This Wednesday you will have a test that covers Chapters 9, 10, and 11 in the O'neil book for the multiple choice portion. For the FRQ portion, the subject matter will be both country specific to Iran, Nigeria and Mexico, but it will also cover concepts such as globalization, ethnicity, political violence as they relate to the countries.
First read these articles (Iran, Nigeria, Mexico) and comment, keeping a thought to the concepts you wil be tested on, then get to work on reviewing. We will do a practice FRQ towards the end of class.
I think all 3 articles represent the most prominent ideas and issues within that country. Iran the ideology, Nigeria the oil and violence, and Mexico drug related violence. All three countries seem to have large issues in today's world and almost all three articles show some light of how those problems could be fixed.
ReplyDeleteThe controversy surrounding the memorial to the victims of the Mexican drug war is very intriguing. I found it odd that the names of the victims were not placed on a medial that was dedicated to them. At first I simply thought this was due to a lack of space for the countless deaths. However, what was more interesting was the fact that the government has no official record of the deaths sulking from the drug war. I think this sheds light on the state of the Mexican government and the rule of law which exists there.
ReplyDeleteIt's a really tricky issue. I remember when I lived in Texas sometimes only pieces of bodies were found in the dessert making identification difficult. I totally agree that as many names as possible should be placed on the monument and when they can, try to add on more names.
DeleteI think the concept of diplomatic immunity can be a tricky thing to deal with. There are many stories that have gone around overtime involving various diplomats and certain tensions with the law, however in the case of Iran and the Saudi diplomat it's difficult. The positives to diplomatic immunity are definitely there. It helps to prevent one country from taking advantage of another's diplomats in case something goes wrong. For example, finding some kind of petty crime to arrest them for. However, it can also be used negatively. It provides a cover and opportunity to take advantage of the law and to do as they please. I believe the Iranian government acted in the right in this situation. They did not arrest the diplomat, something that would have been done in any other case (even possibly tried for murder), however they would not be able to do so. The diplomat also supposedly broke one of their other laws regarding the consumption of alcohol. By putting the travel ban on the diplomat, they were able to act within the legal boundaries but also take a stand for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe article on ambush on the Nigerian delta serves as a prime example of the difficulties of being a new democracy. Since Nigeria is a novice in the government type and has an economy influenced on oil, militia violence is expected.
ReplyDeleteThe Mexico article is another one that supports the idea that the drug wars are hindering the Mexican government with corruption and violence.
The Iran articles defines the theocracy that Iran is established on, Iran structured on Sharia law would explain its actions. However, Saudi Arabia follows some version of the Sharia law, making this diplomat seem a bit "shady."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth the article on Mexico and Nigeria help show the lack of capacity both of these government possess. It also helps to show the weak rule of law, and how that helps create additional sectionalism
ReplyDeleteThe problems these articles address concern a country's legitimacy (particularly mexico) over the people they govern. Many of these issues include economic frenzies such the drug wars/violence in Mexico, oil related violences, and Iran's ban o n alcohol. mexico and Nigeria also lack much authority. Iran on the other hand is somewhat more controlled with their theocracy, and this article explains why the need for a ban on alcohol.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting was in the article from Iran it seems that the Iranian government is more upset with the fact that the Saudi Arabian diplomat was drinking in the first place because that is against their religion based law code. This makes me wonder how concerned they were with the loss of an Iranian citizen's life. I think the reason this is such an issue for the Iranian government is based on the driver's blatant disregard for Sharia law not necessarily that he killed a person which shows the amount of importance religion plays not only in the law making policies of Iran but also the foreign diplomacy decisions are completely dependent on Islamic law as well
ReplyDeleteI think that Iran is not only politicizing this issue to support its religious law, but also as a result of the current heightened tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran could just be looking for events to support its case, and in the eyes of its citizens, this could definitely be one of them.
DeleteI can understand the frustration of those affected by the drug war. This memorial pretty much sums up where Mexico's government is on the drug war: they're trying, and their heart is in the right place, but they're just not getting the job done. They need to tighten up in this time of crisis and crack down on the cartels.
ReplyDeleteThe article about the Mexican memorial for victims of the drug war was unsettling. It says a lot about the inability of the government to control the rampant violence that there is not even an official record of the 70000+ people who have been murdered. The monument, something that is supposed to commemorate the victims and pay tribute to such a personal issue to the Mexican people, seems highly impersonal and is located next to a military base. Overall, for something that was so significant in both its expense and meaning, one would think that it would be more sentimental.
ReplyDeleteThe article about the Saudi Arabian diplomat drinking is very interesting in that the nature of Iranian law was challenged by a member of a nation with a tense relationship with Iran. It seems like the Iranian government is attempting to solve the issue without prompting further tension to arise. This is a good sign for Iran but of course this one instance is not proof of overall mentality of the nation.
ReplyDelete