On Thursday October 17^th, I attended the International Affairs Scholars’ Mini-Involvement Fair, where I connected with some upperclassmen representatives of various relevant organizations on campus. This event included clubs encompassing a wide array of subjects, from the Alexander Hamilton Society’s political bipartisanship to the Global Health Initiative’s public health focus. As many of these organizations (especially those I spent the most time exploring) came from a place of service to both the local and international community, I consider this to be a Service event.

This event was especially helpful as it opened my eyes to various public health groups on campus that I (as a Public Health major) was totally unaware of. During the event, I visited every table, but I was especially enticed by The Ohio State Global Health Initiative and Advocates for Women of the World. In general, the presence of these types of organizations at an IA Involvement Fair changed my perspective on the intersectionality of different fields. For so long I’d viewed the discipline and curriculum of Public Health as a distinct entity to my interest in International Affairs, yet these two fields intersect within many clubs on campus. I realized that International Affairs can be applied to virtually any type of major or area of interest, and it’s not simply limited to policy and diplomacy. Each club had a global element, and each individually offered a path to understanding better a certain part of global society. Being involved in each organization would offer development of knowledge of a specific facet of international affairs, which I believe to be especially important as knowledge and understanding are the best tools for successful, peaceful international relations. Though each organization was quite specific in which facet of international society they focused on (from bipartisan policy to betterment of women’s positions around the globe), together they offered a glimpse into the multifaceted nature of my involvement in IA Scholars.

In a specific sense, I gained meaningful things from each of the organizations’ representatives I spoke with. The Global Health Initiative caught my eye as a Public Health major. As the representative explained the in’s and out’s of the club, including the service trips to Guatemala, India as well as special guests invited to lecture, I decided that GHI fit both my career interests and would connect me with international experiences. In addition, I found that GHI was hosting a pre-professional event for public health majors. Upon attending this event the next week, I met both grad students, and members of the public health workforce, both of which gave me valuable advice about when to reach out to professors about research, which courses to take, and which organizations in the Columbus community to explore internships with. Indirectly through the IA Mini-Involvment Fair, I was able to work on my networking skills and gain some confidence in the fact that I selected the right major for my ambitions in life.

Photos from the Global Health Initiative’s Pre-professional 101 seminar, Tuesday 11/6/18

On the night of September 24th, I attended one of Sam’s talks in Smith-Steeb on Trump’s Foreign Policy, specifically as it relates to North Korea. The talk centered around President Donald Trump’s recent actions in attempts to halt North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. We began by discussing the history of conflict between the United States and North Korea; including past administrations’ own attitudes towards the growing issue. In comparison to the Bush and Obama administrations, Trump has taken on a more aggressive approach. In addressing his actions (harsh sanctions, addressing Kim Jong-un at the summit), the group took a hypothetical approach, analyzing the potential consequences of what’s already been put in place in terms of foreign policy. This talk was extensive, and I was especially interested in the debate over whether Trump’s intense reaction to both North Korea’s program and Kim Jong-un’s insults legitimized North Korea on the world stage; suggesting that this volatile nation is worthy of negotiation and respect. One student countered this, however, by noting that perhaps North Korea would be less inclined to follow orders and denuclearize if the United States entered this discussion with a condescending attitude. The complexity of international affairs, specifically in dealing with nuclear weaponry, was emphasized as we explored the potential calamities that could arise due to a single inflammatory tweet or distorted perception.

A realization I came to as I listened to other students’ thoughts was my intense bias towards Trump’s policies based on his character alone. I needed to take time to reflect on whether or not I was able to see past his often indecent, offensive rhetoric in order to judge his policies fairly (though I still believe that his dealing with North Korea thus far have been rash and uncalculated). I was pleasantly surprised and enlightened by the diverse array of opinions in the room, considering I lacked exposure to diverse views in my small-town conservative upbringing. Though these different thoughts were refreshing, it truly emphasized how difficult it is to find an unbiased news source on either side of the political spectrum, though I believe every student presented facts to the best of their ability. This fact in itself, as well as the fact that, as International Affairs scholars we all have varying political leanings, reminded me of the importance of doing your own research and avoiding accepting ideas at face value. Facts and figures that are “spoon fed” can be misconstrued and warped in order to fit a specific agenda, whether its purposeful or not.

One of the most interesting perspectives I was able to take away from this talk on Trump’s foreign policy was a connection between these current events and the concept of power I recently studied in my sociology class. It seems that in interacting with Kim Jong-un, Donald Trump is implementing a less long-term efficient mode of power– the threat of force and coercion. Compared to other ways of displaying power (defined as the ability to bring out an intended outcome) such as cultural power and solidarity, the threat of force is inconsistent and it fosters resentment and resistance in the opposition. Further, the threat of force has the potential to create “the paradox of coercion”, which brings about the opposite effect, in which the use of force is perceived as a symptom of weakness. Trump’s threats towards North Korea may be not only validating to Jong-un’s leadership, but it also may be displaying the United States as less dominating. A true show of power, in this perspective, would be remaining firm in values and isolating the enemy, but not resorting to threats.