Regarding the blog topic for this week, the first thing that really stood out to me was the introduction for Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy which said:
During Trump’s presidency, “American” has been a designation clearly reserved for American citizens, with even some naturalized citizens not being considered American enough. NSS 2017 supports this with its explicit use of American citizens, as opposed to NSS 2015 which used the vaguer term “American people”. In NSS 2015 this usage was used to further a more humanist and moralist sense of self which aligned American values with the well-being of the world and something that all other countries could benefit from. In this way, as discussed in “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11”, “self” become conflated with ideals of good and virtue, while “other” was used to denote bad. This moralist separation of “other” is consistent, and can be seen in NSC-68’s description of the Soviet Union as a fanatical slave state, as well as NSS 2017’s characterization jihadist terrorists as having “barbaric ideologies” (3). The Wolfers reading says that national security “indicates that the policy is designed to promote demands which are ascribed to the nation rather than individuals, sub-national groups or mankind as a whole” (481). By separating“who” and “what” within the categories of “self” and “other”, the US can get support for current policy by using the definitions most helpful to the present condition. Obama’s use of “American” focused more on general American ideals that other countries could also subscribe to, against globalized concerns like ebola and climate change. This worked to support Obama’s tactic of increased international bilateral cooperation. On the other hand, Trump makes “America” an exclusive ideal and group, which then supports his tactics of America working more by itself for itself. From NSC-68 to NSS 2017, American leadership was used as a strategy for obtaining security, as well as a definition for what security is. As NSS 2015 says, security is protecting “the leadership of United States ensuring the safety of American people in-land and overseas”. Leadership becomes a way of maintaining autonomy, and this is autonomy becomes synonymous with the freedom which America lists as one of its core defining values of self. In conclusion, similar to Elyssa, I think that the general framework for discussing national security has remained the same and is centered around general concepts of “us” and “them”, but that the interpretation of these concepts has changed over time and has been used for the justification of different means.
3 Comments
For the simulation I was part of the team representing Ford. Increasing globalization is an inevitable part of where the world is going. As Anneli discussed in her reflection last week, all policies that countries put in place and choices that individual consumers make work together to shape global demand trends which companies then work to supply. Given this, it is impossible to have strict isolationist policy that works to benefit only one country. The pro-nationalist, America-first rhetoric and policies supported by Ford and the President, though attractive on paper and politically sellable, fail to acknowledge the dependencies that exist in international business and international relations. While they may be profitable in the short-term and garner temporary political support, the inefficiencies in these policies will slowly be exposed, and that will eventually result in loss of support and loss of power for the current party.
The current economic policies put forth in the trade war is not realist in that they ignores the reality of globalization, it goes against the basic principles of economic liberalism (using trade as a way to strengthen relationships between countries), and it is not constructivist in that it fails to holistically account for varied economic interests within the US and worldwide. In other words, our current economic policy is ridiculous, unfounded, and unsustainable. In this America-first trade war aimed at making American goods more competitive it is American companies and American workers that are hit the hardest. With this trade war, the US has knocked out a lot of competition from China and other countries, but now has nowhere to sell to, making the “competitive advantage” moot anyway. As was brought up by the consumer group and foreign auto workers during presentations, the US is a leading car manufacturer, but we are not the leading car purchaser. Strengthening domestic content laws would make US companies like Ford more competitive in the US, but they would end up unable to sell and losing money in foreign markets (where the majority of sales occur anyway) leading to a net loss in profits. This decreased demand would eventually lead to less jobs in the US from Ford and other companies, in addition to the expected layoffs from foreign companies leaving the US. The current system of 50% domestic content to be considered “Made in America” is not perfect, but I think it is sustainable for now and shouldn’t be tampered with. The US domestic auto market is already relatively strong (it’s a Top 10 industry in employment and employs over a million Americans), and this is even given that the brunt of sales are done internationally. Of course companies always want to increase profit, but increasing the domestic content laws is not necessary for a market where the US is already a leading competitor. Staying as is preserves American jobs and profit, while increasing domestic content laws would eventually reduce both. Ideally US policymakers would reach this decision together, however given our current system of terms and term limits, US policy is often focused on immediate gain that looks good and is sellable to the public. Increasing American competition looks good; allowing foreign companies to continue working and expanding in the US does not. Given this, and as discussed by Dean Jackson when he made the policy decision during the simulation, the inevitable future is the US government increasing content laws now and the working class paying the economic price later. 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?
W.E.B. Du Bois describes double-consciousness as “a peculiar sensation. . .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”. Although he originally used it to refer to the black, newly-freed slave’s experience, I do think that other marginalized groups in America and beyond do also have similar varied experiences with this concept. As Enloe’s “Margins, Silences, and Bottom Rungs” discussed, no matter where you go in the world there exist hierarchies which prioritizes one group above others, centralizing that groups needs, desires, and experiences while relegating all others to the wayside, the margins. The habits of the dominant group defines societal norms, standards, and expectations, and becomes the standard to which all others are judged. This creates systems of privilege and inequality. Those in the dominant group, as Blake brought up in class, do not need to be aware of or acknowledge the struggles of others. They can choose to ignore inequality if they want, and that in and of itself is privilege. However minorities (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) are forced everyday to contend with the realities and limitations that exist as a result of marginalization. Minorities are stripped of their individuality and must instead always represent something else. Minorities are divergent, and their very existence is a political statement against the standard. For example, as a Chinese immigrant taking a Chinese politics class, I am not allowed to simply have my own opinions. If I say something more neutral or perhaps “favoring” China (even if my reasoning is objective), people will say that I have those opinions just because I’m Chinese and therefore I must subscribe to a certain set of beliefs (pro-communist, anti-democratic, etc.). In order to be respected and have people listen to my opinion as my opinion, I first must work to convince others of my knowledgeability and competence. Others may not have these initial barrier. There are innumerable examples of these types of double-standards in the US and beyond. In each of these cases, the marginalized is always made acutely aware of what they are lacking. All of these seeks to control the narrative, your body, and your life (yet another way of maintaining pre-existing hierarchies). If you conform to stereotypes and assumptions, you are allowing the mainstream directly control your life and personal narrative. However if you don’t conform to the stereotype you have to a.) deal with societal ramifications such as judgement and b.) consider why you’re not conforming. If not conforming is simply a reaction to being told to conform in the first place, then isn’t that still letting the opinions of the mainstream control you? This goes back to the reality of living in a world where dominant cultures exist and everything in society is catered to the comfort of said dominant culture. It is this awareness that forms the “double-consciousness” that DuBois talks about. DuBois’ concept of “double consciousness” is useful as a way to identify these accompanying feelings and get everyone on the same page so that they can have productive dialogue about the issues and then hopefully develop ways to solve them. "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)
Shotter does not draw this distinction lightly or by accident. Certainly his argument in the chapter is that we need more persuasion and less striving to be convincing (in the special and technical ways he defines both of those terms), at least in public life. 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? Convincing is an introspective and personal act in which you cause others to truly believe in an idea, concept, or truth. It is subjective and depends on the individual person and his or her own unique personal background and past experiences. Persuasion on the other hand is about fostering agreement between people. When people are persuaded, they are willing and able to act as a group in order to implement policies and actually take action. While convincing can be powerful for an individual, the practical limitations and benefits of convincing others are many, because the power of individuals pales in comparison to the combined powers of a group. Belief is a type of personal faith that assumes some things to be true. Belief is based off of certain established truths which are assumed to be naturally correct and upon which other beliefs are based off of. However, because belief is so individualized, there is not much room for discussion or true debate, nor is there a real independent metric to determine whether sometime is genuine or not. This leaves a lot of room for questions, such as what is “truth”? Who defines truth? How do we know that the initial truth is actually true? How do societal biases such as racism, sexism, classism, etc. affect ideas of truth, what is accepted as truth, and who is believed? The danger of beliefs is how quickly they can devolve into situations of “my facts” vs “your facts”. However, as we discussed in class, facts are either true or they’re not true, but there can’t exist multiple contradictory facts. That is the definition of a fact. However, how do we decide which facts to believe? Convincing is based off of the agreement of many, thus you need a lot of people to “be convinced”. Necessitating the involvement of multiple people provides more opportunities for others to provide their own opinion and shape what the consensus is and thus what becomes “accepted truth” in society. More people, assuming the people called upon are representative of the entire population (as opposed to all being from the same background and excluding people of different backgrounds) also helps limit the effects of bias in finding out the truth. As discussed on page 167, science begins in a version of my facts vs your facts, however through discussion this “confrontation” gives way to persuasion wherein some facts are accepted and some rejected, and those that are accepted must reach a certain level of consensus, of group persuasion, before they can be generally accepted as “truth”. This system of convincing creates a control valve in which a single person’s bias can’t single-handedly control everything, lending popular credibility. In a society which so values “universal truths”, persuasion is seen as the peak form of rhetoric, and creating a consensus is seen as validating truth. This credibility and “appearing to have all the virtues” makes it easier to then create and implement policy based on agreed-upon truths. Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him?
One of the main concepts expressed in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the idea of virtù, which Machiavelli takes to mean possessing “those qualities that lead to success” (505) in any given situation. Acts of virtù may not at face value appear to be kind, but they ensure in the long run that the country and its people will maintain order and prosperity in the long run, and that stability for Machiavelli is virtuous. The initial quote in this blog is preceded Machiavelli’s assertion that:
If one were to follow all rules, guidelines, and precedents to a T, this would inevitably lead to failure at some point or another, something that Machiavelli absolutely cannot stand. Instead, Machiavelli would argue that disregarding rules, even his own, would be the best if they would lead to success. This seems like circular logic, and perhaps that is the magic of Machiavelli in that even when you disagree with him you cannot escape his same train of thought. For myself, I agree with Machiavelli’s sentiment philosophically, however I don’t think that it can be unilaterally applied today. I too believe that success for a country and its citizens is of utmost importance, however who defines what success is? Who can say what sacrifices are “worth it” for success or not? In our present-day democracy, is order still the measure of success? How do values like personal freedom factor into ideas of success? I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and we no longer live in the monarchal “one-party system” of Machiavelli’s Italy. Now in the US we have a large multi-party system that represents the interests of many different factions and schools of thought, and there is no longer a single virtuous man to “seize his chances and will recognize what needs to be done” (505). Then, looking at the practical realities of today, I would argue that is best not to follow Machiavelli's rules. *"Page numbers" are Kindle locations **Bullet point quote is due to Weebly's inability to indent paragraphs To ponder as you scheme and strategize your next move in Diplomatic Risk: what, in your view, is the most unrealistic element of this game? Is it a problem that it is unrealistic?
In my opinion, the most unrealistic part of Diplomatic Risk is the objective cards. While I enjoy the set-up and understand their value in creating certain simulations of real-world scenarios, I feel like while playing these cards hampers the development of authentic relationships between countries. Countries do have their own agendas and motivations which may not always be clear to other countries, and events such as military coups very realistically cause international reorganization of alliances, however some of the changes written on the cards seemed completely arbitrary and inconsistent with the preceding turns. For example, on the cards Brown Team has to side with Green. Yellow, despite just undergoing an armed conflict with Brown, is still willing to ally with Green and support their decision in the UN Council Meeting. Perhaps Green and Yellow share similar geographic or economic interests that Red is not privy to, however given the timing and the tightness of the alliance, it all feels very rushed and thus artificial. In the real world, schisms and armed conflicts on that level can lead to strained relations even decades later, such as between the People’s Republic of China and Republic of China. Brown and Yellow did not mutually or amicably split, and thus it is unlikely that all the countries in the world would immediately recognize and assume diplomatic relationships with both. Furthermore, given that “recognition of a new State of Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold”, Brown’s ability to immediately assume a dominant role in the UN seems unlikely. More likely, especially directly following the split, would be split recognition of a “correct” state and potentially gradual acceptance of both states as independent which would lead to two separate UN seats. Going back to China and Taiwan, the two adopted separate governments since 1949, however only one location at a time has ever held a seat in the UN. Our version of Diplomatic Risk, much like international relations, relies heavily on human interaction and human connection, however in having the objective cards I feel like you take out the human feel of the game. Why bother fostering alliances with other countries when a deux ex machina card could obliterate all that work anyway? I like the idea of cards and I enjoy where the first cards started the game, however I think the second cards are more of an unnecessary and unrealistic impediment. No matter the destruction that ensues, I have learned no amount of vengeance can replace what I lost. There is no reparation great enough to substitute for what was stolen. Is there truly a cost for an altered destiny? There is nothing that can overturn the curse of a nation that was once blessed.
I agree with Awiti’s final sentiments here. Unspeakable harm and trauma was enacted upon Awiti, other Africans stolen from their homes, and all of their descendants, and our society continues to discriminate against and brutalize these people today, from racism in political rhetoric to continued acts of police brutality. Millions of lives were irreversibly altered and hurt by the actions and policies of the past, and that is fact that America, a country whose prosperity and progress came at the expense of black slaves, will always have to contend with. Racism was both a cause and effect of slavery, and as long as racist beliefs and systems (including white privilege) endure in this country, there are people profiting off of the vestiges of slavery and of the suffering of Awiti and other descendants of slaves, preventing us as a society from finding peace. I am a Chinese adoptee, and although my story in no way compares to the trauma that African slaves in the US endured, I often find myself asking similar questions as Awiti. I don’t know my ethnicity, where my family came from, or the language of my ancestors, and my ending up in the US was a direct result of national and international policies, and potentially even baby-buying. I have lived an extremely fortunate and happy life in the US for which I am forever grateful, however all international adoptions inherently begin with a loss of family and a loss of culture. Growing up I always wondered if my life was truly my life, or an inadvertent twist of fate (perhaps even a mistake). At times I was resentful or angry of being stolen away from what I perceived as my real destiny in China. Who could I have been? What would my life have been like? However, contrary to Awiti, I believe that ‘replacing’, ‘substituting’, or ‘overturning’ what was already done are all completely different and unrelated to truly finding peace. Awiti, like myself and everyone else, is entitled to her feelings and her hurt, but ultimately not even she can change what has already happened. As long as she focuses only on the past, she can never be satisfied or at peace because the past will never change. Moreover, by focusing on the past, Awiti only deepens her own trauma and brings others new hurt. The past shapes who we (as individuals, as a society, as a country) are and how we view the world, but it does not control who we will be in the future. We must all live and contend with the present, and we have the power to change now; by rectifying the remains of slavery that live on in our current society we can make sure that history never repeats itself and that Awiti's pain is not inflicted on a new generation. In this way we can create a better present and a better world for our descendants, hopefully proving to Awiti and other restless souls that we as a society will be okay, and that they can move on to the next phase in peace, without worrying about us. This is not an easy path and there are no clear-cut answer for how we should go about enacting this change, however it is the only option that provides any possibility of sustained success. One of the greatest global challenges today is responding to China’s increasing militarization and economic imperialism world-wide. China’s relationship with imperialism is long and two-fold; in modern history it can be traced back to the Opium Wars and European Spheres of Influence, a period of time which, even today, China still views as a “Century of Humiliation”. This mindset still heavily influences China’s relationships with other countries, such as developing a defensive relationship with the US and many European countries while simultaneously engaging many African nations as fellow victims of imperialization (a mindset started with Mao Zedong who asserted that race struggle is class struggle in a bid to garner favor in Africa for Chinese economic policies).
China presents itself as a fairer and more favorable trading partner for developing nations worldwide, as evidenced in its promotion of the One Belt One Road Initiative across much of Central and South Asia, promotion of the New Maritime Silk Road in Southeast Asia, and increased trading and financing of development in Africa. In these deals, which have been criticized as predatory or debt traps by the US, China agrees to finance risky development loans that otherwise wouldn’t be approved, although often with stipulations on how much Chinese companies need to be involved during the development process, exclusive rights given to Chinese businesses, etc. The revenue gained from this creates a positive feedback loop wherein China gains more worldwide economic influence which it can use to invest in creating even more lucrative and favorable loans, trading, and development deals (see Hambantota Port or China’s Special Economic Zones in Vietnam ). This money can then be used to increase military spending and increase military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan, among other things. Economic influence or even dependence is inextricably linked with political clout, as seen in China’s relationship with North Korea. China is North Korea’s primary trading partner and supplier of food and other supplies, and in return China has the largest influence in moderating North Korean provocations and policies. The concern right now is that as China’s economic influence grows worldwide so does its political influence, and that this economic influence could turn into economic dependencies which could turn into political puppet states. According to this article by Forbes, the New Silk Road alone could encompass a staggering “65% of the population, 75% of energy resources and 40% of GDP in the world”. This is now a world where an increasing amount of countries use Chinese RMB in business, Xi Jinping is serving for life, China has announced plans to reunify Taiwan by force if necessary, and in which key global alliances are shifting and economic and political focuses are not just on the US and Western Europe. In this time the US and many other countries need to reevaluate how we relate and engage with other countries in ways that protect personal economic and political interests, while also not regressing to the role of new imperialists. Will soft-power become more important, or military might? How can countries like the US best appeal to developing nations? Which countries should be prioritized? These are just some of the questions that need to be explored as we move into the future. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|