Hi Politics in DC!

Problem What should the United States do vis-à-vis the Darfur crisis after the Naivasha agreement? Should the USA take a stern position towards Sudan government? Background There has been tension in Darfur for many years over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities. The conflict in Darfur began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, claiming that the Darfur region was being neglected by Khartoum. The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favor of Arabs. Two main rebel groups are the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), which have been linked to senior Sudanese opposition politician Hassan al-Turabi. Over the last two years 2 million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur, where many have seen their families killed, abducted, abused or raped and are now living in makeshift she...

This memorandum is prepared for UNAIDS Executive Director, Peter Piot. It’s to have some innovative ideas and to revitalize the HIV/AIDS campaign worldwide. In this memorandum, I will expose the progress and the challenges that we face right now. Then, I will recommend mainly two changes. Firstly, I propose Cross-Sectoral Partnership Meeting to enhance UNAIDS’ coordination objectives. Secondly, I think that UNAIDS should reinvent itself to have a better command on the tasks. In the final part, I will suggest several ways to achieve the recommendations. UNAIDS will need the resources and the support from the US to convene the Cross-Sectoral Partnership Meeting. While UNAIDS reinvents itself to achieve the “Three Ones”, UNAIDS needs to let US assume the hegemony responsibility in many aspects of the combat. Newest development of the fight against HIV/AIDS November 21st, UNAIDS and WHO published their annual report on HIV/AIDS, The AIDS Epidemic Update-Special Report on HIV Prevention. In...

The realism For the realists, such as Hans Morgenthau, think the international system is anarchy. It’s a self-help system, in which states must not expect others to secure their own national interests. There is no institution upon the nation states. How do the realists explain the existence of the international organizations? They consider them to be a forum. The actors in the international politics are still the nation states. The realists also assume that the national interests are generic and easily-defined. The ultimate goal is to preserve the political autonomy. Beyond this, the national interests are interpreted differently, mainly from an objective stance and from a subjective stance. From an objective stance, the national interests really exist like the common sense. From a subjective standpoint, national interests can be defined by the conduct of the states; hence, it would be more empirical. Personally speaking, I analogized the objective national interests to the natural law...

Debate on the processes of “globalization” will bring cooperation and stability to the Middle East and its relations with the outside world. Proponents: 1. The definition of globalization, first. 2. The sharing of information via mass media and Internet will increase the understanding and decrease the wrong impression about the others. 3. The sharing of the economic growth dissuades the countries from waging wars against each other. 4. The globalization makes people have a sense of big family. People can travel from here to everywhere as they want. 5. If the Middle East is not under peace, the turbulent world does no good to the Western countries. They have interests to encourage the peace process within the Middle East. 6. International institutions have created limitations for wars and initiatives for peace.