otherwise. The lawsuit claim that the  Swiss trademark officials did not check to see if there were any other names like “gmail” but simply they did it and waited for others to find out. Thought google lost the law suit, the European Union said that it would affect business for google. There were others of the same name as well such as the Polish organization, Grupa Mlodych Artystow i Literatow or Group of Young Artists and Writers, but as they argued : “We bought the name legally, with our own money,” she said. “Nobody gave it to us for free. We refuse to be deprived of what we consider is our property.”  The European Union has also denied google from registering its name across others of its members, but claims that it still wouldn’t effect google’s business.

How i view this is that, when business is at hand, it stimulates international relations. Even though there are lawsuits between companies of the US and Europe nations, all the nations involved are connected economically and thus share a common interest in communicating well with eachother, in pursuit of not ruining business. When we see such organization like google, the “search giant,” we can see that America has its influence not only through its military but also by its culture and productions.

Made from China

In a recent article on the New York Times, there was an article about the European Union imposing anti-dumping tariffs on the imports from shoe industries in China and Vietnam. To see the site click on NYTimes.

In economics, two theories that stand out are capitalism and Keynesianism and while reading this article the two theories seem to be working hand in hand. Capitalism is basically the work of the market itself with out outside, governmental control. It is the core to Adam Smith’s invisible hand principle, where the greatest benefit to society is  having individuals act freely in competitive markets, pursuing their own self-interest. While on the other hand, Keynesian theorists argue that there must be governmental involvement alongside the markets. Keynesianism states that governments must get involved in issuing monetary and fiscal programs designed to increase employment and stimulate business activity. By imposing its tariffs, the EU is practicing both theories as it is protecting the competition the markets have with one another in Europe by using governmental power.

Because European domestic markets were losing in competition due to the foreign shoe industries having advantageous subsidies, the European Union issued these tariffs to protect their markets. China being one of the greatest economies in the world has already faced many other tariffs due to their “dumping” of productions into other nations, such as when the US posed tariffs on their clothing industries, which caused much debate between the two nations. When was the last time you saw a “Made From China” mark on your things? How I view this is that, China international power comes from their capability in the world market, besides the fact that they have a grand army and population. By imposing these tariffs, the European Union is protecting its market’s and itself from the economy driven super power.

EU and Global Warming

We have all heard of the problematic issue of Global warming and how Global Warming will contribute to catastrophic weather in the future. It was never really publicized as a great problem until researchers have found that our consumerism was consuming us.  From public displays to policy making, global warming has become a world wide issue. For the EU and many other nations though, global warming will be put on a halt as they all try to lower carbon emissions by setting future goals.

In the article found on USAtoday (Click here.), we see that the EU is planning to lower it’s greenhouse gas emissions by ten percent by 2020, currently at two percent. The article  also announces some goals on spreading awareness on these goals and the problems of global warming. Al Gore, former vice president and the author of An Inconvenient Truth,  has a significant role in the matter and has also announced that there will be concert held across the world with over 100 performers on making aware the issue of Global warming.

More and more do we learn of the on-going issue of global warming, while no one really knows for sure if global warming is really as catastrophic as it sounds. There are other theories as of why the earth might be getting warming in opposition of global warming such as that the world is in a cycle- we are now in the warming cycle, the ice age as being the cooling cycle. There are other issues such as global dimming, where pollutants in the air are actually good for us in the sense that it creates clouds in which would give rain to warmer areas plagued by famine because of the dry seasons.  Global warming is for sure a problem in which the EU has been trying to help solve as we can already see that much of the power provided in Europe is done by nuclear power and wind turbines. Alternative and renewable energy sources have become big factors in the technological and energy-dependant world we live in. As one commercial has put it, global warming doesn’t affect us it affects our children.

EU and the CIA

In USA today there was an article that striked many members of the European Union as colluding with CIA. It undermined the CIA’s motives even if they were for a positive cause, ultimately blaming the secret prisons in Europe on the United States. (To be directed to the article, click here.)

Many members of the EU who knew about these secret prision and the abducted suspects were said to have given the “blind eye” to the CIA’s proceedings, which violated EU human rights standards. The report says that the guilty parties will be identified and condemned along with other secret services, though there isn’t yet enough direct proof for the accusations.

The article shows how things are really ran in the world and it’s leading powers. Though every is (supposedly) binded by the law, when reading this article, it shows us how sometimes these laws are put aside during times of war and danger. In a episode of 24, one of the greatest hits shows in America, there was a scene where the president reminded his cabinet of how they should never put aside the laws that governed them. Many of the cabinet members wanted the president to signed a plan that would lead to a “more aggressive” technique on solving their battle agaisnt the terrorist in the United States by ravaging the homes of suspected terrorists. Though seemingly overwhelmed,  Wayne Palmer stands strong with his belief in the American Constitution and talks with his cabinet and reminding them that eventhough they might think the constitution doesn’t apply during times of danger, it was not the intention of the Founders when it was created. The report real or not definitely shows the connection with this scene and the real world. The CIA was shown as being able to seemingly work under the eyes of the world, protected by the barriers against the laws for which they can undergo anything.

“Islamophobia?”

Islamophobia which is used in decribing the the prejudice against Muslims. Especially in the European Union, there has been a rise in Islamophobia in which muslims are violently attacked and discriminated against in society. Why are they treated this way? In summary, it is increasingly due to the war and the bombings in the Middle East, showing how misconceptions lead to racism and crimes. ( To be directed to the article click here.)

When we look at this article it can make us see how racism is still alive in the world, much more than we think. This is a perfect example of how war affects us externally (ie costs, deaths, destruction) but also internally (ie hatred, prejudice, racism). Because of the “War on Terrorism,” many view people of middle eastern attributes are considered a terrorist. In popular movies to insensitive jokes, these people has now become the image of what we call terrorist. It may be funny to an audience while sitted comfortably in a chair, shrugging comments off with laughter but in the real world, we can see that these people who are accused of being terrorist are faced with violent threats. In American history, we saw how people with African attributes were referred to the “N” word or “slaves” even after the civil war. We saw how japenese were placed in interment camps. We saw how our own American’s were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers. All of these which shows how racism contributed to the catagorization of people. Thus how can we find a resolution so that for our generations to come, children will not refer to middle-easterners to terrorists? There really isn’t a real solution to this question, but slowing down on the racist slurs would a be a good start.

We can see that the European Union has already been urging authorities to tighten enforcement on policies agaisnt Islamophobia and provide for muslim cultural and religious institutions but as said in the article “The key word is ‘respect’…People need to feel respected and included.”

Nuclear Proliferation is BAD.

This blog will be used as a response to another blog by globalizedworld. To see the blog, click here.  

In summary the author’s argument is that nuclear proliferation is good because it creates a balance of power in which by the realist and constructivist view, the UN and US are making the wrong thing in issueing sanctions on Iran.

From a realist point of view, nuclear proliferation is good in ensuring that there is a balance of (nuclear) power. But as we have learn in class, realist’s only view towards peace is states striving for a balance of power, which balance of power really leads no where when we look at the short-comings of the realist thoery. By using the example of state A (US) vs state B (Iran), we can see how in realist theory as state A and B builds up their security one state will feel the tension to build more security in turn the other state will also act accordingly. It becomes a ladder of both state never really achieving a balance of power. So if nuclear proliferation is good in that it helps create a balance of power, we will never see it to be achieve.

Since by constructivist theory, Iran’s nuclear proliferation is more threatening than Britain’s, the idea would be that the US should not trust Iran and thus place sanctions to their nuclear enrichment plans. This view is not the view to be agreed upon but rather when we really look into the situation at hand, the constructivist theory doesn’t link to the current situation.  So in response to the claim that “Iran needs to build nuclear weapons because of the looming threat posed by the majority of the world,” I would have disagree most definitely.  Because Iran has been targeted as a center figure in funding for terrorist groups, why shouldn’t Iran be seen as a threat when they have access to nuclear power. Not to say that they shouldn’t have any access to enrichment programs but as of the current situation “the process can lead to making nuclear fuel for power plants, or for nuclear weapons if the uranium is enriched to higher levels” (nytimes). 

By all means I believe that Iran should be recognized in the world, but because of the our current situation of war, their means of furthering nuclear enrichment can be seen as a greater threat. Therefore, I believe that the UN and the US is doing the right thing because for a certainty, no one would ever want to see threats of a nuclear war.

The French Do

Who cares about international relations? On the new york times today, there is a report on President Jacques Chirac giving his views on the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/world/europe/02france.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

In summary, Mr. Chirac is retracting what he said earliar about Iran’s nuclear intentions by stating that the French will “remained committed to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.”

What Mr. Chirac said was that, even if Iran was to have one or two nuclear bombs – which is unsure of if they really do – it was no big threat at all. Who would they bomb? Isreal? What he meant was that, even if they did try to bomb another country, the whole entire region of Tehran would be “razed” before the bomb/missle is 200 meters in the sky.

Offensive or strange as it might have been, reports have also said that Mr. Chirack recently “suffered a neurological episode in 2005″ which have made him “much less precise in conversation.”

How I view this was that though Mr. Chirac might have been right with his claim that as soon as Iran uses its nuclear power – not to say that Iran does or does not have nuclear weapons – many of the world powers will react firmly on punishing Iran, this such risk should not be taken. What the problem really is, isn’t nuclear weapons but “nuclear proliferation.” I see this as the bigger concern and thus nations should be more concern with what Iran is trying to make of their increasing uranium rather than debate on wheater or not Iran does have any nuclear weapons at all.  What we certainly do not need is further threats of Iran advancing their technology in nuclear weaponry and assisting terrorist groups in a nuclear war. An extreme arguement but how i see it, America along with many countries, including France, has been doing the right thing in demanding that Iran discontinue it’s nuclear enrichment programs allegedly for the production of electricity.

 To quote the man who urge President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on advancing the study of nuclear fission for military purposes during WWII, Albert Einstein once said:

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”