Overall, has US security policy in the past few decades been characterized by continuity or change? Both? Some combination of the two?
Obviously as the world changes, our security and priorities must adapt to fit the current times. Historically, through these documents, we see that they do, but they don't stray far from the same themes. Starting with NSC-68 and ending with NSS 2017, I believe that the US’s security policy has followed the same themes of putting American safety first with regards to terrorism, securing our leading place in the global economy, and protecting and advancing the notion of democracy abroad while also shifting, depending on the administration and the current environment of international relations. To start with, there are overarching similarities between NSC-68 and NSS 2017 despite their rather separate time frames. Both documents use foreign fear as a means for controlling and persuading Americans to be anti-communism, anti-Russia/USSR, etc. This kind of ‘fear mongering’ strategy, as written by Sophia, is a constant political tactic to further the goals of whatever administration is in charge. Right now, the Trump administration demonizes Mexican immigrants, Middle Eastern refugees, and every other minority for being "very bad people" and "terrorists". As Arnold Wolfers writes, the foreign policy that is implemented is a reflection of national interest. He mentions that national security is an ambiguous symbol of the reflection of the people. In this current environment, I beg to differ. Basically, he writes, we are products of our environment which, regarding international security, changes constantly. I find that I cannot read about international relations without seeing the world ambiguity at least once. While we like to believe that our administration has our interest in mind considering we voted for them, Trump seems to further his views of social security regardless of majority opinion. This creates a social security that goes beyond closed borders and airport securitization. It isolates American people, which is always the object of the documents as indicated by our-"self", from the rest of the world in the respect that everyone that is not American is not safe and should not be in the country. So now, 'others', are limited to, or rather broadened to, literally the rest of the world. You can see why this is problematic. This started with the fact that Americans almost always associate Muslims with terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks. While a tragic event, America has recently seen that most terrorists are domestic (school shootings, package bombs, etc.). Also, while the Obama administration acknowledged that seeking answers to the root of terrorism with a smaller military presence abroad is a great leap towards advancing the notion of counterterrorism, the current administration has emphasized a more aggressive military existence and approach, which is very similar to Bush-era efforts of counter-terrorism due to the time of American opinion of security. It all depends on American perspective on our international relations. Right after 9/11, Americans were more in favor of closed favors and a larger military because we just witnessed the largest terrorist attack on domestic soil. This concept leads to tactics that exist in similar administrations. The tactics almost always support our lead role in the global economy, a larger military, the spread of democracy and free trade agreements, to shape a larger American leadership role on a global scale. So, to summarize, the American concept of security has changed over time, in part because of 9/11, the Cold War and development of nuclear weapons, and the growing threat to democracy abroad.
1 Comment
On Thursday, we talked about the positive and negative aspects of celebrity activism and I learned a lot after the reading and hearing my classmates opinions.
Kim K and Her Publicist Machiavelli: first, you have a Machiavellian celebrity. Kim K is a prime example of a celebrity who wants to appear virtuous but actually isn't. The other day, on Instagram and Twitter, she posted in support of trans visibility while Kanye supports Trump and argues against social justice. Her publicist definitely read Machiavelli and took the infamous 'appear to be virtuous line' a little to seriously. She often does this to appeal to the majority of her fans but continues to support Kanye's insensitive mindset which shows her lack of virtues. However, a good example of celebrity activism starts with education. Celebrities that are educated and cite and partner with forms and organizations show they actually want to learn how to enact positive change. For example, Ashton Kutcher uses his platform in a positive way because he co-founded an organization called THORN with UN envoys, child specialists, and police forces. By combining his platform with educated professionals, he advocates for children in human trafficking circles in a way that is helpful. He draws public attention to the problem but actually partners with organizations that can help them. Since 2016, with the adaptation of new child-identification software, THORN has saved 6,000 children in trafficking circles. This is celebrity activism at it's most effective level. Additionally, to further the negative impact of celebrity activism, Wyatt summarized the problem of the negative result of celebrity activism in that, "westerns tend to come to foreign countries with a solution without understanding the problem". I agree. Westerns won't typically ask the people they are trying to help what they need them to do. They think of a solution themselves without regards to the long-term impact of their 'help'. This could be the fulfillment of their self-gratification to help others, or sheer arrogance, or assumptions without proper research. These 'solutions' are not really the answer to their problems. There are so many celebrities that travel to developing countries (mostly in Africa) to 'help the needy and civilize the poor'. But why is this a problem? Mostly because when celebrities bring aid to developing countries, they often disrupt the economy of the country they're attempting to help. By bringing vast amounts of rice to countries suffering from famine, rice farmers are now out of work. While some intentions are pure and celebrities are attempting to use their platform for good things, the outcome is not always helpful. I do want to give them credit for trying because, like Corwin said, if they didn't try to help in some sort of way, we would never learn how to help those in need. Building on our class simulation: given that there are a variety of arguments from different perspectives about how the U.S. should set domestic content rules for automobiles, how should we go about determining the answer to the question? How should the U.S. define the domestic content of automobiles, and why? Since we've spent two class sessions arguing from assigned points of view, we've elucidated some of the issues; now, taking the team assignments off, you have the opportunity to make your own, perhaps more thoughtful, argument.
After our final conversation and debate about the simulation, I have come to a conclusive opinion regarding domestic content rules after listening to each group’s points of argumentation. The consumer group was very convincing in conveying the complexity of domestic content laws and their negative effects on the consumer market place in the U.S. and the foreign auto manufacturers also argued similarly to the consumer group by explaining the large influence foreign auto-manufacturers have in the American auto industry. So, I have decided that domestic content regulations should be loosened considerably, in regards to environmental sustainability, consumer choice and affordability, and international trade/peaceful relations. With this, the United States should encourage foreign companies to sell cars that were made abroad with cars that were made domestically because this drives competition, which then stimulates the economy. Environmentally speaking, foreign cars are usually more energy-efficient that domestically made cars. In addition to energy efficiency, foreign manufacturers have stricter caps on their emission standards and pollution output. While I represented the United Auto Workers, I unsuccessfully connected my personal thoughts and opinions to their struggles. While, we sided with Ford’s motion to strengthen domestic content laws by 15%, we failed to recognize what that means for our employment, consumer-side activities, and environment. As a socially liberal union, our workers vote for environmentally conscious politicians, and in the simulation we did not recognize how stronger domestic content laws would ultimately, in the long run, be detrimental for domestic jobs. The foreign auto manufactures supply almost 45% of all automotive jobs in America. With the strengthening of content laws, these manufactures would not be able to absorb the cost of the tariff and they would have to leave the U.S., which leaves thousands of workers unemployed. I also would like to add that, international trade through which peaceful interactions between powerful nations occur, is a crucial to a stable, global economy and diplomatic relations between nations. While Machiavelli might disagree, trade incites cooperation between countries, which then creates natural friendships, and multi-national dependence. Therefore, war and conflict are uncommon in a global economy that encourages trade. In Wyatt's post, I found that she also argued that the "American First" policy could be a little dangerous because we do not want to alienate our allies and anger our enemies because world peace is on the line. While looking out for American economy and consuming trends is important, the eruption of a trade war between powerful countries could be devastating in comparison. Ultimately, loosening domestic content laws could open the door for consumer affordability and, on a large scale, world peace. During one of our discussions this week, we talked about the racism of immigration law. Recently, Filipino immigrants have been migrating to the United States in large quantities but have faced hate crimes and racism just like any other group. For this reflection I wanted to do a little research about the historical and modern implications of the social interactions of Filipinos and Americans.
Historically speaking, the Philippines have been one of the largest immigration groups in the United States and continues to grow today. Filipino immigrants have migrated to the U.S. during Spanish colonization and American colonization, for educational exchanges during the period as an American territory, and to meet labor demands as a result of industrialization. During the late twentieth century, Filipinos became one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the United States and have recently become the third-largest Asian immigrant group in the United States. However Filipino immigrants have not faced as much racism as Mexican immigrants due to their perceived hard-working personality. Since they are not infringing upon the "American Dream" they have better relations with Americans. The Filipino immigration pattern is characterized by four significant waves of high volume migration. The first wave was during the 1830’s as a result of the Philippine retaliation to the New Spain colonization. These migrants settled in New Orleans; the busiest industrialized port in the United States after New York. The second wave was during their time as a territory of America. Since they were a territory, they were unrestricted from immigration to the U.S. by the Immigration Act of 1917 that limited other Asian immigration. This created a large influx of Filipino immigrants due to the lack of restriction of the act. During this time, educational directives were distributed throughout the country to promote the new relationship. Developing education systems abroad seemed to be the way to establish peace. To enact these directives, American teachers were sent to the Philippines and Filipino students known as pensionados were brought to the United States on educational visas. Through 1903 and 1938, approximately 14,000 government- subsidized Filipino students studied in the United States. This wave ended when the Great Depression hit in the 1920’s and affected jobs and also targeted racially charged hate crimes towards Filipinos across the country because of economic depression and foreigners "infringing on the American Dream". However, surprisingly, there was a peak in immigration during the late 1920’s due to the agricultural production transition from small, rural practices to large-scale enterprises with regional specializations due to the developments in transportation, infrastructure, and food-preserving technology. This rapid industrialization created a large demand for labor which was then filled by immigrants and those looking to achieve the American Dream. By 1930, after industrialization created the large labor market, the number reached 45,300. Another factor that caused a lull or dip in immigration was the enactment of the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, which then restricted immigration to 50 people a year. The restriction was enacted due to the loss of the Philippines as a U.S. territory. The third wave of immigration followed the events of World War II. Filipinos who had served in World War II on behalf of the Allies were permitted to become U.S. citizens. 10,000 Filipino veterans capitalized on that opportunity. In addition to the veteran immigrants, the Filipina War brides were permitted to immigrate to the United States due to War Brides and Fiancée Act. These policies allowed for an additional 16,000 Filipino immigrants, which included women and children. The fourth and present wave of immigration began in 1965 with passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 into law. This law ended national quotas and administered an unrestricted number of temporary and permanent visas for family reunification. By the 1980’s the Philippines became the leading basis of legal immigration to the United States from Asia. From 1966 to 1991, 35,000 Filipino nurses immigrated to the United States for economic gain. This also shows most Filipino immigrants are highly educated with families which will then stimulate economic growth and educational capital. However, significant numbers Filipino immigrants did not arrive in D.C. until 1965. With the change in immigration laws (Nationality Act of 1965), the highly educated immigrants moved to D.C. for economic and opportunity incentives. This movement of immigrants consisted predominantly of doctors, nurses, attorneys, government and Embassy officials, and business men/women. So to answer the question of "is immigration policy racist", I would say yes, when the American Dream could be compromised due to economic depression and a high influx of immigrants, immigration will be restricted. Since apparently, Americans come first, their American Dream is the only dream that should be protected. Today in class we discussed liminality as an effect of double consciousness and I was eager to write about liminal legality for Mexican immigrants and how that creates a quadruple consciousness due to their ambiguous immigrant status coupled with Mexican consciousness in white America.
Legal statuses create a class of immigrants with rights and privileges distinct from those holding temporary work visas, educational permits, etc. This creates an oppressed group, undocumented or those with liminal legality, who must cope with a new identity assigned to them known as "an illegal alien". The “in-between” status or liminal legality of documented or undocumented could severely impact the immigrant’s of social networks and family, religion, and social expression which then creates a totally new status and new identity for a group that is already oppressed based on race. The “in between” uncertain status (not fully documented or undocumented) has greatly affected many aspects of the immigrants’ lives and restricts their livelihood. For example, some areas that are greatly affected include, the job market, housing, family relations, religion, transnational activities, and social expressions. So, a specific binary status assigned to immigrants can either inhibit or improve their chance of social success which then creates a new identity they could internalize and attempt to fill. In major receiving countries, modern immigration law creates an excluded, marginalized population and ensures its systematic subjugation by blending the lines of legality and illegality to color gray areas of uncertainty, which then has the potential to negatively affect personal identity. This blended identity then makes it much more difficult to identify with something society doesn't even recognize. Similarly, the experiences of Central American immigrants and the blurring of the black-and-white boundaries between legal and ‘illegal’ statuses allows for examination of what living in this gray area is like for immigrants, in the social context. While, upfront, examining the short-term affects may not be as severe, however, extended periods of liminal legality will change citizenship because of fragmented relations with the government and its eventual transformation of the institution of citizenship through migration. Due to gradual restrictive policies that categorize and keep immigrants on the margins of society for large and sometimes indefinite periods of time, the effects will lie within assimilation and on citizenship (legal and other forms). Also, lack of citizenship is the most important obstacle for Latino political involvement and movement to power. Thus, obstructed paths to attain legal citizenship might have broader and deeper effects on other forms of identity. W. E. B. Du Bois introduces the notion of the "double consciousness" as part of his discussion of the experience of freed slaves and their descendants in the United States. How specific in applicability is this concept? Do other groups experience the same, or at least a similar, sort of of "double consciousness," either in the United States or elsewhere? Is Du Bois' concept helpful for an understanding of other societies and other experiences, beyond the United States?
So, double consciousness is defined by W. E. B. Du Bois to describe an individual whose identity is divided into several facets. As a theoretical tool, “double consciousness” reveals the social divisions in society and allows for an attempt at understanding those divisions. Du Bois’ focus on the specificity of black experience allows for challenging injustice in national and world systems. The applicability can be applied to several different races, ethnicities, and groups throughout America today. He describes double consciousness as a “ peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. Basically, black American's identity is divided into how society views them and how they view themselves therefore giving them a lack of unified identity. Basically, to generalize the term, black Americans can internalize societal stereotypes which then creates an idea of who they should be and who they are. This can be applied to any race or ethnicity on the receiving end of a negative stereotype. The stereotype must be negative because the context in which the term was coined. Slavery and the oppression of the black American defined double consciousness as a negative split existence. For example, Muslims are characterizes as 'terrorists' which could then inhibit the cultivation of their roots and culture. Lastly, I believe, his concept is helpful in understanding diverse societies within the United States rather than abroad because it helps explain racial, ethnic, and other boundaries within American communities, neighborhoods, and groups. It explains why different groups are clustered together or are dispersed across an area. While this week kind of sucked with Kavanaugh's confirmation into the Supreme Court, nobody seemed to be talking about Nadia Murad, an ISIS sex slave survivor and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2014, Nadia Murad was one of thousands of Yazidis, and ethnic minority in northern Iraq, who were captured by ISIS and forced into sexual slavery. After three months as a sex slave, she escaped and was named the U.N.'s first Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking. Along with Dr. Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who treats victims of rape, they were named co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. They were named ambassadors of peace because of their perpetual journey to eliminate the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Murad was honored for her refusal "to remain silent and ashamed of the abuses to which they have been subjected," the committee said.
I know in past reflections I have talked about the international implications of Kavanaugh's confirmation because they are so important and relevant to World Politics. This woman is why. Since Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, survivors of sexual violence will not get the justice and due process they deserve, domestically or internationally. Sexual violence is going to continue to be used as a weapon of war and the objectification and weaponization of women and children will continue to proliferate in states of terror. Since constructivism was our topic of the week, here's how it applies to this issue. Constructivism is how we build a messy but somehow cohesive society as humans. Our society is developed through the tumultuous relationships we build with each other. Through discussion, religion, and relationships, we, as a whole, build identities which then, create an overarching societal identity. For decades the United States has created an identity of inclusion and that of moral standing. In recent years, our identity has shifted into a divided battleground of competing ideologies that has broken the women in our country. Along with Nadia Murad, there are hundreds of thousands of survivors of sexual violence that have created an identity of compassion that could shift the paradigm of world politics itself. With the new Supreme Court justice, this identity needs to encompass our society now more than ever. Source "Instead of convincing arguments -- arguments which, if a first truth is admitted, will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds, generally and technically, that is, by calculation -- we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences." (John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167)
Do you agree? Will such a move, from convincing to persuading, help to address the general problem that Shotter diagnoses, in which not everyone is able to participate fully in the shaping of our social lives together? And where does this leave scientific facts? Generally, I agree with Shotter’s argument on the basis of persuasiveness comes from our identity and morality, the core of our existence, not logic. To start with, Shotter reasons that persuasion is significantly more fundamental than convincing your opponents of your particular viewpoints. So the means by which your argument is presented and formulated. Basically, your persuasion’s significance lives in daily acceptance and validation that humans accomplish through societal relations and interactions whereas logic-based convincing using “rational minds” and realistic arguments will ultimately sway those you are convincing. Thusly, within Shotter’s emphasis on humanity’s reliance on societal interactions and (the importance of) relationships, he describes that human identity is a function of human relationships and interactions, which then, in turn, tends to lead to focal connections within societal relationships when humans try to persuade, rather than convince one another. Later in the reading, Shotter mentions that humans realize that the decisiveness of our nature comes from societal relationships rather than logical aspects of our minds. Environment ultimately changes our views and nature. Within our social outlets, our minds are constalty persuaded based on our experiences as well. Therefore, our persuasiveness includes appealing to their morality, personal experiences, and humanity in order to change someone’s opinions and beliefs. An important concept we must recognize in order to fully hone the ability of persuasion is cultivating the understanding of the complexities of our minds. We must consider the muddy areas of our arguments and address them in the begging. Our chaotic nature will take over if we do not tackle these complexities. |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |