EXAMS

Whew. What a week. Actually, I should say 16 weeks. My examinations are over, meaning my taught part of the MPhil program is complete. On Friday morning I went in for my final "invigilated exam" at the University of Cambridge. Ever.

A little background: University of Cambridge has a very different methodology from the American system that most readers here are used to. Instead of the semesters being divided up with mid-terms, finals, and papers, the course simply runs through until the end at which time there is one, final, comprehensive exam, for each course. Each exam is invigilated by an "invigilator" who shows up in his black cambridge robe, a testament to the fact that Cambridge is still knee-deep in tradition. And what do we do? Just write. Write on 2 topics over a course of three hours, an exception being international law, where we had to write in brief-style format on one topic in three hours.

So Monday was nearly upon me, and several of my housemates were saying "Oh, you are so lucky, I wish I could have my exams already" (as the IR exams are earlier than some of the others), and I wanted to react by doing this: (100% disclosure, copied from Tori's blog, because this brought me more of a laugh this week than anything else).

Monday came though, and the sun was shining. I never knew how much the sun affected me until this year. So I went on a morning run to clear my head, and then headed to my first exam on Middle East and North African Politics. I want to comment on my courses and post the questions for you all because I think that the topics are relevant for today, particularly in regards to formulating U.S. Foreign Policy and considering how the Middle East can and should be approached from a U.S., or even simply "Western", perspective. There is not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" answer, but they do provoke thought and although they were exam questions for me, I think they are questions that everyone interested in these subject areas should be asking.

1) Is the Middle East a regional system or are sub-regional relationships more important in explaining events since independence?

What I think: I know this question looks really broad and generic, but it is actually very valid, and relevant. The policies of the GCC, particularly Saudi Arabia, in contrast to say, Iran, really demonstrates the struggle for hegemonic power going on within the Middle East itself. Policies of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are directly influenced by the Arab-Israeli Conflict, in particular since the aftermath of the 1967 war, while the Gulf's policy is much more focused on economic development and resources, namely, oil. This also explains the forms of government in the region and why they are the way they are (And also why ideas like pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism fail. The Middle East is, by no stretch of the imagination, one homogenous entity and should not be treated as such.)

2) Is the "Shi'a arc of extremism" a useful conceptual tool in analysing Iran's relations with Europe and the United States?

What I think: Answered simply, no. If we have learned anything from boxing Iran into the "Axis of Evil" and subsequently (though not necessarily directly related), their belligerent behavior, it is that we are too quick to box Iran into the "Extremist" camp. An Islamic Republic does not equate to an Extremist camp, and Iran's behavior is more likely a reflection of Iran vying for hegemony in the region rather than a reflection of a growing Shi'a alliance, bent towards extremism, in the Middle East. They want legitimacy and among other things, are searching for that through the development of nuclear power. This is not my endorsement of such behavior, but it is me saying that marginalizing Iran using broad generalizations is not useful in moving forward.

*An interesting argument that takes this further is from Time Magazine in December 2009, where Obama's Iran policy (linked to Afghanistan) could be paralleled to Nixon's China policy (linked to Vietnam, the Cold War and containment). Here is the Article.

Exam two came straight after, International Security on Tuesday morning. This is where I have to give credit to two phenomenal IR professors I had at the University of Utah, Adam Luedtke (my senior thesis advisor), and Steven Lobell. It was knowledge gained back in their courses that, at least partially, carried me through this exam as this course, in particular, lacked in structure and theory. Throughout the year, our seminars were like coffee shop conversations more than structured dialog on the security topics. That said, it was still useful to see a more constructivist, British approach, to IR.

1) 'A nation is a society responding as a unit. What is it that gives a society this national unity? The answer is common norms... The key, therefore, to the understanding of any nation and to the specification of those of its properties which will determine its international relations is to be found when the major common norms of its people are determined.' (FSC Northrop). How are such norms passed on from one generation to another, and what other factors decide a nation's security policy?

So, more than anything, I wish that I could have questioned this statement by Northrop. I do not agree that when a nation is responding as a unit, it is necessarily a reflection of the common norms of a society. This is a very, very, constructivist statement, and by providing that as an uncontested assertion to discuss in the exam, it proves how constructivist the thinking is here at Cambridge (whereas in America, there is still a strong Realist dominance in IR). That said, I do agree with the latter portion of this quotation that emphasizes the need to recognize another nation's norms (or culture, identity, politics) in determining foreign policy. Iraq and Afghanistan are the most recent examples where much more of this could, and should have been, taken into consideration, rather than merely looking at strategic advantages.

2) 'Most important amongst these principles and guidelines [for UN peacekeeping] are respect for the sovereignty of the State, non-interference in matters under the jurisdiction of a State and the requirement of consent of all concerned parties for such operations.' (Indian submission to the UN, 1993) Is effective peacekeeping possible under these constraints?

Well, thank you Dr. Weller from international law for providing the base to answer this question. What I believe, is that if UN Peacekeeping missions are not fundamentally set on the principle of territorial integrity (a founding principle of the UN Charter), then effectiveness will be inhibited. That said, there are a lot of factors that contribute to peacekeeping ineffectiveness, and until those are addressed, of course this will also serve as an additional constraint. (Get ready for more peackeeping posts, as my dissertation is going to tackle this issue at great depth).

After a couple of days of break, and some assistant from my legal experts across the pond on how to write a brief (aka dad and tori), I went into my Friday law exam ready to just be done. This exam provided some humor. Our course instructor also showed up in his gown (and can I say this is also the man who is the main lawyer for Kosovo, has a grandfather clock, espresso machine and china tea cups in his office and offers such a cup, and a cookie, to every student who sits in one of his 19th century leather chairs). Quite the character.

The case I chose to write on was regarding the legality of use of force, which, in international law, can only be legally justified by a question of self-defense (an armed attack), or a matter of collective security (via a UN Ch. VII resolution). It was basically a combination of the first and second Gulf Wars and since it was not explicitly a "real case", he changed the names.

So, we were dealing with "Imak's" invasion of "Kumwait" and "Kumait's" response aided by the "United Mates". I had to write a speech to the UN regarding the legality of maximum use of force, on behalf of Secretary of State "Hillary Minton." I was definitely not the only person laughing as I read through the question, and appreciated that in what was most definitely the most difficult exam of the week, that Dr. Weller could provide us with a little humor to ease up the tension and nerves.

And so it was, 9 hours of examinations, 16 weeks of course and seminars, and my course-work at Cambridge is complete. In celebration of the end, I invited all the students from the ward and a couple of housemates over for an "Afternoon Tea" celebration, which was really root-beer floats complemented by Heather's delicious homemade banana bread cupcakes. I needed something American in celebration of surviving the system, and root beer definitely fit the bill (and is also more baby-friendly than, say, a pint of guinness :) The brits loved them too..