Saving the world?

That is, of course, assuming that the world wants to be saved in the first place. Something which I'm growing increasingly doubtful of.

So, I've been going through a serious mental debate for the past week or so. My classes this semester have done nothing but expound on the frustrations of the classes of previous semesters about the state of the world and the ability of people like me (privileged, educated, American) to improve it. Between my human rights class, where we discuss whether rights should be universal or not and why (or why not), to my international orgs class which discusses the role of orgs in the world and how they've screwed up (and sometimes help), to my politics of modern Iran class which only seems to illustrate our nation's ignorance in foreign policy... it's been a very frustrating couple of weeks. As an international development major, this invariably leads me to question what exactly I'm trying to do and what exactly I want to do in the "real" world (which I will be entering this coming May).

And here's where you come in, whoever is still with me on this anyway. One of my assignments for one of my classes (international organizations) is to write a proposal to either reform an existing organization OR to create a new organization to address some problem in the world. Here's my issue: I don't want to reform an organization because, frankly, no matter how good a proposal is, unless the organization is really willing to stick to it and commit to change, it's pretty much gonna stay the same (prime example: the UN). But I'm having a hard time thinking of an organization that will (a) be feasible and (b) not add to the ever increasing bureaucracy of IGOs/NGOs.

If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them. Here's what I've got so far (very vaguely):

1. A Government/Governance consulting org: in the developing world, governments are increasingly dependent on NGOs to provide services for their citizens/the state because they don't have the resources and/or infrastructure (or even the will) to achieve such things themselves. So, this org would work with governments to assess their needs and existing resources and help them work with (and develop) what they have in order to start taking care of their citizens themselves. I see TONS of issues with this in practice, so it's a very rough idea but that's the gist. It also seems a bit similar to an organization called the Oxford Policy Group...

2. Some sort of International Space organization. I've been reading a lot of articles about various space programs and astronomical studies/developments recently, but there are only 1 or 2 international organizations dedicated to this. My inhibition with this is: why should we fund something like this when there are many things on this earth that could use financial support?

3. Some sort of refugee relief provider. I need to look into this a lot more cause I'm not sure what services the various relief organizations provide, but the idea would be to cater more towards the psychological well-being of IDPs and refugees around the world. Whether that's actual therapy or some sort of entertainment/extracurricular activity program I have yet to figure out.


Yeah, so those are my (very) rough ideas to hash out, but I could definitely use some help. I mean, I guess I don't have to take this project so seriously and do something I know will get a good grade or whatever, but ideologically I'm having a hard time justifying the creation of yet another organization that falls into the abyss of idealism that sounds good in theory but does jack shit/ creates more problems in practice.

Applying my major

As an International Affairs major, concentrating in International Development, I have read a lot about foreign policy and conflict and globalization and some about the organizations involved. Provided the recent politics of an international organization near and dear to my heart (AIESEC), I've begun to look closer at something that I started to notice last year at an international conference.

My experiences in this organization, coupled with my studies, have shown me that many international organizations are really just microcosms of the geo-political reality, regardless of their missions. For example, in AIESEC, conflict between the US and the rest of the global association has been rising and falling, but ever-constant for the past few years. The US is trying to streamline the core work of the org to make operations more efficient in order to grow exponentially and achieve more quantifiable results. It has been hesitant to comply with the demands of the rest of the association because doing so might mean adopting regulations that may not be effective and for fear that consenting could lead to an infringement upon its sovereignty and thus hurt its efforts to expand and improve the organization as it sees fit.

In looking at other international organizations the US belongs to, like the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank, it's not all that different. The US carries a lot of weight in all of these organizations, and in many ways these organizations might not function properly/may not have been started if not for the US, due to its political and economical fortitude after the Second World War (See Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks). As a result, the US rarely compromises on its foreign policy within these organizations, if ever. It has yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it doesn't think it will be effective, and while it signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (approximately 40 years ago), it's debatable whether or not it has violated this treaty through certain NATO agreements.

I'm not sure if the connections I've made are clear, but to be honest I don't really know how to accurately explain them concisely. There are more examples I could use involving other countries within these orgs, but this one is clearest to me right now (though it's still a bit rough), and again there's the whole conciseness issue.

What these connections make me wonder, though, is how effective are any of these organizations in reality if all they do is perpetuate the status quo under the guise of international cooperation? Perhaps with this new wave of globalization in the post-Cold War era, the days of these post-WWII organizations are coming to an end. Do these organizations really have the capacity to create the changes they strive for within our global structure? Is it time for a new system of international networking and collaboration to be developed?

Who knows? Maybe it's already developing...I should look into that. I guess it's a good thing that one of my classes this fall is "International Organizations"

Almost there...

I'm so ready for my term as LCP to be over. It has been a crazy, wild, rewarding ride, but nonetheless tiresome to the point of near exhaustion. I'm quite comfortable taking these lessons that I've learned this year and moving on. Alas, there is still some work to be done.

We had LTM this past week, and it seemed to be much more frustrating than any of those I'd attended before. Part of it had to do with the format or structure of the meeting, part of it had to do with communication issues. I think the overriding sentiment coming out of this was "Thank God Missy is our MCP" She really knows how to communicate with the LCs and makes an effort to bridge the perceived gap between the MC and the LC.

Every member/friend I know on the MC always get frustrated when I or other LC members discuss the dichotomy and "versus" scenarios that we tend to see between LC-MC. While I have come to understand and agree with their perspective, I think there is still a significant communication gap. As members transition from LC to MC roles, they begin to look at the goals and objectives of AIESEC more collectively, as they are working to support operations and communities across the nation. Because of this (for some) it gets harder to think about certain situations from an LC perspective. So when the LCs and the MC all get together and start working on certain issues or planning, this misunderstanding is confronted. Conflict and frustration generally ensue unless there are people (like Missy) who know how to communicate to both perspectives in a way that puts everyone on the same page. Basically, this past weekend would have provided some really juicy data for a socio-linguistic study (which is one of my classes, so...yeah)

Anyway, there are a couple issues that I felt the need to do more about, so naturally I joined their working groups: Exchange program quality, AIESEC US and the International Association...plus subgroup and the end of transitioning means that December will be a busy busy month. But it's work that I enjoy doing with people who rock hard core. It was really awesome to spend some quality time with them this weekend.

So, before I can embrace the gloriousness of NFT:
Academically I have 3 papers, 1 performance, and 1 exam before freedom. AIESECly I have several emails to send to members in active-ness limbo and some loose ends to tie before my incredibly capable, insightful successor, Gina, takes the reins (she's pretty much gonna rock) aaand 1 more weekend in New York, a bunch of conference calls and some serioius analysis work. Alright month #12, bring it on...