Such is titled a West Wing episode in which President Bartlett and his staff struggle with how to respond to a crisis with Iran. In this fictional situation, a British commercial airliner is mistaken for a US spy plane and shot down in Iranian airspace. Despite the knowledge that it was unintentional, the British use fiery rhetoric to lambast Iran, and consider this an opportunity to potentially take out Iranian nuclear facilities. Within the West Wing, debate rages about how best to foster long-term change in Iran.
This is extremely relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today - where not Britain but Israel has been using fiery rhetoric. Ever since Israel's existance there have been tensions between the two countries, but recently these were heightened by an Israeli military exercise, which was widely interpreted as being practice for an attack on Iran. This was accompanied with warnings that if Iran does not halt its nuclear program, Israel will be "forced" to take it out pre-emptively. Those are fightin' words, especially in an area as volatile as the Middle East, and predictably Iran has responded with aggressive statements and military exercises of its own. President Ahmadinejad has assured the world that any strike against it will be responded to in kind. The likelihood of an Israeli strike is a matter of speculation, but the war hawks in Washington give cause for concern. On July 19 the Bush Administration offered a "freeze-for-freeze" deal to Iran, wherein they would freeze their enrichment program in exchange for a freeze in sanctions against them. The 2-week deadline for response is this Saturday, August 2, afterwhich Condeleeza Rice has warned of "punitive measures" - at this point looking like harsh sanctions, but the Administration has not ruled out military action.
[I wrote this on Monday, thinking that I would have time to finish it later in the day. But since the last few days have been busy I'm going to go ahead and post this anyway, and add a Part 2 later when I have time. This is an attempt to break my perfectionism - submitting an incomplete post! :) Keep reading for the rest... ]
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
"Dangerous Straits"
That is the title of the PBS video we watched in International Politics class today. The topic? China and Taiwan. It turned out to be quite fascinating. My focus internationally is usually in the Middle East or Africa, and China has never really piqued my interest until now. Obviously I knew what everyone else knows - it's a rapidly growing economic giant that is and will continue to greatly influence the economic and political world of the 21st century. However, I had never really thought much about it beyond that - and the extent of my knowledge about Taiwan came from two West Wing episodes :)
The video explored a bit of the history of US relations with and policy towards China, especially the Taiwan question. It characterized US policy as that of "strategic ambiguity" - although a laughable term for US foreign policy, it does in fact accurately describe the situation. Since 1972 the US has recognized "one China", affirming Communist Beijing and not democratic Taipei as the legitimate authority. However, since 1979 US has been a major supplier of arms to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which requires the US to supply weapons of a defensive nature. The ambiguity comes in because nowhere is it specified under what circumstances the US would be obligated to protect Taiwan militarily from the Chinese.
So there's our little history lesson for today :) But this got me thinking, and one sentence from the video particularly jumped out at me. Bush was articulating (at least trying to :) US policy on Taiwan, and at one point said something to the effect of: this is in the interest of the United States. In my notes I wrote: why is Taiwan in our interests? I started thinking about this in terms of the rubric of US foreign policy theories I learned in my last class. How would each of them explain our policy towards Taiwan?
From a Balance of Power perspective, it could be argued that our unofficial support for Taiwan functions as a way to check the growing power of China. Thus, by arming Taiwan we have a strong ally in the region to counter China. That makes sense, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the whole reason.
An American Values approach would see it as our obligation to support the struggling democratic state living in the shadow of Red China. This is a very convincing argument, and one that is often used, but I am inclined to think that it functions as more of a justification to the American people than an actual reason for policy.
Looking at Domestic Politics, many theories could be floated, but the one seemingly plausible one in this case is economic. I am becoming more and more convinced that US policy is often primarily motivated by economic gain, and so I couldn't help but wonder, could our policy towards Taiwan in fact be motivated by cold, hard cash - weapons sales? This hypothesis really intrigued me, so I lost myself in research for several hours. I certainly uncovered some interesting things...
1. In an address to the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council Defense Industry Conference in 2006, the tone of the US government spokesperson seemed to confirm my suspicions. He emphasized the US's commitment to ensuring Taiwan's security, and urged the Taiwanese to take that task more seriously, specifically by increasing the percentage of their budget allocated for defense! I couldn't believe this was a US government official talking - why did he care about Taiwan's defense budget? But the answer was obvious - a larger Taiwanese defense budget means more money for US weapons.
(Source: http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/72100.htm)
2. The next fact fit well with that - the US is Taiwan's principle supplier of weapons. There are only 3 other countries that have sold Taiwan weapons at all since 1999 (France, Germany, and Israel) but those together only totaled $108 million. In comparison, US arms sales to Taiwan since 1999 came to a whopping $4.8 billion - 98% of all arms sold to Taiwan during the period. WOW. So it's safe to say that this is a market US weapons manufacturers can monopolize.
(Source: http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php)
3. The number I was really curious about was where Taiwan ranked in the US's overall arms exports - that would make or break my hypothesis. In 2005, Taiwan was the 3rd-highest purchaser of US defense articles and services (1.3 billion) - below Israel (1.7 bn) and Egypt (1.3 bn), and above Saudi Arabia (990 mn) and South Korea (610 mn). WOW again. So I might just be right...
(Source: http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php)
Although these facts could be circumstantial and not causal, I think there's something going on here. Taiwan was an untapped market before the US came along - the rest of the world either could not or would not sell weapons to them on any significant scale. Weapons manufacturers (a notoriously powerful interest group in Washington) must have put pressure on the government, which was likely already inclined to arm Taiwan for Balance of Power and American Values reasons. In addition to the billions of dollars accrued annually as a result, this policy keeps China on its toes without disrupting normal trade. And all in the name of protecting democracy :) Perfect!
(A related hunch... I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and/or those in his Administration have lucrative connections to weapons manufacturing companies, and have benefited directly or indirectly from increased weapons sales. But I have no proof of that...)
The video explored a bit of the history of US relations with and policy towards China, especially the Taiwan question. It characterized US policy as that of "strategic ambiguity" - although a laughable term for US foreign policy, it does in fact accurately describe the situation. Since 1972 the US has recognized "one China", affirming Communist Beijing and not democratic Taipei as the legitimate authority. However, since 1979 US has been a major supplier of arms to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which requires the US to supply weapons of a defensive nature. The ambiguity comes in because nowhere is it specified under what circumstances the US would be obligated to protect Taiwan militarily from the Chinese.
So there's our little history lesson for today :) But this got me thinking, and one sentence from the video particularly jumped out at me. Bush was articulating (at least trying to :) US policy on Taiwan, and at one point said something to the effect of: this is in the interest of the United States. In my notes I wrote: why is Taiwan in our interests? I started thinking about this in terms of the rubric of US foreign policy theories I learned in my last class. How would each of them explain our policy towards Taiwan?
From a Balance of Power perspective, it could be argued that our unofficial support for Taiwan functions as a way to check the growing power of China. Thus, by arming Taiwan we have a strong ally in the region to counter China. That makes sense, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the whole reason.
An American Values approach would see it as our obligation to support the struggling democratic state living in the shadow of Red China. This is a very convincing argument, and one that is often used, but I am inclined to think that it functions as more of a justification to the American people than an actual reason for policy.
Looking at Domestic Politics, many theories could be floated, but the one seemingly plausible one in this case is economic. I am becoming more and more convinced that US policy is often primarily motivated by economic gain, and so I couldn't help but wonder, could our policy towards Taiwan in fact be motivated by cold, hard cash - weapons sales? This hypothesis really intrigued me, so I lost myself in research for several hours. I certainly uncovered some interesting things...
1. In an address to the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council Defense Industry Conference in 2006, the tone of the US government spokesperson seemed to confirm my suspicions. He emphasized the US's commitment to ensuring Taiwan's security, and urged the Taiwanese to take that task more seriously, specifically by increasing the percentage of their budget allocated for defense! I couldn't believe this was a US government official talking - why did he care about Taiwan's defense budget? But the answer was obvious - a larger Taiwanese defense budget means more money for US weapons.
(Source: http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/72100.htm)
2. The next fact fit well with that - the US is Taiwan's principle supplier of weapons. There are only 3 other countries that have sold Taiwan weapons at all since 1999 (France, Germany, and Israel) but those together only totaled $108 million. In comparison, US arms sales to Taiwan since 1999 came to a whopping $4.8 billion - 98% of all arms sold to Taiwan during the period. WOW. So it's safe to say that this is a market US weapons manufacturers can monopolize.
(Source: http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php)
3. The number I was really curious about was where Taiwan ranked in the US's overall arms exports - that would make or break my hypothesis. In 2005, Taiwan was the 3rd-highest purchaser of US defense articles and services (1.3 billion) - below Israel (1.7 bn) and Egypt (1.3 bn), and above Saudi Arabia (990 mn) and South Korea (610 mn). WOW again. So I might just be right...
(Source: http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php)
Although these facts could be circumstantial and not causal, I think there's something going on here. Taiwan was an untapped market before the US came along - the rest of the world either could not or would not sell weapons to them on any significant scale. Weapons manufacturers (a notoriously powerful interest group in Washington) must have put pressure on the government, which was likely already inclined to arm Taiwan for Balance of Power and American Values reasons. In addition to the billions of dollars accrued annually as a result, this policy keeps China on its toes without disrupting normal trade. And all in the name of protecting democracy :) Perfect!
(A related hunch... I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and/or those in his Administration have lucrative connections to weapons manufacturing companies, and have benefited directly or indirectly from increased weapons sales. But I have no proof of that...)
Blogging...
So with all my grand ideas about writing every couple of days or at least once a week, 11 days have passed since my last post. I was thinking about why that is... It's certainly not for lack of thoughts on political topics - those I have in abundance :) Part of it of course is busyness - I seem to always have reading for classes or other things that I need to do. But I think the other part of it has to do with my mindset towards blogging. I am hesitant to post anything unless it is carefully thought-out and conclusive - almost like writing a paper, I want it to be perfect before I submit it. This perfectionism, this need to fully formulate my thoughts before communicating them is something I have been aware of for several years, and something I always find difficult to overcome. Yet it is part of who I am.
Anyway, I hope to break myself of this as I blog. I want this to be a place where I can freely express thoughts, where I can figure things out as I go. I think of deep conversations with friends where we explore a topic without knowing where it will lead, but wrestling with it and bouncing ideas off of eachother - it would be great if that could be replicated here. Maybe it's not so important to have the right answers as to be asking the right questions.
In that spirit, I promise to post something after class today :)
~Peace~
Amanda
Anyway, I hope to break myself of this as I blog. I want this to be a place where I can freely express thoughts, where I can figure things out as I go. I think of deep conversations with friends where we explore a topic without knowing where it will lead, but wrestling with it and bouncing ideas off of eachother - it would be great if that could be replicated here. Maybe it's not so important to have the right answers as to be asking the right questions.
In that spirit, I promise to post something after class today :)
~Peace~
Amanda
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Summertime...
I have a new political topic taking shape to post about, but don't have time to write it out before my next class. So instead I thought I'd give a quick update on my life...
France seems like ancient history already, even though it's not even been 6 weeks since I got back. I don't miss it (except maybe the food) - it's been so wonderful to be HOME. However, things do change in 5 months, and that I was not quite prepared for - close friends leaving for the summer, deaths in my church, and many other small things. It would've been nice to have everything the same as before I left, but that's not reality - life constantly changes, whether we want it to or not, and we have to deal with that. But despite those changes, it has been wonderful reconnecting with the people and places I've been separated from for so long :)
And the summer has been flying by - I can't believe it's July already! For those of you who don't know, I'm living with a family from my church over the summer, which has been really good. As much as I love my family and enjoy spending time with them, I haven't lived at home for more than a couple of weeks at a time since 2006, and I didn't want to generate unnecessary conflict by being with them too much. I still see them at least once a week, but now I also get to be part of another family too :) They have two adorable boys, 9 months and 2 1/2 years, and it's great to come home from a long day of academic work to play with them. They make me laugh, and sometimes they reward me with a smile :) I am realizing more and more, though, the gift and burden that comes with being "Mama" - how your heart must warm when you're the only one who can dry your child's tears, yet also how exhausting it must be to be the one constantly called for. But it's been fun to spend time with the boys and their mom :) When they're traveling it can be kind of creepy being in the big house all by myself, but now I have a new "roomie" downstairs - a student who's interning at my church. She's really cool, and it's been nice having someone around to talk to and do stuff with.
On the academic front, I finished my first set of classes last Tuesday (after pulling an all-nighter Monday!) and then had 5 days of sorely-needed vacation. Those classes had been hard - US Foreign Policy probably the hardest course I've ever taken - and I learned a LOT, but my brain needed a break. Monday I started new classes - American Literature and International Politics. Although I'm not very interested in Lit, the prof is nice and engaging, so I think it'll be a fun and not-too-hard class. International Politics is not at all what I expected, though! The prof is totally laid back - wearing shorts and sneakers, wasting time talking about irrelevant stuff, and always letting us out early. I'm the only POLI SCI major in the class - everyone else is just taking it as an elective or a Gen. Ed. - and he's obviously gearing it to their level. Although it would be nice to have less work, I really want to learn something and not just waste 6 weeks on fundamentals, so that's kind of frustrating for me.
Another big part of my summer has been BIKING! Inspired by the bikers in France, I decided to get my own when I got back - decreasing my carbon footprint, getting exercise, and experiencing the city in a new way. Although it was scary in the beginning (Philly drivers do have a reputation!), I absolutely love it - the freedom, the exercise, and the lack of carbon emissions :)
Well, I have to head to class now... Look for something about Iran and Israel in the next few days :)
France seems like ancient history already, even though it's not even been 6 weeks since I got back. I don't miss it (except maybe the food) - it's been so wonderful to be HOME. However, things do change in 5 months, and that I was not quite prepared for - close friends leaving for the summer, deaths in my church, and many other small things. It would've been nice to have everything the same as before I left, but that's not reality - life constantly changes, whether we want it to or not, and we have to deal with that. But despite those changes, it has been wonderful reconnecting with the people and places I've been separated from for so long :)
And the summer has been flying by - I can't believe it's July already! For those of you who don't know, I'm living with a family from my church over the summer, which has been really good. As much as I love my family and enjoy spending time with them, I haven't lived at home for more than a couple of weeks at a time since 2006, and I didn't want to generate unnecessary conflict by being with them too much. I still see them at least once a week, but now I also get to be part of another family too :) They have two adorable boys, 9 months and 2 1/2 years, and it's great to come home from a long day of academic work to play with them. They make me laugh, and sometimes they reward me with a smile :) I am realizing more and more, though, the gift and burden that comes with being "Mama" - how your heart must warm when you're the only one who can dry your child's tears, yet also how exhausting it must be to be the one constantly called for. But it's been fun to spend time with the boys and their mom :) When they're traveling it can be kind of creepy being in the big house all by myself, but now I have a new "roomie" downstairs - a student who's interning at my church. She's really cool, and it's been nice having someone around to talk to and do stuff with.
On the academic front, I finished my first set of classes last Tuesday (after pulling an all-nighter Monday!) and then had 5 days of sorely-needed vacation. Those classes had been hard - US Foreign Policy probably the hardest course I've ever taken - and I learned a LOT, but my brain needed a break. Monday I started new classes - American Literature and International Politics. Although I'm not very interested in Lit, the prof is nice and engaging, so I think it'll be a fun and not-too-hard class. International Politics is not at all what I expected, though! The prof is totally laid back - wearing shorts and sneakers, wasting time talking about irrelevant stuff, and always letting us out early. I'm the only POLI SCI major in the class - everyone else is just taking it as an elective or a Gen. Ed. - and he's obviously gearing it to their level. Although it would be nice to have less work, I really want to learn something and not just waste 6 weeks on fundamentals, so that's kind of frustrating for me.
Another big part of my summer has been BIKING! Inspired by the bikers in France, I decided to get my own when I got back - decreasing my carbon footprint, getting exercise, and experiencing the city in a new way. Although it was scary in the beginning (Philly drivers do have a reputation!), I absolutely love it - the freedom, the exercise, and the lack of carbon emissions :)
Well, I have to head to class now... Look for something about Iran and Israel in the next few days :)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
"The Stormy Present"
This is the title of a West Wing episode in which President Bartlet finds himself on Air Force One with several former presidents going to a funeral. Their conversation turns to a situation in Saudi Arabia, where thousands are protesting for freedom and democracy. Walken, a former Republican president, advocates using our superpower status to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia by force - overthrowing the royal family, setting up a provisional government, and getting out. Owen, a former Democratic president, strongly disagrees, saying that would leave them with a weak and hated government. He pointed out that during his term he spent billions on Saudi oil and billions more supporting the princes selling it - all to preserve stability. But it came with a price - now the people hate us because we support their oppressors; we are their oppressors. His final words for President Bartlet - "If you start saddling up camels in every country in the Middle East, then you better be prepared to spend the next 50 years sifting through sand. Because this isn't a quick run on the beach, Jed - this is the new world order."
After this conversation, the President sits with his Communications Director, Toby, who's supposed to be writing the eulogy. He hasn't made much progress, though, saying: "I've been walking up and down these aisles, looking at these old men - these great, terrible old men - and thinking: prosperous, free, and democratic Saudi Arabia, something to wish for. But the men on this plane spent the better part of the late 20th century trying to play God in other countries, and the regimes they anointed are the ones that haunt us today."
This episode gets at the heart of dilemmas in US foreign policy. There are many repressive regimes in the world, and spreading freedom and democracy is a laudable goal. We have the power to bring it with force, but do we have the right? Can democracy imposed from the outside ever take hold? And can we stomach the long-term consequences of intervention? It seems that in trying to solve one foreign policy crisis, we always create more down the road. If that is the case, should we intervene at all? As well-intentioned as it may be, if we make things worse wherever we go, might it be better to return to isolationism?
These are questions that have been on my mind over the last few months - brought on by some conversations and experiences in France, and resurfacing in earnest during my summer classes. Recent US History has given me so many examples of "blowback" - the weapons Iraq used against us in both Gulf wars we had given them to fight Iran; the Taliban, which trained the 9/11 terrorists, was supported and armed by us to fight the Soviet Union; and on and on. In retrospect it seems so counterproductive, yet hindsight is 20/20. If I've learned anything from my US Foreign Policy class, these decisions are never easy or clear-cut. Leaders faced with crises have limited information and limited time, and are operating under both foreign and domestic constraints. I used to think of foreign policy in terms of bumper sticker slogans, but now I am realizing more and more how impossibly complex these situations are. Protesting against bad policies is not enough - intelligent, nuanced, and pragmatic policies are needed.
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present."
- Lincoln's 2nd State of the Union
After this conversation, the President sits with his Communications Director, Toby, who's supposed to be writing the eulogy. He hasn't made much progress, though, saying: "I've been walking up and down these aisles, looking at these old men - these great, terrible old men - and thinking: prosperous, free, and democratic Saudi Arabia, something to wish for. But the men on this plane spent the better part of the late 20th century trying to play God in other countries, and the regimes they anointed are the ones that haunt us today."
This episode gets at the heart of dilemmas in US foreign policy. There are many repressive regimes in the world, and spreading freedom and democracy is a laudable goal. We have the power to bring it with force, but do we have the right? Can democracy imposed from the outside ever take hold? And can we stomach the long-term consequences of intervention? It seems that in trying to solve one foreign policy crisis, we always create more down the road. If that is the case, should we intervene at all? As well-intentioned as it may be, if we make things worse wherever we go, might it be better to return to isolationism?
These are questions that have been on my mind over the last few months - brought on by some conversations and experiences in France, and resurfacing in earnest during my summer classes. Recent US History has given me so many examples of "blowback" - the weapons Iraq used against us in both Gulf wars we had given them to fight Iran; the Taliban, which trained the 9/11 terrorists, was supported and armed by us to fight the Soviet Union; and on and on. In retrospect it seems so counterproductive, yet hindsight is 20/20. If I've learned anything from my US Foreign Policy class, these decisions are never easy or clear-cut. Leaders faced with crises have limited information and limited time, and are operating under both foreign and domestic constraints. I used to think of foreign policy in terms of bumper sticker slogans, but now I am realizing more and more how impossibly complex these situations are. Protesting against bad policies is not enough - intelligent, nuanced, and pragmatic policies are needed.
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present."
- Lincoln's 2nd State of the Union
Me(me)!
In case anyone from the broader blogsphere is reading this, I suppose I should tell you something about myself... To do so, I'm going to use a device my friend Cynthia sent me - the "meme". According to Wikipedia, this is a term "used to describe a catchphrase or concept that spreads in a fast way from person to person via the internet." As a recipient of this, I am supposed to post 7 facts about myself. Here goes...
1. I am a Christian, but don't like being pidgeon-holed because of that affiliation. I define my faith as trying to love God, love others, and follow Jesus.
2. God has placed in me a heart for social justice, which aches at the oppression and inequalities I see everywhere.
3. Politics is my passion, my calling in life - I love learning about and debating issues of the day, and hope to make pursuing solutions my life's work.
4. I deeply value community - the acceptance and support and care I have been blessed to experience in different settings.
5. I can't imagine living anywhere except a city - I love the fast pace, the closeness of people and places - it energizes me and makes me feel part of something bigger than myself.
6. I'm becoming vegetarian. It's something I've thought about for a while, but what tipped the scale for me was learning that increased meat consumption is one of the factors driving the global food crisis.
7. I love kids :) I'll be excited to have my own some day, but for now am happy giving parents a break by helping care for theirs.
1. I am a Christian, but don't like being pidgeon-holed because of that affiliation. I define my faith as trying to love God, love others, and follow Jesus.
2. God has placed in me a heart for social justice, which aches at the oppression and inequalities I see everywhere.
3. Politics is my passion, my calling in life - I love learning about and debating issues of the day, and hope to make pursuing solutions my life's work.
4. I deeply value community - the acceptance and support and care I have been blessed to experience in different settings.
5. I can't imagine living anywhere except a city - I love the fast pace, the closeness of people and places - it energizes me and makes me feel part of something bigger than myself.
6. I'm becoming vegetarian. It's something I've thought about for a while, but what tipped the scale for me was learning that increased meat consumption is one of the factors driving the global food crisis.
7. I love kids :) I'll be excited to have my own some day, but for now am happy giving parents a break by helping care for theirs.
Introducing...
My last blog focused on experiences during my semester studying abroad in Strasbourg, France. Here, I hope to combine the personal with the political, posting my thoughts on important issues of the day in addition to sharing about experiences from my life. Since politics is such a part of who I am, I guess that won't surprise anyone who knows me :)
Why this new blog? Often a conversation or an article or a movie impacts me deeply and makes me think about an issue in a new way, but I don't take time to write it down. I hope that this can be an informal place to articulate my thoughts so that they don't get lost in the hecticness of my life. On the personal side, I also hope to give friends far and near a glimpse into my life right now :)
I don't want this to be a monologue but a conversation, so please comment! Especially those of you who are politically-minded, I'd love to hear your responses to my thoughts and opinions :) So...here goes!
~Peace~
Amanda
Why this new blog? Often a conversation or an article or a movie impacts me deeply and makes me think about an issue in a new way, but I don't take time to write it down. I hope that this can be an informal place to articulate my thoughts so that they don't get lost in the hecticness of my life. On the personal side, I also hope to give friends far and near a glimpse into my life right now :)
I don't want this to be a monologue but a conversation, so please comment! Especially those of you who are politically-minded, I'd love to hear your responses to my thoughts and opinions :) So...here goes!
~Peace~
Amanda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)