So far my name has been listed in the:

• 2005 publication of Lonely Planet Kyoto (page 203; no preview available),
• 2006 publication of Lonely Planet Japan (page 791),
• 2006 publication of Lonely Planet Japón (Spanish version of previous book; unknown page; no preview available),
• 2010 publication of Lonely Planet South America on a Shoestring (page 1041).

I guess I’ll say a “Thank you” to Google for letting me know that I was mentioned in the 2010 LP South America guidebook when I googled my name.

After searching the internet for some time time for one good list of ordinal numberals in English, Portuguese and Spanish I came up short. I was able to find numeral lists for each on many websites, but I didn’t come across an all-inclusive list that could be used for quick reference. I’ve compiled them together here for anyone that may find this useful.

So I create this blog post hoping that someone may find this list useful. If you study Portuguese or Spanish and international relations (or related fields) this could be of great use – especially if you are studying abroad and the host language is not your own. For starters, I literally took the glossary of terms from a slightly older version of this textbook and translated the terms one-by-one from English to Portuguese and Spanish using online dictionaries and Wiki. From there, I added additional terms that I’ve found essential to this academic field.  In the process of building this list, I cross checked terms and conducted internet searches for verification. A huge thanks to Dr. Sergio Villalobos for checking/correcting the Spanish translations.

If you still find any errors or know of any better translations, please notify me by leaving a comment at the bottom of this page.

Resources:

1. The university Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro holds a blog in which they provide international relations terms and definitions. The site is entirely in Portuguese and no cross-language translations are given.

• Letter A
• Letter B
• Letter C
• Letter D
• Letter E
• Letters F, G, H, I
• Letters J, L, M, N, O
• Letters P, Q, R, S, T, U, Z

• Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzNcY-gZdiA
• Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdJUGM2mi9I
• Video 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsh6-GN-9Q0
• Video 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQasVtB_UOo

And lastly, for a great film, see A Beautiful Mind with Russel Crowe. The film demonstrates how John Forbes Nash came up with the idea of what is now known as “Nash equilibrium” while contemplating the best method to pick up girls in a bar with his mates.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims the country may already be working toward building nukes for military use.

So how does the West deal with a nuclear Iran? Military force? Deterrence?

It might surprise you how successful deterrence has already been in the 20th century in dealing with seemingly irrational governments and their possession of nuclear weapons. I leave you with this two part heated debate between CNN’s Fareed Zararia and Norman Podhoretz.

And finally, a much newer recording of Zakaria’s take on the Iran issue:

Also worth noting: Iran’s highest valued monetary note (50,000 rials) contains a nuclear symbol on the back side: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/5000Rials.JPG

See also: http://www.emilephaneuf.com/?p=141

• Brazil – President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: official website (Portuguese), photo/bio (Portuguese)
• China (People’s Republic of) – Premier Wen Jiabao: unknown official website, bio at China Vitae
• France – President Nicolas Sarkozy: official website (French), bio by CIDOB Foundation (Spanish)
• Germany – Chancellor Angela Merkel: official website, personal website (German)
• India – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: official website, official profile, CV
• Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: official website, unofficial bio
• Iran – Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei: official website, official bio, profile at BBC News, video archive
• Iran – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: official website, personal blog
• Japan – Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama: official website (Japanese)
• Mexico – President Felipe Calderón: official website (Spanish)
• North Korea (DPRK) – Kim Jong-il: official bio, publications by Kim Jong-Il, bio at About.com, profile at BBC News, profile at The Guardian, bio and photos at GlobalSecurity.org. The DPRK government also maintains an official website here.
• Panama – President Ricardo Martinelli: official campaign bio (Spanish), bio by CIDOB Foundation (Spanish)
• Russia – President Dmitry Medvedev: official website, photos/bio
• Russia – Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: official website, bio
• United Kingdom – Prime Minister Gordon Brown: official website
• United States – President Barack Obama: profile at whitehouse.gov, biography at senate.gov campaign website
• Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez: official website (Spanish), Aló Presidente (Spanish), profile at BBC News, FRONTLINE documentary: The Hugo Chavez Show

21. Although Iran has challenged the allegation that it has engaged in nuclear related high explosives testing studies, Iran has told the Agency that it has experimented with the civil application of simultaneously functioning multiple detonators (GOV/2008/15, para. 20), and was asked by the Agency to provide it with information which would prove that such work had been for civil and nonnuclear military purposes (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(c)). Iran has not yet shared that information with the Agency. The Agency would also like to discuss with Iran the possible role that a foreign national with explosives expertise (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(d)), whose visit to Iran has been confirmed by the Agency, played in explosives development work.

23. In respect to the alleged missile re-entry vehicle studies, the Agency still wishes to visit the civilian workshops which Iran has indicated to the Agency exist and which are identified in the documentation as having been involved in the production of model prototypes of a new payload chamber for a missile (GOV/2008/38, para. 17(e)). In addition, while asserting that the documentation on the alleged missile re-entry vehicle was forged and fabricated, Iran informed the Agency that it was well known that Iran was working on the Shahab-3 missile. In light of that, the Agency has reiterated the need to hold discussions with Iran on the engineering and modelling studies associated with the re-design of the payload chamber referred to in the alleged studies documentation to exclude the possibility that they were for a nuclear payload.

24. In light of the above, the Agency has repeatedly informed Iran that it does not consider that Iran has adequately addressed the substance of the issues, having focused instead on the style and form of presentation of the written documents relevant to the alleged studies and providing limited answers or simple denials in response to other questions. The Agency has therefore requested Iran to provide more substantive responses and to provide the Agency with the opportunity to have detailed discussions with a view to moving forward on these issues, including granting the Agency access to persons, information and locations identified in the documents in order for the Agency to be able to confirm Iran’s assertion that these documents are false and fabricated…

More reports are available for Iran on the IAEA’s website.

See also: http://www.emilephaneuf.com/?p=21

In 2002, Robin Williams compared the UK House of Commons to “Congress with a two drink minimum” in his Live on Broadway act.

War, in the past few centuries, has been conducted primarily by nation-states. To understand nation-states and their actions, one must understand the fundamental elements which influence actions.

State actors reflect individual actors; whether these individuals be a prime minister, secretary of state, king, or chairman of a central bank, the underlining principal remains the same: the actions of nation-states reflect the actions and intentions of those in power. To break it down even further: states act rationally and are controlled by individual actors, and these individual actors can be understood and even predicted once an observer acknowledges that individuals follow certain laws of human nature.

To understand human nature is to understand that human beings seek power. One who seeks power does not always do so because she wishes to control another out of hatred, jealousy or greed. Rather, human nature contains even stronger feelings of insecurity and fear. Nations establish borders just as individuals establish fences around their houses and property. Furthermore, nations not only extend their borders to oppress their neighbors but many times to suppress fear of an enemy. Each time a border is extended, new fears and insecurities arise.

So to answer the question, war is more likely when an actor or group of actors:

1. feels one or more of the previously mentioned emotions (hatred, jealousy, greed, insecurity, fear), and
2. believes war to be the least-costly method to achieve a desired goal, and
3. believes something can be gained by conducting war. It is important to note that nations do not always choose to conduct war because they believe they can win, but rather, that by engaging in war, they can achieve some form of power: influence in a region, sympathy, international attention, etc.

To see an example of the third option listed above consider the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Al-Qaeda didn’t expect that it’s attacks on the twin towers would bring the US to its knees or even that the terrorist group could achieve anything close to this in the long-term. In fact, Al-Qaeda’s goal was to instill fear in America and the infidel and attract attention to its cause. It had no intention on winning a war (at least not in the traditional sense of the idea “to win a war”).

The feeling of greed generally is the cause of war much less often than many claim. Japan in 1941 did not attack Pearl Harbor because it sought full domination of the United States or to expand Japanese territory. Rather, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in response to the US “Export Control Act of July 2, 1940 [which] authorized the President, in the interest of national defense, to prohibit or curtail the export of basic war materials. Under that act, licenses were refused for the export to Japan of aviation gasoline and most types of machine tools, beginning in August 1940. After it was announced in September that the export of iron and steel scrap would be prohibited, Japanese Ambassador Horinouchi protested to Secretary Hull on October 8, 1940 that this might be considered an “unfriendly act”.” (Peace and War) In this case, Japan felt the United States had impeded on its military power. Whether or not Japan’s attack on Pearl was justified depends on who is answering the question. But the point that stands is that Japan behaved rationally and in a way that reflected human nature.

To further the point, Great Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 not out of greed but because their national interests and economic well-being became threatened when Egypt’s President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company and blockaded the Straits of Tiran, Israel’s only passage to the Red Sea. From a British, French and Israeli standpoint, Egypt struck first – even if more economically than militarily (BBC News, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century, George Friedman, 2009).

What conditions make peace more sustainable?

1. A fundamental change in human nature. This is unlikely to happen.
2. Fear of a larger power that acts as an international police force (even if only from time to time). This need not always be a military force but could also be a regulatory force with power to impose economic sanctions or influence others to impose them.
3. Faith in a system or regulatory body where actors capable of engaging war can resolve their disputes in a peaceful manner. Just three examples include the International Court of Justice, United Nations, and the Organization of American States. I use the word “faith” here because actors, even those with less political, economical, or military power, must feel they hold a stake in the international system. The UN’s inability to intervene effectively in Rwanda in 1994 and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 which gained UN approval yet never found weapons of mass destruction it sought are both historical accounts in which public faith in an international regulatory body, the UN, was lost. Hence, the organization itself was undermined.

But what is to come? In what direction is war itself headed? Take a look for yourself. Depending on where you stand, it can be both exciting and a bit scary.

The robot in the video seen below resembles something of a science fiction movie. It’s called the BigDog and is made by Boston Dynamics. The company considers it to be the “most advanced rough-terrain robot on earth”. Read about BigDog and others on their website here.

Other advanced robots by Boston Dynamics (amazing videos!):

• RHex
• RiSE
• SquishBot

And for those that hunger for even more, here is an outstanding presentation on the subject with many visuals: