… so I got my subject for my international politics exam. I have to write 4000 words on it, within a week. 4000 words is really a rather short paper, so the hard part will not be writing the words, but finding the hook and angling the bate.

The question:

  1. What theory(s) can best explain thedisagreements in the Durban II confrence: Huntington’s teory on culture- and civilation clashes or other theories?
  2. What theory(s) can best explain the outcome of the conference?

So how do you angle that? What theories to put in play? How to make this a political scince paper and not an essay? How to chose just a few theories and how to chose the right ones? I got so many ideas for this, non of them concrete enough to really voice. It will properly not suprise you that I got construtivism playing in the background.

The Durban II conference was the conference on racismĀ  this April. And my first thought was: What do the UN think they can do about racism by hosting a conference? Do they really think it will help anything on the ground? It might turn the focus to the issue, but I don’t really see any governments really changing their minds on this. I do perhaps see some getting a push in the right direction. I might be cynical today, but do UN really think that they can change the human fear of those who are different from us? One of the best ways of fighting intolerance is though education so instead of hosting a four day long conference on racism, they should host one on education and poverty. I think that racism is a really bad thing, and I do think that debate is good. I do just not see the Durban confrence helping anything – if anything it drew up the line between the “West” and the no-West even more clearly – making it easier to judge and condem.

As you can see I might have a problem keeping this paper scinetific and non-biased. Keeping it from turning into a essay.