Four Separate Questions
Discussion Question 1
My thought is that all disasters are local. The case is so because a disaster hit a specific place rather than an entire state or nation. People in that locality are the ones that feel the direct impact of the disaster. Besides, when a disaster occurs, the first responders are the people and community around the area and the local government, rather than waiting for the state or the federal government to come and rescue them. Therefore, the first response is primarily provided at the local level to facilitate faster response and recovery from the disaster.
The local level should have the primary responsibility of preparing and responding to disasters. The case is so because the response is quicker because the disaster occurs within the locality. That being the case, no bureaucratic procedures should be followed in responding to the disaster because the local level has firsthand information about the disaster. Besides, it is easier to collaborate in responding to disasters because there are fewer barriers involved. The people in the locality can easily develop a sense of trust in one another. That said, giving the local level the primary responsibility of preparing and responding to disasters enhances effective, skillful, and speedy disaster response (Pittman, 2011). The case is so because local collaboration is easier because they can exploit the natural mutual understanding and attraction and social networks among societies with similar interests.
The advantages of selecting the local level as the primary preparer and responder of disaster include the ease of collaboration among the locals due to shared interests. The locals can take care of one another in the disaster response process because they do not know where the next disaster may hit. Secondly, it facilitates faster and effective recovery from disasters because they have firsthand information on the extremity of the disaster. Therefore, they can easily determine which measures to leverage in response or preparation for a disaster. However, several shortcomings are related to the local level as the critical level of preparing for and responding to disasters. The major shortcoming with the local level is the lack of adequate resources to prepare and respond to disasters, especially those extreme (Chen, 2020). That said, the local level may require funding from higher levels, such as the state or federal government.
References
Chen, G. (2020). Assessing the Financial Impact of Natural Disasters on Local Governments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 40(1), 22-44.
Pittman, E. (2011). Remember: All disasters are local, says FEMA deputy administrator. Emergency Management.
Discussion Question 2
In my view, the United States should not withhold its funding for organizations that adopt policies that are contrary to the US values. This is because organizations hail from different regions around the globe. That being the case, cultures, policies, and other organizational aspects differ based on the region they operate. As a result, it would be illegitimate to withhold funding organizations because their policies do are contrary to the US values. Besides, different organizations may have different policies that are aimed at achieving a similar outcome. That being the case, it would be illegitimate to withhold funding such an organization just because they adopt different policies. Unless such organizations have their unique and possibly harmful interests that are contrary to the US values, the US should continue funding them.
Withholding funding of organizations with different policies would mean that the United States promotes the ideology of superiority and inferiority in the current community (Stueck Jr, 2017). The case is so because, in doing so, it means that all organizations must adhere to the US values, which would mean that they are autonomous. Organizations are supposed to be autonomous for them to adopt a culture that promotes their service delivery. The case is so because the influence from external parties or regulations may interfere with their ability to make independent decisions. Therefore, if the United States stops funding organizations with different policies, it means that their main goal is to promote the US values, rather than standard goals such as promoting peace and harmony, among others.
Withholding support for organizations with different policies and ideologies means that the US puts the interests of their values ahead of the international organizations’ overall goals. It is similar if Christians declare that they will not support Muslims when they are in need. It means that the US does not value and respect diversity in its operations. Respecting diversity is one step towards achieving the desired outcome. However, withholding funding to organizations with differed policies is a symbol of discrimination based on ideologies. Therefore, it may draw tension in not only those organizations but also other international organizations about the respect for diversity and the US’s action, especially those that advocate for equity across borders.
References
Stueck Jr, W. W. (2017). The Road to Confrontation: American Policy Toward China and Korea. UNC Press Books.
Discussion Question 3
Concept of disaster diplomacy idealistic because it does not generate a new diplomacy initiative. However, it is dependent on multiple issues related to the parties involved. Disasters exert suffering to all humans, whether friends, all enemies. In such cases, it unites them under a shared human spirit. As a result, they place all humans under a common interest in that they may need help from one another. That being the case, disasters tend to push cooperation between multiple parties in that they are forced to put their personal or national interests aside to address the ongoing disaster as one. However, disaster does not create an entirely new diplomacy initiative. Instead, it influences an existing diplomatic process by supporting or catalyzing it (Kelman, 2018). When a disaster acts as a catalyst for a pre-existing diplomatic relationship, it tends to create a short-term rather than long-term diplomacy.
Although disaster-related issues can promote a pre-existing diplomatic condition, they can also backfire by reducing the diplomatic opportunities and fomenting conflict. Some of the hindrances that contribute to the ineffectiveness of disaster-related issues on diplomatic opportunities include mistrust, misgiving, and prejudice. For instance, America offered to assist Cuba during the 1998 drought disaster. However, Cuba resisted their aid. Also, a similar case occurred after the Katrina hurricane that hit the US. The US denied any aid offers from Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.
Disaster diplomacy is dependent on pre-existing reconciliation efforts. Based on the available evidence, disaster diplomacy only has the possibility and not inevitability of improving the inter-state, multinational, and other relations (Eastin, 2016). That being the case, it should not be the only option of building diplomacy. Some many non-disaster activities and factors can have a significant and long-term impact on diplomatic issues. Factors such as leadership changes and mutual distrust can achieve better and long-lasting diplomatic outcomes than disaster diplomacy. Therefore, for nations to achieve an excellent diplomatic outcome, they should consider using non-disaster activities. The case is so because disaster diplomacy issues ameliorate conflicts between states, thus deterring the possibility of achieving diplomacy. Such cases are evident all over the globe, and therefore states should learn depending on other diplomatic approaches.
References
Eastin, J. (2016). Fuel to the fire: Natural disasters and the duration of civil conflict. International Interactions, 42(2), 322-349.
Kelman, I. (2018). Disaster diplomacy. The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, 1-6.
Discussion Question 4
There has been increasing use of social media with some platforms such as Facebook exceeding one billion users. While it comes with numerous benefits, social media poses a great risk to the overall national security. Social media allows people from different regions of the world to connect and interact, share their images, information, and ideologies online. That being the case, terrorists target social media to gain information about their targets. With the numerous information found on social media, a terrorist and other cybercrime can easily get deeper information about their targets based on the images they post online. That being the case, they pose a big threat to national security because terrorists can analyze information found on social media to plan an attack excellently.
Terrorists are currently exploiting the power of the internet, especially social media, to spread messages portraying intolerance and hate. In doing so, they tend to influence others, especially those with similar intentions, to join them in jeopardizing national security (Chesney & Citron, 2019). Besides, they can also use social media platforms to acquire new members, thus increasing their numbers. As a result, they can easily get in the state because they already have followers from within the nation. That said, social media creates a conducive environment for terrorists to maneuver without getting noticed and gaining access to critical government and personal information. Personal information can be used to facilitate further attacks, such as identity theft and other cybercrimes. Therefore, while social media brings together people from all around the globe, it puts the state security at risk.
The images and information posted on social media provide vital clues on the moves of individuals. Terrorists and other people with malicious intentions can easily trace their targets without the knowledge of the target. For instance, terrorists can determine when and where the target posted the information using the data and image analysis. Besides, people fail to practice security measures while online, which increases their vulnerability to attacks. For instance, an individual may post their location and timestamps, thus making it easier for terrorists to track them. That said, there exists a need to advise people to consider taking the appropriate precautionary measures to protect themselves from potential social media attacks.
References
Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. Calif. L. Rev., 107, 1753.