Well, after logging thousands of miles on skymiles, experiencing every major delta hub in the US of A, and getting 2 brand new flight itineraries, I am back in Cambridge.
The reason for my trips to the USA in April was because I was checking out schools in a last attempt to glean a little insight and feeling as to where I should go to law school this coming fall. In the end, the decision was a lot easier than I ever imagined it would be.
Although Boston is a beautiful city, and I know if I went to Harvard I could make it work and be just fine, I felt that Stanford was a better fit. There is a big difference between the east and west in America, something that I have become acutely aware of since being here in Cambridge and meeting hardly anyone from west of the Mississippi. Not only is the land different, but the ideology, the outlook on life, the people, and the idea that you can try just about anything once -- you may fail, but at least you can give it a try. Its that expanding westward/frontier mentality, I suppose, and I miss it. I am ready to go back for a while.
I am certainly sounding like a sentimental Stegnarian right now. Perhaps I am one.
Coming back to Cambridge was in itself a wonderful thing. I came back to warm weather and everything in full bloom. The city is alive again! One benefit of having a dreary winter is that you come to appreciate the sight and smell of living things much more. Everything is green, and the tree outside my window is now providing shade and cover from the road. In the three weeks that I was gone, Cambridge transformed into one of the most beautiful places and I realized, these last two months are going to go too fast. I am going to miss it.
Currently knee-deep in research (literally, I have books stacked) and I am loving it. I have picked up a couple of books for my work that I think are also interesting and relevant for the "general public" to read. They are two books that were actually juxtaposed and reviewed in one of last year's Foreign Affairs, but I just happened to get them together at the same point and then realized this connection. The first is "In the Graveyard of Empires" by Seth. G. Jones. He gives a history of Afghanistan, rather brief, and then dives deep into the issue of why outside forces always seem to lose Afghanistan, and subsequently lies out an outline for success. David Kilcullen, one of the modern counter-insurgency theorists, wrote a book "The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting small wars in the midst of a big one." He talks a lot about how the insurgent becomes an insurgent -- accidentally. When we infiltrate individuals' territory, they inherently respond defensively and thus become part of the fighting insurgency. Kilcullen is quoted as saying at one point, " If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys - a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the movement, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that the same thing that drives me, you know?" He has served as senior advisor to General David Petraeus and been the chief counterterrorism strategist for the State Department. Needless to say, this guy has the credentials to back up what he says. Highly recommend these books if you are interested at all in a little more Afghanistan/strategy reading!
Finally, and the total flip-side of the arguments presented in these two books, I ran across an article the other day written by a friend of a friend (is that a fair connection to make? I only do it because it was this friend who initially sent it to me).
Titled "Are we losing Afghanistan?" He makes a fair argument about the host of troubles when a deadline is set, and the general population is aware of this. How can we expect these local populations to fundamentally change their allegiances when we are telling them that we will be gone in another year? Food for thought.
when the temperature is warm enough, and the sun is out, it means I can dry my laundry outside. this is also the telltale sign that spring is here. finally!
First time out of Cambridge since I've been back, and I went with a friend from church to London for the day. We went to Burrough Market, up to the top of St. Paul's, walked around St. James' Park and up to Buckingham and then walked down to Knightsbridge, went into Harrod's, and finished the day with a dinner at Whole Foods Market (the flagship one of Europe!!)
Turkish Baklava/Delight Stand. They were aggressive yesterday.
Brady gives a thumbs up to the 300+ steps to the top.
Self-explanatory.
The London Eye
Outside Buckingham Palace
Yep. This is in the middle of the city.
And another.
Millennium Bridge
This... is cheese.
Harvard, anyone? John Harvard's special prayer room at Southwark Cathedral.
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..
The United States, a nation of 300 million, won nine gold medals this year in the Winter Olympics. Norway, a nation of 4.7 million, also won nine. This was no anomaly. Over the years, Norwegians have won more gold medals in Winter Games, and more Winter Olympics medals over all, than people from any other nation.
There must be many reasons for Norway’s excellence, but some of them are probably embedded in the story of Jan Baalsrud.
In 1943, Baalsrud was a young instrument maker who was asked to sneak back into Norway to help the anti-Nazi resistance.
His mission, described in the book “We Die Alone” by David Howarth, was betrayed. His boat was shelled by German troops. Baalsrud dove into the ice-covered waters and swam, with bullets flying around him, toward an island off the Norwegian coast. The rest of his party was killed on the spot, or captured and eventually executed, but Baalsrud made it to the beach and started climbing an icy mountain. He was chased by Nazis, and he killed one officer.
He was hunted by about 50 Germans and left a trail in the deep snow. He’d lost one boot and sock, and he was bleeding from where his big toe had been shot off. He scrambled across the island and swam successively across the icy sound to two other islands. On the second, he lay dying of cold and exhaustion on the beach.
Two girls found and led him to their home. And this is the core of the story. During the next months, dozens of Norwegians helped Baalsrud get across to Sweden. Flouting any sense of rational cost-benefit analysis, families and whole villages risked their lives to help one gravely ill man, who happened to drop into their midst.
Baalsrud was clothed and fed and rowed to another island. He showed up at other houses and was taken in. He began walking across the mountain ranges on that island in the general direction of the mainland, hikes of 24, 13 and 28 hours without break.
A 72-year-old man rowed him the final 10 miles to the mainland, past German positions, and gave him skis. Up in the mountains, he skied through severe winter storms. One night, he started an avalanche. He fell at least 300 feet, smashed his skis and suffered a severe concussion. His body was buried in snow, but his head was sticking out. He lost sense of time and self-possession. He was blind, the snow having scorched the retinas of his eyes.
He wandered aimlessly for four days, plagued by hallucinations. At one point he thought he had found a trail, but he was only following his own footsteps in a small circle.
Finally, he stumbled upon a cottage. A man named Marius Gronvold took him in. He treated Baalsrud’s frostbite and hid him in a remote shed across a lake to recover.
He was alone for a week (a storm made it impossible for anyone to reach him). Gangrene invaded his legs. He stabbed them to drain the pus and blood. His eyesight recovered, but the pain was excruciating and he was starving.
Baalsrud could no longer walk, so Gronvold and friends built a sled. They carried the sled and him up a 3,000-foot mountain in the middle of a winter storm and across a frozen plateau to where another party was supposed to meet them. The other men weren’t there, and Gronvold was compelled to leave Baalsrud in a hole in the ice under a boulder.
The other party missed the rendezvous because of a blizzard, and by the time they got there, days later, the tracks were covered and they could find no sign of him. A week later, Gronvold went up to retrieve Baalsrud’s body and was astonished to find him barely alive. Baalsrud spent the next 20 days in a sleeping bag immobilized in the snow, sporadically supplied by Gronvold and others.
Over the next weeks, groups of men tried to drag him to Sweden but were driven back, and they had to shelter him again in holes in the ice. Baalsrud cut off his remaining toes with a penknife to save his feet. Tired of risking more Norwegian lives, he also attempted suicide.
Finally, he was awoken by the sound of snorting reindeer. A group of Laps had arrived, and under German fire, they dragged him to Sweden.
This astonishing story could only take place in a country where people are skilled on skis and in winter conditions. But there also is an interesting form of social capital on display. It’s a mixture of softness and hardness. Baalsrud was kept alive thanks to a serial outpouring of love and nurturing. At the same time, he and his rescuers displayed an unbelievable level of hardheaded toughness and resilience. That’s a cultural cocktail bound to produce achievement in many spheres.
"Cambridge England. It's a city of crocuses and daffodils on the Backs, of green open spaces and cattle grazing only 500 yards from the market square... The Cambridge of Brooke, Byron, Newton and Rutherford, of the summer idyll of punts, 'bumps', cool willows and May Balls."
