The Greatest Threat to US Power - Week 15 Post Class Post

This week’s class discussion about the greatest threat to US power was fun and interesting. All four groups did a great job identifying real threats and reason why the threats they chose would be indeed the greatest to US power. However, I think that both the breakdown of the liberal order and climate change are the greatest threats to US power.

The liberal order has brought peace and stability to the post-WW II world as well as prosperity. As the group has mentioned in their opening statement, a collapse of the liberal order would cause immense damage to the US economy as well as its diplomatic power. The US cannot afford a breakdown of the liberal order because it needs the cooperation of other states in order to tackle global issues like climate change, infectious diseases, terrorism, and transnational organized crime (Joseph S Nye 2016). Unfortunately, President-elect Trump questions this order and wants to remove international agreements, including free trade agreements like NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP, for example.

Climate change is very often ignored, trivialized or even ridiculed, including by the incoming administration. Not only has Donald Trump publicly played it down by saying that a focus on climate change as a bigger threat to US power than ISIS is the dumbest thing ever said, but also other members of the republican party like Senator Ted Cruz even ridicule the idea of climate change as a bigger threat by saying “that driving an SUV is a bigger threat than the Islamic state” (Keith Johnson 2016). This is really scary because it sounds like the incoming administration is going to put climate change on the backburner again. However, as the climate change group stressed in their opening statement and rebuttal, the US cannot afford to put climate change on the backburner.

The breakdown of the liberal order and climate change both pose the greatest threats to US power. However, the breakdown of the liberal order poses a greater threat in the short run. Climate change, on the other hand, poses a greater threat in the long run if the incoming administration is not willing to accept climate change as an existential threat to the US and the whole world, and is not willing to address it.

I wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Good luck with the degree!

References

Johnson, Keith. 2016. “Obama Says Climate Change is a Security Risk. Why Are Republicans Laughing?” Foreign Policy March 21, 2016. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/21/obama-says-climate-change-is-a-security-risk-why-are-republicans-laughing/

Nye, Joseph S, Jr. 2016. “Will the Liberal Order Survive?” Foreign Affairs. Accessed December 15, 2016. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-12/will-liberal-order-survive

Debate Reflection: Greatest threat to US Power (Week 15)

Debating the greatest threat to US power was a wonderful final assignment for this class. I liked it because it not only applied the international relations theory, structure and influence that we discussed all semester but it also made us separate our thoughts into what uniquely threatens the US. 

While the two debates groups were paired well considering their topics, I think team "Climate Change" (team 1) had the most concrete reasons guiding their argument and was the most convincing. However, I don't think anybody would argue that team "Breakdown of Liberal Order" (team 4) is indeed the greatest threat to US Power. 

Team 4 did a wonderful job of praising their opponent's argument as well as an excellent job of detailing how the liberal order has supported the current power of the US. They outlined how each piece of the current system both benefits the US and strategically places the US in a place of influence over countries around the world. However, an argument claiming that changing such a system will diminish the power of the US is akin to saying that a fashion designer changing their style of clothes is bound to end up with an ugly new fashion style. In reality, people change their clothes styles all the time and usually get a better sense of what style benefits their body type, lifestyle and comfort with every change. Of course, not every attempt is a success, but most humans have been changing their style of clothes their whole lives and are quite good at its logistics. A fashion designer in particular has likely invented numerous successful lines of clothes or else they would no longer be a fashion designer. Sure, if we all stopped wearing clothes, that is another problem...

The world order has been changing, evolving and adjusting since we can remember. WWII was not the first struggle for the US and not nearly the last it has encountered. In addition, the US was quite influential and powerful before WWII occurred. 

I would argue that a change in the liberal order is indeed the greatest threat to US power in the short run. However, due to our proven centuries of innovation, survival in adversity, and ability to admit while correcting our faults, the US is likely to be able to recover in the long run. Sure, if we all stopped identifying with a sovereign nation, that is another problem...

Week 15: The United States' Power + Potential Threats

I really enjoyed this week’s class as we discussed the different potential threats to the United States’ power. Group 2’s focus on a global pandemic definitely caught my attention since I work in healthcare and often think about different scenarios that could happen. Zika alone this year caused a lot of fear, especially as it made its way into the United States, despite being largely confined to areas of Florida. This is definitely something that the United States should be better prepared for, however, as much as I enjoyed this discussion, I still agree with my group with inequality as the greatest threat to the United States.

As such a powerful nation, I think it’s important to recognize that the United States cannot make light of problems that could erode the country from within, many with a root cause of inequality. If policies and changes are not made by taking a closer examination of what is ailing this country, it’s possible this lack of self-awareness (or lack of action) may be our eventual downfall. Obviously, I think this is something that takes time and will not happen overnight but a problem that should not be ignored and under the right circumstances could threaten the power of the United States immensely.

This class taught me a lot - such as trying to understand the different motives and rationalizations that characterize the international system as we know it today. And, as an American, for me it has been helpful to get a more detailed picture of the international system’s composition and a more indepth understanding (or attempted understanding) as to why leaders make the decisions that they do - from engaging in wars, to agreeing upon allies, to coming together for peace agreements, etc. The international system is complex and made up of a multitude of distinct players and trying to understand this is important to future development and progress.

Thanks for a great class! :)

The American Century 2000-2100

Loved the debates, especially hearing the climate change team talk, and being able to go back and forth with them. Of course, I hold that they are still wrong, and a global pandemic is a far larger threat to the U.S. current position in the world. That said I didn’t find any of the threats outlined to be particularly threatening right now. The U.S. occupies such a unique position in the world, with the closest analogy being the Roman Empire (both regimes effectively ruled the entire known world with only the occasion near-peer challenger). Granted our ‘known world’ is much larger, and so our global empire is more complete, and because we learned from the Roman mistakes of military occupation, the costs of our empire are much less.

I know that if there is one thing which is constant in the world it is the rising and falling of  powers as the weak seek power and the strong seek to hold onto it. The U.S. power is, however, far more secure than any other nation, and indeed it is unlikely that any nation would have the economic, diplomatic or military power to challenge the U.S. for decades if not more. Climate change is fairly easily managed by the U.S. because of our diverse geography and ability to grow food at so many different latitudes. A degrading of the current global order would by its nature mean the global system would be looking for an alternative, and there is not another state or collection of states with more to offer the global system than the U.S. so it is quite likely a new global order would still feature the U.S. at its center. 

It took the Roman empire 1000 years to reach the point where it could not deal with external competitors, and I would argue the U.S. is economically, militarily, and socially just as well postured to last for quite some time to come. Even the British Empire was the pre-eminent global power for several centuries and the U.S. power is significantly more complete than our former colonial overlords. Indeed, based almost solely on our geography the U.S., spanning the two hemispheres is immune from almost all attack. The global pandemic our team argued for is possibly the largest threat, but the U.S. civil response is robust enough that it is equally likely that any pandemic would be more detrimental to our ‘rivals’.  

The Greatest Threat to US Power (Week 15)

The debate this week covered a broad range of threats to US power, with each team called on to assert that their threat was the greatest threat to US power. Each team debated well, I thought. None of the topics selected were non-threats to the US. For me, the most compelling was that the downfall of the liberal world order as established after WWII will be the greatest threat to US power. The readings for this module, in particular Nelson and Ikenberry, underscored for me how critical that system of diplomatic, economic, and military interests established after WWII is for the US to be successful. The argument they laid out mirrored Ikenberry’s assertions that hard and soft power, interests and ideas, are the bed rock of the current order which has America at the apex.  I think what the group may have missed is some more details on how the recent election, Russian aggression, and the fall of the “idea of America” impact the deterioration of the post-WWII liberal order.

That being said, at the end of a class exploring authority, forms of power, governance, coercion, “the international,” change, etc. we’d be remiss to say that any one threat to is the greatest to US power. The current state of affairs is a controlled, but tenuous balance. Stronger international systems, rule of law, international authority and regulation, could potentially provide more stability and predictability, but would erode statehood and autonomy, which could harm US interests. As it stands now, the complexity of the American role in the international system means that Americans need to keep their eyes on many balls at once. Focus only on maintaining the liberal world order and boom, an infectious disease has come to the US and we’re unprepared. Pretend that climate change isn’t real and focus on achieving equalities in the US, and we’ll find that the ecosystem in which we live as humans has changed dramatically and we aren’t prepared.

What America needs is incredibly smart, realistic, creative leaders in policy, military, civil society, governance, history, global politics, theory, economics, etc. The belief that the position of the US can be maintained without an incredible amount of work and intelligence will be our downfall otherwise. I worry that our greatest threat is the idea that all of this is easy, the government is unnecessary, that catchy replies are effective policy positions, and that we’re too big to fail. No state is too big to fail, and to risk sounding like an Athenian general, there’s always some state waiting to climb to the top and benefit from the chaos.

The last comment Professor Shirk made last night about the role of theory also struck a chord with me. I think in this next phase of American power, the role of theory will be critical. Our ability to adjust and not collapse will be, in part, due to our understanding of the theory, history, and philosophy which got us here. When I think about the topics and readings that we have explored in this class, I reflect on how much I’ve learned personally. Ideas which seem like a good idea on the face (See blog post about whether South Sudan should be sovereign or not) turn out to be ill conceived when discovering different theoretical arguments (Thanks Inayatullah!). If theory is important for clear thinking in this class, theory will be even more important for real time decision making and prioritizing. Again, I worry that the a-theoretical, anti-academic populist wave we’re on now doesn’t see the complexity, importance, and huge potential to do harm or do good of American power.

Great class and great blog all! Catch you in future classes J  

Forcasting vs. Predicting (Week 14)

I'd like to reflect upon the foundation of Professor Jackson's lecture this week - specifically his presentation of forecasting in contrast to predicting. Additionally, I'd like to tie it to an argument in support of diversity and inclusion.

While many humans are curious about the future, few try to precisely predict what will happen, even fewer accurately predict what will happen and even fewer still are prepared for all predictions rendered across the globe of what will happen. With such a poor success rate, why do we still even try to predict the future? Despite the power of an entire country supporting an intelligence analyst, there are bound to be elements of a situation that they do not know therefore lead to the potential for surprise.

The same argument against prediction can be made against conforming our culture to a single identity.

I was once told that diversity is our nation's greatest strength as well as our greatest downfall. For example, if five groups of five people each are all 99% identical and put in rooms together and told that the group who builds the best tower will will a prize, it is the diverse 1% in each of those individuals that emerges to think creatively, outside-the-box and ultimately interpreting the definition of best correctly. However, it is the identical 99% of each of those individuals that allows them to convince their teammates to build their idea and successfully construct it.

While predictions can only be useful if they are true, forecasting can be useful for any outcome. Therefore, our likelihood of acting well based on a prediction is so much lower than the likelihood of acting well based on a forecast. The latter leaves room for a full breadth of results.

If we can agree upon this logic for the scenario planning of international relations, why is it so difficult for countries to agree upon this logic for the breadth of identities that are bound to be represented in their culture?

Week 14 - Rise & Fall of Great Powers

In the lecture from this week there was a comment about how history is written by the victors in today's international system and it often fails to recall the time when Asian countries, like China, were dominate world powers, and Europe was the minority at the time. This connected well with the Beeson article that discussed the rise of China and its influence on the international system. It's true that often US domination manages to keep us from remembering that there was a time before the US that there were other world leaders. In the international system there have been many leaders, and the United States is just one of them.

While reading the Beeson article about the China's threat to US hegemony, and also learning the history of the US' role in developing the region, it resonated with the professor's lecture where it talked about how we are focused so much on prediction, knowing exactly what will happen (which is impossible) and instead should be focusing on forecasting. Learning from history, something that is again and again overlooked. The United States was a key strategist in helping with the rise of Japan in the region, and setting up a system that often contains or disadvantages China. And yet, there is constant talk of how the US is going to "lose out" as the dominating world power to China. And behind this notion is that we have a unipolar international system, which I believe to be untrue. Although Beeson points out the differences between China and the United States, often how the US is a stronger force from military to per capita income, there is still this underlying idea that they are connected whether they want to be or not. We have seen that China has experienced great economic growth, and are majorly involved in development. And they are connected economically, whether good or bad, to the United States, and other world leaders.

We have talked a lot in class about the interconnectivity of the international system, especially with the increase in technology, and I think this is often forgotten when discussing whether or not there is a unipolar or multipolar international system. The reality is that many of the world powers are involved in each other's economies and politics and due to this there must be more cooperation and compromise. Such as China's policy of "soft-balancing" which has proved to be successful in its increased involvement in the international system.

A scenario by any other name would be as wrong

As someone who is responsible for writing forecasts regularly I found the differentiation between predictions and forecasts to be refreshing, and something I am forced to explain time and again whenever I present to a new client. Forecasting is something which we do all the time we just usually call it guessing; but it seems like as budding social scientists we have a hard time putting that regular practice at forecasting into our work. Now granted, forecasting is a little bit more than just guessing (often more like fiction writing), but at its core it is just you as the forecaster just looking at possibilities and fleshing out what those possibilities would look like during the time period of the scenario.

I have found that more often than not the outlier scenarios (alien invasions, nukes…etc) hang us up as we feel like there are too many variables changing for us to do anything useful in our scenario writing. However as we heard in our lecture there are some hard and fast rules (the weak always seek more power, and the powerful seek to keep it) and as a result of these rules we can often limit the number of variables which change in our scenarios while still making them relevant. As we heard, it is important to spell out our assumptions, so as to make these scenarios useful even if they are totally wrong (by understanding how we got to our conclusions our consumers can adjust their mental models based on how circumstances actually begin to play out); it is also important to understand that as a rule our scenarios will be wrong. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can have an easier time writing scenarios.

Sorry for the quasi-lecture; I just really enjoy scenario writing (or as I said earlier, fiction writing), and like helping people see that it is easier to do than we may think.  

Is Today's International Order Unipolar or Multipolar?

The discussion about today’s international order and if America is a unipolar empire in this week’s readings was very interesting. However, I do not agree with John Inkenberry that today’s international order is unipolar with America as the greatest power (granted that this article was written in 2004). I think we have more of a multipolar order with America, China, and the EU as the main powers.

John Ikenberry discusses if unipolar America qualifies as an empire. An empire makes unilateral decisions and functions outside the order (Ikenberry 2004, 615). However, today’s American-led order has liberal features because it allows participation and cooperation from other states (Ikenberry 2004, 620). Therefore, unipolar America does not qualify as a formal empire, but rather as a liberal hegemon that also defends its nationalist interests.

Neo-conservatives want a neo-imperial strategy because of the threats created by the 9/11 terror attacks. America should be the global ruler and use its unipolar and military power to confront rogue states. On top of that, neo-conservatives call for America to retreat from treaties and international agreements (Ikenberry 2004, 625). This strategy imposes several problems, however. The Wars on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq are still ongoing. Not only do these wars cost large amounts of money, but they also cost many lives. Because America acted unilaterally when it decided to invade Iraq, it weakened international institutions like the UN, which it created in the first place.

I think that today’s world order is not unipolar but multipolar. China, for example, has become an economic powerhouse. Mark Benson points out that China is the winner of America’s War on Terror (2009, 102). While America is busy spending large amounts of money on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, China has become an economic power and could even surpass America in a couple of years.

References

Beeson, Mark. 2009. “Hegemonic Transition in East Asia? The Dynamics of Chinese and American Power.” Review of International Studies 35, no. 1 (January): 95-112. Accessed December 6, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Beeson+-+Hegemonic+Transition+in+East+Asia.pdf

Ikenberry, G. John. 2004. “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age.” Review of International Studies 30, no. 4 (October): 609-630. Accessed December 5, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Ikenberry+-+Liberalism+%26+Empire.pdf

Week 14 Pre Class- Are we still in a unipolar age?

Ikenberry's article about America as a unipolar empire based on liberalism was rich and intriguing. While the US may a unipolar actor that is more open, rule-based, and norm based than any other unipolar actor in history, as Ikenberry is writing this piece in 2004, he sees that much of the world is unsettled. The world is unsure if American unipolarity is a good thing, or if it puts other states at risk if they step out of bounds so to speak.

My how things have changed since Ikenberry's article was written almost 13 years ago. Democratic statemaking and overthrow of regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan proved much harder and more costly than expected. These experiments of a more neorealist imperial exercise were not rousing successes that increased the power and influence of the US. Does this mean that we are witnessing a decline in unipolarity or has America already lost it's unipolar status?

The failures, or at least non-successes in Iraq and Afghanistan showed just how challenging a war against terrorism, a "threat that merges from failed and hostile states in the periphery" (Ikenberry, p. 618), turned out to be. The preemptive attacks against terrorism have spread the American military thin in some ways, and hasn't led to a guarantee of domestic security, or security for our allies. Lack of leadership and decisive action in Syria has seriously called into question whether America has the unipolar ability to bring all regimes to heel, and if it does, whether Americans will exercise this power.

Amidst the security and legitimacy challenges of terrorism, the North Atlantic alliance, a key underpinning of American unipolarity according to Ikenberry, is also under threat. The key security community which supported a unipolar power is less reliable than before and increasingly under threat. Russia's forays into NATO member states and less than active responses by NATO have shown that the alliance may not be as water tight as it seems.

The Obama administration's leaning on multilateral institutions in new and bigger ways, may have undermined American unipolarity to an extent. If President Obama's foreign policy was a shift from the 2004 American that Ikenberry captures, the next four years may be an even larger shift. President Elect Trump may be a rejection of the "liberal strategy" and "the realist grand strategy" that Ikenberry refers to (p. 622) A withdrawal from our alliances and a rejection of the idea of American engagement in the exercises of global peace and security would be a rejection of one of the pillars of American unipolarity.

I'm not sure if America was unipolar in 2015, it seems like the shift from unipolarity started in the early 2010's. But I would predict that Trump's presidency results in a shift from American unipolarity. Whether a multipolar, or unipolar just not with America at the helm (China? Russia? Some alliance?), is making America great again or not is up for debate...

(This blog is also a test in how many times you can use the term unipolar in one thought process. Ha!)

Week 13 - Global Public Sphere/Arab Spring

I enjoyed our discussion this week and definitely found myself in the middle between those totally for celebrity diplomats and those totally against them. Although I’m not completely in favor, I think that it’s inevitable that they are involved in politics and therefore the better question is, “How can we best prepare celebrity diplomats?” Someone mentioned in the chat that Angelina Jolie has been seen taking classes, and I hope this is true. :) However, it is still strange how readily the masses follow these celebrities in their endeavors without truly knowing how prepared they are for their role in global politics.

Going back to the topic of whether or not there is a global public sphere, I would definitely agree that there is one, however it is still in its beginning phase. I think a good example that this global public sphere does at least exist is what happened with the Arab Spring. How one man’s actions started a chain link of events that spread across the Arab world, largely in part to social media spreading the news and alerting the masses. Although many would say that it was not successful as many governments fought back and came down with harsher rules than before, it is a perfect example that the global public sphere is there and has brought an underlying fear to many regimes, than have in turn tried to fight with tighter censorship. For many leaders, the Arab Spring was an a scary reminder of their limited control when it comes to the internet and the masses. I think it will be interesting to see how the global public sphere continues to rally the masses around causes but also am curious how it can best be controlled, as we have seen that false media can greatly influence and yet there is little done to prevent or control it.

Effectiveness of Celebrity Activism - Week 12

I think that celebrity activists can do a lot of good things, and this week’s class has not changed my view on celebrity activists and their effectiveness in raising issues and having their voices heard. I do, however, understand Erica’s concern with celebrity activists. Celebrity activists like Matt Dillon or Sean Penn, for example, should not be in the way of humanitarian aid workers doing their jobs, and celebrity activists are not qualified to make recommendations to state officials.

The story about Sean Penn in Haiti is a good example of a celebrity that wants to do the right thing and is able to have his voice heard. However, because he is not a professional he made the wrong decisions. Had he not intervened, and not taken the boy to a different hospital, the boy would have been taken care of in the General Hospital. On top of that, he attacked the aid workers while being interviewed on TV and announced that Haiti is facing an even worse disaster than the earthquake.

Sean Penn’s story is a good example that, while celebrity activists want to help and do the right thing, they should rather let the professionals do their work and not intervene. Celebrity activists are most effective after they consult with experts about issues, and then try to reach as many people as possible to make them aware of the issues.

On a side note (since it is Christmas soon) every year during this time I have to think about Band Aid and the 1984 song “Do they know it’s Christmas” which was recorded to raise awareness of the famine in Ethiopia. This song’s success showed how successful celebrity diplomacy could be: Not only was the song very successful in raising awareness of the famine and raising money, but it also caused an increase in celebrity diplomacy.

Global Public Square

Proof that the global public square exists: Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN is called Global Public Square. Blog post done.

Kidding. Mostly. I think the name of Zakaria's show is apt. While we explored the challenges of the media as regards to the celebrity diplomats, and a few classmates got really into the media on the chat box, we didn't talk about the role of the media in creating a global public sphere. If the public sphere used to be the neighborhood chit chat, the media is a place where people gather to learn and talk on a global level. GPS is broadcast all over the world. BBC has a massive reach and some BBC commentators are household names (I'm a BBC World Service fanatic). Along with the internet and social media, I think that more formal media channels are where we can find global connectivity and a global public space.

And yet, as this election has shown us, in some place we don't see media casting a wide net, but people self selecting a narrower media with which to engage. This certainly challenges the ways the media can create a global public square in some respects. But, in other respects, it may connect issues oriented people across the world. For instance, many people I would never connect with are sharing and interacting with the same catchy Al-Jazeera videos about the Syrian crisis that I'm watching and sharing. We're all interested in the Middle East and heart broken by the human toll of the crisis. Al Jazeera caters these videos directly to people like me, and to people in Lebanon, Germany, Bolivia, who are also like me. There is a global public sphere there that is different and new.

My two (still developing cents) about the GPS and how the media can enable/inhibit that.

Celebrity's, Are They Worth It? (Week 13)

I went into this week's discussion convinced of the futility of celebrity's choosing a cause and making it their public crusade; however based on the interaction in class I am now less sure. I believed that celebrities were largely amateurs doing professional's work and distracting the public with 'feel good' causes which largely caused us in the mass citizenry to avoid confronting the hard problems because we had already helped with Bono, Bon Jovi, or Ben Affleck. I saw Katherine's point that some more significant celebrities such as the pope, may be able to motivate large populations to do good; however I still questioned the long term impact of those efforts.

I walked away last night with the feeling that I had been missing something all along. I believe now that as was mentioned, with great power comes great responsibility; so then, these people with the access to the media, money and a fan base, should use that to maximize the good of all humans. While these celebrities likely do detract from other 'more significant' causes, or only cause short term spikes in interest; the fact of the matter is they are actually doing some good. And at the end of the day, some good is better than no good. We cannot prove that the people who 'felt good' after helping some actor/singer would have done anything at all if left to their own devices, so then I should be more careful about saying that celebrities are not good for anything in the realm of aid and diplomacy.

I do still have concerns about amateurs doing professional's work. More needs to be done to educate those who latch onto a cause, and we should demand that true experts be given access to decision makers such as Congress if there is a celebrity being invited. We should encourage these celebrities to act as the face of a movement, not the leader of it; they should leave that to people who are trained and experienced in the field.

The Celebrity of Religion (Week 13)

I'm greatly looking forward to our next class as we'll discuss the role of celebrities in international relations. During the last class I had briefly brought up the perspective of viewing religious leaders as celebrities and I'd like to preemptively reflect upon that idea.

Both readings on celebrity diplomacy questioned how seriously we should take celebrity diplomats as well as examined their legitimacy and lack of accountability to a trusted measure. These diplomats seem to embody a public phenomenon that has great capacity to affect change but lacking a perfect solution to the problems they confront. In addition, they lack personal credibility as they are self-appointed, not elected and often lead very different lives in the spotlight and out of it.

Religious leaders have the same capacity as celebrity diplomats as well as the same shortcomings when compared to political diplomats. Lets look at the most famous religious leader as an example: The Catholic Pope.

Pope Francis is the current leader of the Roman Catholic Church which is the largest christian church in the world with over 1Billion adherents. Catholics are expected to be represented in every country on every continent of the world crossing over all living generations, age groups and genders. One could easily argue the same for Bono and his U2 fans but not necessarily the same of a diplomat such as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Pope resides in Vatican City which holds a population of less than 1000 people yet receives millions of dollars on a weekly basis from adherents around the world. Such an income measures Vatican City as the richest state in the world. This money is spent in support of churches and their members throughout the world as well as the Pope's doctrines, usually expressed in the form of encyclicals. In May 2015 for example, Pope Francis published an encyclical 'On Care for our Common Home' which addressed issues of climate change the the moral obligation catholics and non-catholics alike should feel towards protecting our planet. Such a profound document, received and revered by a network of 1Billion plus "followers" around the world was a huge catalyst for the eventual support of the November 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. Other similar systems of influence played a large part in the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. These are just a few of the international causes one Catholic Pope has touched upon during his lifetime. However, Popes have been involved in international affairs since the birth of the church in the 1st century.

Of course, not everybody believes what a Catholic Pope says is truth. Many believe their words are mislead and utterly false. The Pope is claimed to be the highest figure on a strict hierarchy to God within the Catholic tradition. This means that he is really only accountable to God and no earthly being. In addition, it is by the same unaccountable grace of God that legitimizes every Papal election through the votes of fellow Cardinals. In addition, the very doctrine of the Christian tradition is that one must have faith it its truth because that truth cannot be proved to a human. As a result, the world has a completely accepted system whereas a single man leads over a billion people and the wealthiest state in the world while basing his claim on an unprovable idea. How can so many people support the legitimacy of a man through mere faith? Does it matter if what he teaches leads to a diplomatic nightmare if such a significant part of the world's population believe he is held accountable to higher power that only reveals itself to the Pope? They have the capacity but do they always have a solution that everybody would agree upon? I don't think so.

This is just one example that we can parallel with the criticism and praise of a celebrity diplomat such as Bono. There are many more including the birth of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the rise of ISIS, etc. In class I had specifically mentioned the Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch's participation in the Euromaidan revolution in 2013. If anybody is interested in reading more about the social influences of the Orthodox Churches throughout the history of Ukraine, here is a great article: http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/03/23/the-church-in-the-bloodlands/#arvlbdata