Present and/or publish your work to a broader audience

Political science faculty meet annually at the Palmer House in Chicago to present their current research at the Midwest Political Science Association's Annual Conference. For several years, the organizers have included a poster session for undergraduate research and several ND students have presented in the past few years. If you are interested, see the following blurb extracted from a recent email:


"Finally, I wanted to remind you that several years ago, the MPSA created a Poster Section for Undergraduate Research. This is a great opportunity for advanced undergraduate students to present a capstone project and get an understanding of academic research if they are considering graduate school. If you have any undergraduate students that might be interested, please forward them information on this (www.mpsanet.org) The deadline is December 3, 2010."


Additionally, I was recently contacted Columbia University’s Journal of Politics & Society, an undergraduate academic journal distributed in outlets like Barnes & Noble and Borders. I was specifically asked to nominate papers from my junior seminar on financial crises but also other undergraduate research of note such as seminar papers and senior theses. If you are interested, please let me know (Guisinger.1@nd.edu). The deadline is January 15th; papers must be a minimum of 15 pages. To find out more, you can also go to www.helvidius.org.


Best,


Professor Guisinger

Latin America Working Group

We began a discussion on immigration from Latin American countries to the United States. A topic we focused on was the current policies towards immigrants and how refugee status is given. Many citizens are denied refugee status even though human rights violations are occurring in their countries. A possible explanation is the US support for those countries governments and the desire to display one image towards it. Some examples of these countries are Haiti, Colombia, or El Salavador. The percentage of people granted refugee status from these countries is much lower than other countries. Next week we plan on continuing the discussion on immigration.

Africa Working Group

This week the Africa Working Group continued it's discussion about South Africa, examining and discussing articles which forecast South Africa's future and needs. We discussed how though South Africa has the strongest economy of any other sub-Saharan country it is not the strongest institutionally, with countries like Botswana having a far more efficient and less corrupt government. 

Southeast Asia Working Group

The Southeast Asia group discussed the ND Forum, "The Global Marketplace and the Common Good," as it pertains to the region. The discussion focused on China and ways to incentivize innovation in the green energy industry. The group also discussed Thomas Friedman's surprising height--he only comes in at about 5'7".

Africa Working Group

Dr. Robert Esuruku, a Kellogg Institute Fellow from Uganda spoke to the Africa Working Group about his research "Gender, Local Governance, and Participatory Rural Development in Uganda", highlighting the notable absence of women at the level of the local government despite the mandate that women comprise 1/3 of thee national government. Dr. Esuruku also gave the group advice about how to prepare and conduct research ourselves.

Middle East and Central and South Asia Working Group

The Middle East discussion group this week focused on the effect of the Midterm elections on American foreign policy, the balance of US military to aid spending, and the current prospects for success in the Israel-Palestine Peace process. Eileen also introduced us to couch-surfing for the first time, which may have been the highlight of the night.

Middle East and Central and South Asia Working Group

 What effect will the U.S. midterm elections have on International Development?

On Tuesday, November 2^nd 2010 Americans voted and citizens of the world were affected.  Republicans gained sixty seats and control in the House of Representatives; Democrats lost six seats in the Senate, but maintained a majority.

While the bulk of Americans vote on domestic issues – jobs, the economy, health care, etc., our elections have vast worldwide implications. The 2010 Midterm election results primarily raise two questions: Can a government that is divided – with a Democratic President and Senate and a Republican House – be as effective internationally? How will this change in U.S. leadership affect the world at large?

Can a government that is divided be as effective internationally?

In the past two years, President Obama has made great strides in foreign relations. He has made nuclear nonproliferation a priority with Russia, reached out to the Middle East, and employed strategic diplomacy.  However, the president does not act unilaterally in foreign affairs. With the opposition party controlling the House, many of the key international policies Obama has put forth may now be out of his control. For example: many Republicans opposed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, as they do not want to limit U.S. defense. With their gain in the Senate, they have more power to block ratification of such a treaty. As a reaction to our elections, the Russian international committee of State Duma withdrew it recommendation to ratify the Treaty.

How will this change in U.S. leadership affect the world at large?

In terms of the Middle East, many predict that settlement between Israelis and Palestinians will prove more elusive. Danny Danon, a legislator from the right wing Likud party of Israel stated, “The huge influx of newly elected representatives and senators to Washington includes dozens of strong friends of Israel who will put the brakes on the consistently dubious, sometimes dangerous policies of President Obama […]” Conversely, a senior Palestinian official stated that Palestinians, “are not affected by the results of the election.”

As a result of President Obama’s fresh opposition in Congress, I believe he can employ one of two tactics. He can either turn inward, dedicating more of his time and attention toward domestic issues, as they will require more careful maneuvering and politicking to advance legislation in an unfriendly Congress. Or, he will devote more effort to international affairs, because, despite limits Congress may now place on him, he still holds more efficacy abroad than domestically. I believe the latter of the two options will ensue. President Obama has largely accomplished his intended domestic agenda: Health Care reform, Stimulus Package, Wall Street Reform, Credit Card Bill of Rights, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act Reauthorization Act, and provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans. With opposition in the House, Obama has a convenient (or legitimate, depending on the scenario) excuse not produce results domestically – leaving him with more time to accomplish his international objectives.

Africa Working Group

South Africa is often considered to be the model country of Sub-Saharan Africa and on Tuesday the Africa Working Group discussed the factors that make it a successful country. We determined that a prominent factor was the overthrowing of the apartheid government through non-violent means which has preserved South Africa from the violent political conflicts that have plagued so many other African nations. Though there is no national violence there is still a great deal violent crime (South Africa has the second highest murder rate in the world) which likely stems from vast inequality which the country still needs to address. 

Middle East, Central and South Asia Working Group

IDRC’s first Coffee and Conversation explored the issues of humanitarian relief and development in Pakistan. As I’m sure you are aware, Pakistan has been ravaged by massive flooding creating a humanitarian crisis of large proportions. Twenty million people were displaced and half a million babies will be born to that displaced population in the next month.  The need for basic items is tremendous – food and drinking water especially; however, the means to fulfill this need is complicated.  Aid that is intended for victims of the flood does not always reach the people it’s supposed to. Furthermore, nations are more inclined to spend money on defense measures than they are to commit dollars to humanitarian or societal problems.

In the neighboring country of Afghanistan, according to a recent report issued from the Congressional Research Service, The United States spent 297 billion dollars in Afghanistan since 2001. To put this staggering amount of money in perspective: if you were to go back in time 1 million seconds, you would travel backwards by about 11.5 days. If you were to go back in time by 1 billion seconds, you would travel backwards by about 31 years (thank you to Mahan Mirza for pointing this out). An additional breakdown of U.S military spending shows that the U.S. has spent $941 a second every second since 2001 to present in the War in Afghanistan.

Why are we so willing to spend excessive amount on destruction and so stingy when it comes to lending a hand to our fellow human? In an opinion piece published a few months ago in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof points out the for the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan, we could build 20 schools. For the cost of just 246 soldiers posted for one year, America could pay for a higher education plan for all Afghanistan. Greg Mortenson, author of “Three Cups of Tea” and humanitarian extraordinaire has built 145 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan and personally attests that the most effective method for eradicating terrorism and extremism is through the eradication of ignorance and poverty; therefore, through the promotion of education.

So what’s preventing us from employing such an effective solution? Fear. Fear for out safety. Because missiles make us feel safer than schools. Because sending troops into a country makes us appear safer than a group of children reading books does. When we can scrap convention wisdom, when we are willing to invest as much on education as we are on missiles, then we will make progress.

Latin America Working Group

Hola,

We had another great discussion this past week focused on the many issues surrounding Brazil.  Brazil is a nation that, while facing tremendous amounts of globalization and growth, is struggling with many issues surrounding poverty and development.  The rich continue to get richer while the poor are still continuing to get more poor.  Our discussion touched on the key points of this nation, and we addressed some of the main questions and concerns that we all had.  This set a foundation of knowledge that we will continue to branch off from in the months to come.

Saludos,

IDRC Latin America