Military force and promoting humanitarian values

Military force and promoting humanitarian values This essay will argue that military force is an ineffective instrument for the promotion of humanitarian values. However, this is qualified by also presenting reasons for discounting the effectiveness of non-military interventions. This essay will be structured as follows. The first sections will confront methodological issues that have to be addressed before the question can be answered. Following this we will embark on a comparison of military and non-military interventions. The essay will evaluate a paradigm case of a successful operation, Australia in East Timor. We will argue it is anomalous and can barely qualify as a genuine intervention. We then see a true case of an intervention, Afghanistan, and conclude that this constitutes a failure of a military promotion of humanitarian values. We will then move onto evaluate two cases of non-military interventions, UN Resolutions and economic sanctions. It will be argued that UN sanctions are impotent, with reference to the actions of Israel. The essay will then examine the sanctions placed on Iraq, and argue that they caused a greater humanitarian crisis than any hitherto encountered intervention. The essay will conclude with reasons why one should refrain from drawing methodological precepts from previous interventions, and advocates a case-by-case analysis. It is important to limit the scope of this debate. First of all, I will not be discussing issues such as the legitimacy of military force being used in national liberation movements with the discussion instead focusing on third party military intervention. There are questions that further need to be addressed: Firstly, what constitutes military force? Is it the mere presence of military personnel (e.g. UN Peacekeeping forces), or does it have to be active military participation? Secondly, what are humanitarian values? Thirdly, how does one measure the promotion of such values? Is there a quantifiable way to ask whether their promotion has been effective? Fourthly, are there case studies which can be turned to in order to address the question? If there has never been a genuinely humanitarian intervention, then it will be impossible to assess the success of such an endeavour. In response to the first question, it is simpler to treat all military interventions of the same ilk. Consider the criteria set out by the Red Cross (1997), arguing that a prerequisite for an intervention to be humanitarian it has to be neutral, impartial and independent. The position of the Red Cross is that no armed force could satisfy these requirements backed as they are by political governments with their own agenda. If one finds this cogent, then there is no prima facie reason for discerning between mercenary, state-backed and UN organisations[1]. In regards to humanitarian values, and how to measure their effectiveness, to find a view backed by consensus is almost impossible. We confront positions as diverse as simple, utilitarian measurements of the amount of people whose lives have been saved (Janzekovic, 2006: 144) to more specific positions such as Regan (1996: 341-342) who claims that an intervention can be deemed successful if it destabilises the region in such a way, so that it is more difficult for the oppressing-state to continue with its human rights violations. This position would not use a short-term measurement such as deaths to measure the success of an intervention. However, I shall err on the simpler measurement. This is simply due to that the measurement of injuries, fatalities and abuses in a conflict is a simpler tool of analysis, rather than a vague notion such as favourable destabilisation[2]. Finally, as to whether there has been a genuine humanitarian intervention, the answer seems to be negative[3]. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the historical analysis in the books cited, there is an explanatory problem for believers in genuine intervention, which is the sporadic and inconsistent use of such interventions. This is what Paris (2014: 578-588) calls the inconsistency problem. The thrust of the problem is that such inconsistent use of military intervention in regards to humanitarian crises implies that there is more tha n just selfless means motivating the intervenors. Although other factors affect the ability to intervene (Binder: 2009), there is a strong motivation that, when combined with the historical record, humanitarian intervention is a misnomer. However, let us leave this issue to the side. What we shall discuss now is the following: Do military interventions for nominally humanitarian ends, save more lives than non-military means for the same ends? Let us examine some of the paradigmatic cases of successful military intervention. One often cited is the success of the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999. The intervention was required due to the Indonesian governments oppressive measures used to quell an East Timorese population insistent on independence from Jakarta. During the referendum campaign, there was widespread use of militia intimidation to quell support for independence, accompanied by widespread human rights violations. The actions of the Indonesian forces resulted in the displacement of around 40,000 – 85,000 East Timorese (T. Seybolt, 2007: 88.)). The success of the Australian military has been praised by some, such as Wheeler and Dunne (2001) who took such success as totalling almost a paradigm shift on the effectiveness and new normative perspective of a humanitarian intervention (contrasting it with the collusion of the United States in the violent occupation of the East Timor in 1975 (Amnesty In ternational, 1985). However, although the Australian intervention is largely considered successful, unfortunately, it does not meet the criteria of a humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian interventions, under most definitions (Roberts, 2003:5) have to be a military action without the consent of the oppressing power, in this case, Indonesia. However, as is noted by Chesterman (2002), Australia sought the consent of the Indonesian government, before intervening. The Australian government of the 5th of September said that they would only consider intervention if four conditions were met: (i) there was a security council mandate, (ii) if the Indonesian government consented, (iii) if the endeavour was a short term one, and (iv) if the force had a strong regional component Wheeler and Dunne (ibid p.807). What makes the fact that consent was sought from Indonesia considerably stranger was the fact that, apart from Australia, the international community did not believe that Indonesia had any rights over East Timor, with East Timor being internationally considered to be an independent state. As Chesterman goes onto note as well, that, although it is often cited to be an example of successful intervention, the fact remains that the international community displayed great reticence in intervening (contrasted with their enthusiasm regarding Bosnia). Chesterman concludes that if Australia had not intervened, no one else would have (Chesterman 2002:181)) There are also significant reasons that the reason for Australian intervention were hardly impartial either, as Chesterman also notes that the Howard Government of Australia was probably more worried about the influx of refugees that would come from such a crisis (a point which is corroborated by Gonzalez-Forester (2004), who documents Australia and other countries previous ambivalences to violent Indonesian actions towards the East-Timorese.) This case study appears to support the question posed in the affirmative, as once the Australian forces intervened, the extent of the massacres and expropriations stopped considerably. Thus, there does appear to be some motivation for considering military intervention a useful technique. However, there are also other considerable problems by extrapolating from this example. First of all, the Indonesian forces consented to their intervention, so the Australians were entering a comparatively un-hostile environment, and secondly, this fact is bolstered by the generally warm relations between Australia and Indonesia. In order for us to extrapolate from this example, we would have to see how well interventions perform in a country which does not openly consent to the intervention from a third party. Such an example would be Afghanistan, a country that has twice been intervened by hostile forces supporting apparently humanitarian goals (both Russia (1979-1989) and the United States (2001- Ongoing)). Both of these interventions have had the nominal motivation of humanitarian ends, and both have, to some extent worked towards them. In the case of the Russian intervention, it seems to be that the attempt to intervene has failed, despite the attempt to implement progressive policies (Bennis, 2015). The report cited documents how their attempts to implement progressive policies in the rural areas of Afghanistan provoked widespread rebellion, thus making the humanitarian situation considerably worse. The United States intervention initially seemed to be a more intelligent intervention, with there being a pronouncement of the military intervention being accompanied by humanitarian aid drops. However, as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) note, the aid packages of food (which only occurred a round once a month) shared the same yellow packaging as cluster bombs, which led to a number of casualties (Calas and Salignon: 2004, p. 82.) Asides from that, there also seems to be strong reports that human rights are being abused by militant forces which the united states support. For example, the New York Times have reported on a massacre occurring in Dasht-E-Leili, where Afghan Soldiers killed Taliban POWs on their route to Sheberghen Prison (Gall, 2001).this directly violates Article 13 of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of POWs (ICRC, 1949). Incidents such as this are indicative of a failed intervention, in regards to the promotion of explicitly humanitarian values. Although the indefinite extension of the US-Afghanistan war means that any conclusion might seem premature, the track record of the past 14 years indicates that military interventions do not promote humanitarian ends if the members of the occupying country do not welcome it. We have thus encountered compelling reasons to dismiss the effectiveness of military means for promoting humanitarian ends. What is now necessary is to contrast this with the effectiveness of non-military interventions. We shall examine two such examples: UN declarations and economic sanctions. We shall conclude that both are ineffective: UN declarations are ineffective without military support, and economic sanctions can exacerbate already precarious situations. In regards to the first point, there does seem to be a strong case for this. Consider, for example, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as their occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria. All of these violate international law, and violate UN sanctions (Hammon, 2010)). However, this does not seem to have deterred the Israeli government from refraining from the maintenance of such illegal activities, nor does it seem to have any force in preventing further breaches of internationa l law. Secondly, consider the economic sanctions that were placed on Iraq in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait implemented by United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 (S/RES/661 (1990)) These sanctions are considered to have some of the most disastrous humanitarian results of recent history. The result of these sanctions have resulted in UNICEF reporting around 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 dying (an increase of over 4,000 deaths a month compared to before the sanctions were enforced) (Edwards, 2000) In fact, the oil-for-food program has had effects that compelled the organiser of the program, Denis Halliday, to resign, calling the program genocidal. The fact that this resignation at such a senior level in the UN is almost unprecedented is remarkable in and of itself. What makes this fact more remarkable is due to the fact that the person assigned to replace him, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned from the post, citing similar reasons (ibid.) A counter-point co uld be raised here, to the effect that it was not so much the food-for-oil program itself that was the problem, but rather the insufficiencies of the program in light of the bombing campaign that almost crippled Iraqs infrastructure. For example, Eric Hoskins claimed that [the bombing campaign] effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq – electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and health care (Curtis, 1995: 189). Thus, the point could be raised that this should be cited as a failure of military intervention, rather than non-violent. This point is a strong one, yet the cataclysmic consequences were not invoked by the bombing campaign, rather it was the sanctions which prevented the rebuilding which precipitated a humanitarian disaster. It is difficult to equate the success and failure of these positions, as they are often used in tandem, and it becomes difficult to dissociate what could be indications of mere incompetence, from the mor e malice invocations of the doctrine of realpolitik. In conclusion, it is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of military force. This is because paradigmatically successful operations, such as East Timor do not qualify. The possibility of a further answer is complicated due to the fact that the Israel-Palestine conflicts demonstrates the impotence of non-military means without the possibility of an armed intervention. Yet, the fact that condemnations are powerless also does not help us answer the question: Afghanistan shows how a militarily backed campaign can make a military solution to legitimate grievances considerably worse, and yet Iraq shows us how economic sanctions also exacerbate precarious scenarios. It seems to be that to offer an answer regarding the effectiveness of this-or-that method is premature, and universal laws determining efficacy should be replaced with a case-by-case analysis. Footnotes 1 For a response to this, see Janzekovic (2006, p.130). For a more methodological reason regarding the difficulty of providing meaningful distinctions between forms of intervention, see Raymond (2015. p.295-298) 2 For example, did the UN sanctions against Iraq in response to their invasion of Kuwait destabilise Saddam? It is not obvious to say. 3 For why interventions previous to World War I were not humanitarian, see Losurdo (2014) For why interventions post- World War II were not humanitarian see Blum (2003) Bibliography Amnesty International. (1985) East Timor Violations of Human Rights: Extrajudicial Executions, Disappearances, Torture and Political Imprisonment, 1975–1984. London: Amnesty International Publications. Bennis, P. (2015) Afghanistan in: Assange, J. The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire. New York: Verso Books. Pp. 368-394 Blum, W. (2003) Killing hope: US military and CIA interventions since World War II. London: Zed Books Calas, F. and Salignon, P. (2004) Afghanistan: From Militant Monks to Crusaders. In: Weissman In the Shadow of Just Wars, Weissman, ed. London: Hurts and Co. Chesterman, S. (2002) Just War or Just Peace? Oxford: Oxford University Press Curtis, M. (1995) The ambiguities of power: British foreign policy since 1945. London: Zed books. Edwards, D. (2000) An Interview with Denis Halliday. Media Lens. [Online] 16th May. Available at: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/interviews/77-an-interview-with-denis-halliday.html. [Accessed 19th October 2015] Gall, C. (2001) Study Hints at Mass Killing by the Taliban. New York Times [Online] May 1st Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/01/world/study-hints-at-mass-killing-of-the-taliban.html [Accessed 19th October 2015] Gonzalez-Foerster, G. (2004). East Timor: Better Late Than Never. In: Weissman. Ed. In the Shadow of Just Wars, . London: Hurts and Co. 25-42. Hammond, J.R. (2010) Rogue State: Israels violations of UN Security Council resolutions Foreign Policy Journal. [Online] 27th January. Available at: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/. [Accessed 19th October 2015] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (1997) Can Military Intervention and Humanitarian Action Coexist? World Disasters Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (1949), Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August, 75 UNTS 287, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36d2.html. [Accessed 19 October 2015] Janzekovic, J. (2006) The use of force in humanitarian intervention: morality and practicalities. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Losurdo, D. (2014) Liberalism: a counter-history. London: Verso Books. Paris, R. (2014) The Responsibility to Protectand the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention. International Peacekeeping 21.5: 569-603. Raymond, D (2015). Military Means of Preventing Mass Atrocities. In Rosenberg, S. Galis, T. Zucker A. eds. 2015: Reconstructing Atrocity Prevention. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp.295- 320 Regan, P M. (1996) Conditions of successful third-party intervention in intrastate conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40.2: 336-359 Roberts, A. (2002) The So-Called Right of Humanitarian Intervention, in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2000, 3. The Hgue: T.M.C Asser. Seybolt, T B. (2007) Humanitarian military intervention: the conditions for success and failure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN Security Council, Resolution 661 (1990) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2933rd meeting, on 6 August 1990, 6 August 1990, S/RES/661 (1990), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f16b24.html [accessed 25 October 2015] Wheeler, N. and Dunne, T. (2001) East Timor and the New Humanitarian Interventionism, International Affairs, 77, 4, pp. 805–27.

Machiavelli and Odysseus

Power and Leadership The Connection of Power and Leadership between The Odyssey and The Prince Research Assignment Stories in Diverse Media LAPS/HUMA 1780 Prepared for: Dr. Gillian Helfield Mr. Julian Manyoni Prepared by: Samuel James Ysip 212-697-983 Power and Leadership Power and leadership play a big role in accomplishing the objectives of a team. A person having these two attributes can direct a group of people towards achieving their common goal. These two components of authority are also essential to each other in order for the leader to be successful.Power is a person’s ability to influence others and leadership is a person’s talent to guide a group of people to achieve their common goal. A person that has power but without the capacity to make the right decisions for the team will definitely fail to lead a team to their goal and a person without the influence on others but with the talent to lead a team will sure not be able to implement the qualities of a great leader to a group. Homer’s The Odyssey and Machiavelli’s The Prince are two books that both contain themes about power and leadership.Homer’s The Odyssey contains information about Odysseus’ leadership capabilities during his journey home to Ithaca and how he reacted on different situations that involve critical leadership decisions. It also contains the status of his leadership in his homeland and what kind of monarchy he has. On the other hand, Machiavelli’s The Prince gives out information and guidelines on what a Machiavellian leader should be and how he should react in different kinds of situations. It also contains different theories on how the structure of a monarchy affects a ing’s superiority in his own kingdom. Throughout Odysseus’ journey, he made questionable decisions that contradict the teachings of Machiavelli. By not following the guidelines of Machiavelli on leadership and power management, as a result, Odysseus fail ed to lead his team safely back to Ithaca. Through Machiavelli’s theory, on could also argue that because of the structure of Odysseus’ kingdom in Ithaca, it resulted to the noble men in Achaea to take advantage of his absence, thus resulting to the exploitation of his land.The disobedience of Odysseus’ crew members to his orders resulting to their death, the act of contempt of Eurylochus against Odysseus and the effects of political structure in Ithaca to Odysseus’ supremacy as king are the three factors that constitute the power and leadership issues in The Odyssey which are connectedly criticized and discussed through the guidelines and theories of Machiavelli in The Prince. The disobedience of Odysseus crew members to his order of not eating the cattle of Helios which resulted to their death is the outcome of Odysseus’ failure to apply the teaching of Machiavelli about being compassionate or cruel.In chapter seventeen of The Prince, Machiavelli stated that, â€Å"A ruler mustn’t worry about being labelled cruel when it’s a question of keeping his subjects loyal and united . . . he will prove more compassionate than the leader whose excessive compassion leads to public disorder, muggings and murder. † (65). Odysseus’ compassion towards Eurylochus; a high ranking crew member that insults him and constantly tries to lure Odysseus’ crew members to disobey his orders, resulted to the death of the crew members and further delayed his return to Ithaca.Eurylochus’ exploitations in the story began to develop when they arrived at the island of Aeaea. Eurylochus disagreed with Odysseus’ decision to go back to Circes palace to have his men rest after a long travel. He then insulted Odysseus by saying, â€Å"So too it happened with the Cyclops, when our companions went into his yard, and the bold Odysseus was of their company; for it was by this man’s recklessness that these too perished. † (10. 435-438). These two incidents alone have enough grounds for Odysseus to take actions on Eurylochus’ obvious disregard of his authority.Odysseus considered killing him by taking his head off but he realized that he is related to Eurylochus by marriage and his men were also able to stop him by pleading to him. This confrontation is an evidence of Odysseus showing incorrect compassion towards Eurylochus. Although Odysseus showed a sign of disappointment, he never really punished him which led to more disobedience by Eurylochus. It also showed that he considers his men’s view of his actions. His actions confirmed that he would rather show compassion than cruelty by being stopped by his men from killing Eurylochus through their pleading.By not taking the necessary actions on Eurylochus’ behaviour, he was able to persuade Odysseus to land on the island of Thrinakia where Helios keeps his cattle despite Circes advice to stay away from Heliosâ₠¬â„¢ belongings. When they landed on the Island where the cattle are, Eurylochus again stirred up trouble by persuading the crew members that it’s fine to eat the cattle of Helios while Odysseus was asleep. Eurylochus said, â€Å". . . hunger is the sorriest way to die and encounter fate . . . let us cut out the best of Helios cattle and sacrifice them to the immortals who hold wide heaven . . . nd if we ever come back to Ithaca . . . we will build a rich temple to the Sun God Helios. † (12. 342-346). This final incident that Eurylochus was able stir up became the main reason of the crew members’ death and also Eurylochus. Odysseus should have made the right decision of eliminating Eurylochus when he first started to disregard his superiority on the Island of Aeaea. Odysseus also showed a sign weakness in his leadership when Eurylochus was able to persuade him to land on an island where the temptations are apparent despite the group and Eurylochus’ consta nt disobedience and the crew’s inability to avoid temptation.In the book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Michael A. Leeden stated that â€Å"Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. † (115). Odysseus’ lack of implementing punishment to his subjects made his crew men, particularly Eurylochus, more attracted to temptations and more convenient of violating not only Odysseus’ orders but also the gods’. Leeden also stated in his book that â€Å"to be an effective leader, the most prudent method is to ensure that your people are afraid of you.To instill that fear, you must demonstrate that those who attack you will not survive. † (126). This statement criticises Odysseus response to Eurylochus’ disobedience. Eurylochus challenged and ridiculed Odysseus’ leadership and authority during their stay on the island of Aeaea. He also questioned Odysseus decision of not wanting t o land on the island of Thrinakia although he was able to persuade him anyway. Odysseus failed to respond with effective force on these incidents which resulted to more disobedience. The system of uthority that Odysseus implemented over his subjects during their journey resulted to his men’s downfall and also his. By not applying the teachings of Machiavelli on how a leader should use power to appropriately perform cruelness or compassion to achieve a better and more disciplined kingdom, Odysseus showed unnecessary compassion to the wrong person; a sign of a weak leadership, thus resulting to the death of his whole crew and further delayed his return to Ithaca. Odysseus’ leadership flaws do not stop on his lack of control over his subjects.He also made terrible judgements that led to the death of some of his companions that consequently resulted to the lost of their trust to his leadership. Because of these bad decisions, Eurylochus; Odysseus’ second in command, found the courage to challenge his leadership. In The Prince, Machiavelli stated that, â€Å". . . when there is no threat from outside, a ruler must take care that his subjects don’t start conspiring against him. He can guard against this by making sure he isn’t hated or despised and that people are happy with him† (73).One reason of Eurylochus’ voice of displeasure with Odysseus’ leadership is because of Odysseus’ foolishness and stubbornness. On the Island of Cyclopes before Odysseus took his men to the cave, he stated that â€Å"my proud heart had an idea that presently I would encounter a man who was endowed with great strength, and wild, with no true knowledge of laws or any good customs. † (9. 213-215). On their way to the Cyclops’ cave, Odysseus knew himself that danger is on their way yet he still made careless decisions when they get there.Instead of quickly taking all the things they needed inside the cave and despi te his men’s persuasions, he still decided to wait for Polyphemus to arrive because he personally wanted to try his luck if the Cyclops would actually welcome them inside. Odysseus stated that â€Å"From the start my companions spoke to me and begged me to take some of the cheeses, come back again, and the next time to drive the lambs and kids from their pens, . . . but I would not listen to them . . . not until I could see him, see if he would give me presents. † (9. 224-229).The fact that Odysseus is a known tactician, one could argue that his companions’ simple strategy is far much better than Odysseus naive idea of trying his luck with the Cyclops. Although Odysseus’ cunnings got him out of the cave after getting trapped, the consequences of his foolish curiosity in regard to the death of his comrades and the lost of trust of his comrades, outweigh the benefits of his cunnings. Odysseus stubbornness and foolishness led to the death of six of his men a nd this gave Eurylochus one of the reasons to go against his authority.The incident on their way out of Island of the Cyclopes also added fuel to the fire when Odysseus provoked Polyphemus by shouting to him. His crew members yet again pleaded to him, â€Å"Hard one, why are you trying once more to stir up this savage man . . . † (9. 494-495). They also mentioned that because of Odysseus’ provocative actions, the Cyclops threw big rocks at them and led the ship back to the shore and almost got them caught and get killed. This declaration by his crew members is a sign of their disappointment with Odysseus’ leadership.It shows that they are concerned with how Odysseus constantly putting them in harm’s way by being out of control. Another sign of their dissatisfaction is when the notion of unfairness came into their minds when they foolishly opened the bag of wind that sent them back to Aiolian Island. His companions stated that Odysseus â€Å"is bringing h ome with him handsome treasures . . . while we, who have gone through everything he has on the same venture, come home with our hands empty. † (10. 40-43).This action by the crew members shows a symptom of mutiny against a leader that is supposed be trusted and respected by his subjects. It also signifies that Odysseus has lost his connection with his crew men and they don’t see him anymore as one of them. In an article by Elihu Rose, he claimed that â€Å"Mutiny begins with grievances over some existing or threatened condition. The question then may be posed as to whether those grievances, legitimate or not, were ultimately addressed and, if so, to what degree . . . † (572).This statement supports the idea that mutiny is indeed the result of lack of acknowledgement by the people who are responsible to address the internal issues of an organization. It applies to Odysseus’ constant disregard of his crew members’ pleadings which resulted to him putti ng his crew members into situations that they didn’t wish to go through. According to Machiavelli, â€Å". . . one of the most powerful preventive measures against conspiracies is simply not being hated by majority of people. People planning a conspiracy must believe that killing the ruler will be popular . . † Eurylochus knew the disappointment of the crew members on Odysseus’ leadership. This gave him the further courage to voice out his displeasure on Odysseus’ authority knowing that the crew members also have an issue with the way Odysseus handled situations. It also gave him the courage and the capability to persuade the crew members to disobey Odysseus’ orders of not eating the cattle of Helios. Machiavelli’s advice to a king of keeping his subjects satisfied or simply not despise him to avoid contempt or mutiny certainly didn’t apply to Odysseus leadership.The stubbornness of Odysseus along with his inability to create a cohesi ve relationship among his crew resulted into disappointment inside his circle which paved the way for Eurylochus to contempt against his authority. Lastly, the capability of the noble men to threaten his throne and exploit his belongings could be argued as the result of the political structure of Odysseus’ kingdom. Chapter four of The Prince discusses the advantages of appointing ministers and the disadvantages of a kingdom with nobles.Machiavelli stated that, â€Å"These barons have their own lands and their own subjects who recognize the barons as their masters and are naturally loyal to them. Where a state is governed by a king and his ministers the king is more powerful since he is the only person in the state whom people recognize as superior. When they obey someone else it is only because he is minister or official and they have no special loyalty to him† (16). In other words, Machiavelli suggests that because the nobles have their own power inside a king’ s monarchy, they’re more likely to disobey or be mutinous against a king’s authority.On the other hand, a monarchy that has ministers instead of barons, gives the king the security of not having any defiance against his superiority. In The Odyssey, Achaea is a land filled nobles. It is known in the story that Odysseus did not appoint any ministers or any sort of authority to secure his throne in Ithaca from any threats while he is gone to war. This signifies that his power over the people of Ithaca is not absolute or in other words, the foundation of his power is fragile once a certain threat to his power comes in.In The Prince, Machiavelli claimed that the nobles are more likely to be corrupted by foreign forces because they are hard to please and are always eager for a change in leadership. This suggests that even if Odysseus came back to Ithaca on time, his authority is not secured from any internal or external forces (e. g. the nobles or other kings) that wanted to challenge it and much more worst if he actually have died in the war. In The Odyssey, Telemachus stated that, â€Å"It is not bad to be a king . . . in fact there are many other Achaian princes, young and old, in sea girt Ithaca, any of who might hold this position, now hat the great Odysseus has perished. † (1. 393-396). This statement by Telemachus; son of Odysseus, is a confirmation that Odysseus throne is in fact open for any internal or external forces (i. e. suitors Inside or outside of Ithaca) to occupy without any prohibition. According to Machiavelli, â€Å". . . there will always be barons ready to assume authority when circumstances swing their way . . . † (18). Odysseus’ absence in Ithaca and the inexistence of authority gave the noblemen the chance to do whatever they want in his land, consequently giving the noble men their chance to finally occupy his throne.An example of this is the persistence of the Achaean noble men to take his throne by marr ying his wife; Penelope, despite her obvious intension of not wanting to marry. Another result of lack of authority in Ithaca is the constant abuse of his property in the hands of the noble men by uncontrollably devouring his livestock and wine. Although Telemachus tried to appeal to the suitors by holding an assembly with all the suitors and the Achean elders, it was not enough to get the suitors out of his land. Telemachus stated that â€Å"We have no man here such as Odysseus was, to drive this curse from the household.We ourselves are not the men to do it . . . not men well seasoned in battle. † (2. 58-61). Although Telemachus has the right to be aggravated with the suitors’ spoilage of his belongings, there is no authority or power in his kingdom beyond his capability that could demand the suitors out of his land. Without Odysseus, the noblemen hold the power on the land and are pretty much entitled to enforce their own rules. In the book Greek Political Thought b y Ryan Balot, he stated that, â€Å"Odysseus was like a father to his people who protected them from foreign enemies, from less restrained aristocrats . . When Odysseus left Ithaca, everything went downhill, because of the greed and hubris of wealthy well-born men without a sense of decency . . . Meanwhile, the political community could exert some – though not enough – pressure on these aristocrats to amend their behaviour. . . as long as Odysseus was gone, those who would normally have been in charge were left with pious hopes that the gods would rescue them. Therefore . . . the well being of Ithaca depended on Odysseus return and his forcible reassertion of his power. † (32).This statement by Balot supports the argument that the inexistence of ministers who play as the second in command of the king makes the monarchy vulnerable not only from the nobles but also from external threats. Without the authority of appointed ministers who play as the second in comman d of the king, it makes the noble suitors subsequent to Odysseus in the hierarchy of power in Ithaca. With the little gap between the powers of a king and noblemen, it makes it easier for the noblemen to enforce their authority in a kingdom when the power of a king is inexistent.Balot’s view of the situation in Ithaca also supports the idea that Odysseus’ authority in his kingdom is not supreme amongst all the people under his authority and it is just a matter of chance before the noblemen defy him. Machiavelli’s theory about the advantages of ministers and the disadvantages of having noblemen in a monarchy certainly applies to the structure of Odysseus’ monarchy. With the kind of monarchy that Ithaca has, Odysseus’ superiority in his land is undeniably vulnerable from the defiance of the ambitious and opportunistic noblemen.The inexistence of legitimate authorities like the ministers who play as the second in command of the king to provide governa nce all over the land and also as the king’s safeguard from any mutiny makes the supremacy of Odysseus as a king of Ithaca questionable. A leader’s utilization of both power and leadership is the sole reason for an organization to succeed or fail. A leader that lacks either one of these elements is most likely to fail on directing a group to achieve the group’s common objective including the leader’s own personal goal.The issues of power and leadership throughout Odysseus journey in The Odyssey are linked to the ideologies and guidelines of Machiavelli’s The Prince on how a king can efficiently apply his power and leadership to maintain a well-organized and successful monarchy and what kinds of circumstances can affect a king’s supremacy to his own kingdom. Throughout Odysseus journey, he showed manners of leadership that contradicted the guidelines of Machiavelli of how a king should react in different situations that involve a critical lea dership decisions.Odysseus’ too much compassion towards his crew members contradicts the advice of Machiavelli on why it is better for the leader to be feared than loved. His inappropriate compassion towards his crew members led to their rebellion against his authority which consequently led to their own destruction. Odysseus perhaps wanted to be viewed as a compassionate leader, therefore loved by his people, instead of being viewed as a cruel but effective dictator. But according to Leeden â€Å"Indeed, if you are feared, your followers will always find reasons to love you. †(128).Odysseus recklessness also resulted to the contempt of his second in command, Eurylochus. Machiavelli stated that a king should have the characteristics of both fox and lion to avoid traps and scare out enemies. Although there is no doubt that Odysseus is a courageous warrior and at the same time cunning, he showed at times that he only utilizes the qualities of a lion but lacks or disregar ds the qualities of a fox, thus resulting to his crew members frustration of his actions. An example is when he courageously waited for Polyphemus despite knowing the fact that he’s an unlawful monster.Machiavelli stated that those kings that only rely on qualities of a lion have no idea what they’re doing. The structure of Odysseus’ monarchy is also discussed in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Machiavelli’s view on why a king is better off with a monarchy with appointed ministers than a monarchy with ruling noblemen can certainly be applied to the struggle of power in his land, Ithaca. The situation in Ithaca proves that Machiavelli’s view on the importance of ministers and the disadvantages of having noble family in a monarchy is accurate.These issues of power and leadership in The Odyssey created the consequences that plagued Odysseus, his crewmen and his wife and son throughout the story. The rebellion of his crewmembers is the result of Odyss eus’ failure to apply an efficient leadership along with his power, consequently resulting to his authority over his men to diminish as well. The effect of the political structure to Odysseus’ supremacy in Ithaca is unchangeable, thus making him an inevitable victim of an unavoidable circumstance.However, If Odysseus followed the guidelines of Machiavelli on how an ideal king should lead, Odysseus could have saved some of his crew members and achieved their ultimate common goal and that is returning to Ithaca safe and sound. Bibliography Balot, Ryan. Greek Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 32. Print. This text contains a thorough history of ancient Greek political thought. It examines different kinds of ancient text (e. g. The Odyssey) in order to clearly demonstrate the political thought and structure of ancient Greece during its time. It also studies the connection between politics and ethics in ancient Greece.Part of this text studies the tendencies of the noblemen to revolt against a ruler. Balot stated that the aristocrats often sought for political connection outside a king’s monarchy to gain additional political connection that could possibly help them attack their own government. It also contains Balot’s view of the situation in Ithaca when Odysseus power is inexistent. Balot stated that Odysseus existence as a king is the only thing that hinders the â€Å"less-restrained† aristocrats from doing what they wish to do in his land. Homer. The Odyssey of Homer. Trans. Richmond Lattimore.New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. , 1967. Print. The poem The Odyssey tells the story of Odysseus’ journey back to his kingdom after the Trojan War. It describes the trials and the consequences that Odysseus had to go through trough out his journey. This text relates to my essay about â€Å"Power and Leadership† because it exhibits Odysseus’ leadership capabilities on different kinds of situations ( e. g. Odysseus leadership in the island of the Cyclops) throughout his travel. This text is relevant to my argument because it contains incidents that required Odysseus to make leadership decisions.An example of these incidents is when he decided to wait for the Cyclops despite his crew members’ request of leaving the cave. By using these incidents in The Odyssey, it will help me apply the guidelines of Machiavelli on how a king should respond in different kinds of situations that required critical leadership decisions. Ledeen, Michael. Machiavelli on Modern Leadership. New York: Truman Talley Books and St. Martin's Griffin, 1999. 112-149. Print. This book studies the lessons of Machiavelli on leadership and how they can be applied to modern politics. Michael A.Ledeen’s personal view on the importance of Machiavellian leadership will be used as a tool to back up my claims on why the consequences that Odysseus suffered throughout his journey were the results of his lead ership decisions that contradicted the guidelines of Machiavelli. In one case in the book that indicates the importance of inserting fear in the people under one’s leadership, Leeden uses George Washington as an example by illustrating how the former U. S. president used his army to control the citizens who were against the idea of paying excise tax on their liquor.Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Tim Parks. Great Britain: Penguin Books Ltd, 2009. Print. This book by Machiavelli instructs the readers of the guidelines of how a â€Å"Prince† should lead and overcome adversaries or conflicts the Machiavellian way. It relates to my topic of â€Å"Power and Leadership† because it contains ideologies of how leaders should react or demonstrate power when threatened by internal or foreign forces. This text also discusses different circumstances that could affect a king’s superiority in his kingdom.The effect of the political structure of a king’s kingdom is an example of the topics that are discussed in this text that could be applied to the circumstance of Odysseus kingdom, Ithaca. This text will be the basis of my judgement on the rights and wrongs of Odysseus’ leadership. It will also be the basis of my evaluation on what Odysseus should have and should have not done on different situations throughout his travel. Rose, Elihu. â€Å"The Anatomy of Mutiny. † Sage. (1982): 572. Web. 25 Mar. 2013. ;http://afs. sagepub. com/content/8/4/561. full. pdf;. This article by Rose studies the reasons of mutiny in the military.It also explains the different kinds of mutinies, how the process of mutiny starts and how to end it. It also contains examples of passed mutinies from sixteenth century French monarchy. This article is essential to the argument of why Odysseus’ inappropriate actions in the land of the Cyclopes have made his crewmen disappointed which led to the act of contempt of Eurylochus against him. Its explanation of how mutiny starts supports the argument that Odysseus’ action against the will of his crewmen is the primary reason why his subordinates rebel against his authority in their journey.

The Mechanics of Consciousness - 1571 Words

Consciousness it is a state of awareness on both the external and internal actions and reaction toward different stimulus. Consciousness has greater impacts on our daily life and could influence survival of different organisms that lives on planet earth. The benefits is that it offers protection as it control the self .Consciousness regulate what we think and the reaction that we respond to the different experiences that we undergo on daily basis. Also, it allows us to either allow a thought or respond or terminating the thought as it might be not useful both the inner and outer experiences. Consciousness as the primary regulator of the body an how we interact with either the conducive or bad environment that one live in. However, consciousness can cause misfortune that could lead to someone doing wrong things. It is ones consciousness that often enables us to commit crimes such as murder or robbery as the thought was first altered by consciousness. Furthermore, if one consciousness doesn’t function effectively this might make the person vulnerable to predators. (Kowalski, 2005: 291) 1.2 Consciousness Consciousness refers to an individual’s self-awareness, both internally and external stimulus which include your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment. Your consciousness can constantly change from one conscious to another. The constant change in consciousness can also be referred to as â€Å"stream of conscious†. Awareness- its mechanism and function hasShow MoreRelatedConsciousness Is Not An Illusion1631 Words   |  7 PagesConsciousness poses the most baffling challenges in scientific realm of the mind. There’s nothing with which we share an intimate relation than conscious experience, but there’s nothing so strenuous or demanding to explain. Perhaps no other aspect of mind is more puzzling than this mystifying experience that we encounter in our every day life. There’s a widespread disparity amongst individuals regarding the existence of this entity. Some might argue that consciousness is not more than a foolish ideaR ead MoreConsciousness Is Not An Illusion1631 Words   |  7 PagesConsciousness poses the most baffling challenges in scientific realm of the mind. There’s nothing with which we share an intimate relation than conscious experience, but there’s nothing so strenuous or demanding to explain. Perhaps no other aspect of mind is more puzzling than this mystifying experience that we encounter in our every day life. There’s a widespread disparity amongst individuals regarding the existence of this entity. Some might argue that consciousness is not more than a foolish ideaRead MoreQuantum Mechanics and Islam Essay1602 Words   |  7 Pages Introduction Quantum mechanics or also known as quantum physics is a field of science which studies the behaviour of particles at sub-atomic level. This theory tells us that short-lived pairs of particles and their antiparticles are constantly being created and destroyed in an apparently empty space. In quantum mechanics the weird behaviour of electrons are not accurately explained and until now not a single theory is acceptable by the whole scientific community to postulate the phenomena. TheRead MoreMarx And Durkheim s Views On Sociology1090 Words   |  5 Pagestoday. Let’s take a glimpse at each of them. Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist; he is the founding figure in the sociology world and is also known as the father of sociology. He made sociology a science. Here are some of his main concepts: mechanic and organic solidarity, division of labor, and anomie. He sought to delineate how society was different from existing schools of philosophy and history. He believed that social facts are the only thing we should study and group level statistics isRead MoreEmotion As Described And Theorized By Antonio Damasio1366 Words   |  6 Pagesmade conscious, is organism’s cognizance of the reaction, and thus its experience of the feeling (Damasio, 37). According to Damasio, from an evolutionary or biological perspective, emotions were likely vital during times before the emergence of consciousness, and presently it is especially vital in order that we are able to react and manage â€Å"inducers we often do not recognize consciously.† In terms of feelings, especially when they are made conscious, Damasio believes they are useful because they provideRead MoreThe Mortality Rate Of Humans1575 Words   |  7 Pagesreligious claims remain based on faith, but scientific claims remain based on reason. Due to no apparent evidence of an afterlife, religion, physics, and near death experiences leads people to believe consciousness may continue as a soul. Life after death may be a reality. There is no death of consciousness, just death of the body. Religion is one of the primary reasons people believe in the afterlife. All religions are diverse in their beliefs. However, most are in accord with one teaching. This teachingRead MoreWhat Is Consciousness, The Subjective Quality Of Experience1052 Words   |  5 PagesThe closest way to explain consciousness is the subjective quality of experience. Creative points of perception are perceptions that turn new and imaginative ideas into reality by the ability to perceive the world in new ways, to find hidden patterns, to make connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and to generate solutions. Consciousness creativity is fluid thoughtlessness which can take on any form. The essay will explain consciousness, prove its existence and show a path to awakeningRead MoreThe Relation of Consciousness to the Material World Essays707 Words   |  3 PagesThe Relation of Consciousness to the Material Worl The relation of consciousness to the material world is puzzle, which has its origin in dualism, a philosophy of mind which posits their fundamental separation. Dualism, in turn, has its roots in folk wisdom. The belief that humans are more than bodies and that there is something in human nature that survives bodily death has its origins in prehistory; it becomes explicit in the mythology of Ancient Egypt and Assyria and was formulated intoRead MoreDurkheim1434 Words   |  6 Pagesterms are highly relative when it comes to the basis of â€Å"The Division of Labor in Society.† This book discusses the major themes relating to both solidarities while also progressing in the ideas of social theory and consciousness of the mind. The key factor when relating both Mechanic and Organic Solidarity is â€Å"referring to different modes of establishing and maintaining social order and cohesion.† (Boundless 1) Without the inclusion of these solidarities, there is no telling how human behaviorRead MoreEssay on Human Factors in Flight 53901206 Words   |  5 Pages | On the flight deck at the time, flight attendant Nigel Ogden quickly latched his hands onto the captains belt. Meanwhile, Lancaster was being battered and frozen in the 500mph slipstream, and was losing consciousness due to the lack of oxygen. Atchison ,the co pilot, began an emergency descent, and started to broadcast a distress call. Due to rushing air on the flight deck, he was unable to hear the response from air traffic control. Ogden, still latched onto

Compare SAT Scores for the Big 12 Conference Colleges