Shrinking Globe Easier to Conquer?
by Mr. Houston
Today in class, we discussed the “annihilation of time and space” caused by modern communication, technology, and travel. If you lived during the Ming Era, it would take you months to travel from China to America. Today, it takes a simple 14 hour flight. Or if you wished to communicate by letter, you would wait months for an outdated response. Today, it happens in an instantaneous email, text, or satellite transmission. Truly, the world is smaller. And make no mistake; a smaller world is easier to conquer.
For example, rebellious Confucian scholars toppled the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, exchanging it for the Ming Dynasty. Originally, unified under Genghis Khan, the sons and grandsons decentralized the Mongol Empire into various Khanates, including the Yuan. Conquest and expanding trade routes made their world paradoxically larger and smaller. The Mongols spread too far, too fast and were ripe for collapse by...
1) Too little military to maintain too much border
2) Tax farming corruption leading to a growing gap between urban rich and rural poor
3) The devastating plague
The leader of the Ming revolt, Zhu Yuan Zhang, rejected Mongol culture by closing off trade with Central Asia and the Middle East, and reasserted Confucian ideology. Thus the Ming set off a yo-yo effect of sorts; China, a great civilization that was vitally connected to trade routes, shut herself off and turned to internal strengths. During this era, “isolation” was still possible because of great distances to other empires.
Those great distances have been conquered by cell phones, airplanes, and instant messaging. The world still grows larger and yet smaller. Isolation (though appealing at times) is no longer a viable foreign policy. Sorry Geo Washington.
by Mr. Houston
Today in class, we discussed the “annihilation of time and space” caused by modern communication, technology, and travel. If you lived during the Ming Era, it would take you months to travel from China to America. Today, it takes a simple 14 hour flight. Or if you wished to communicate by letter, you would wait months for an outdated response. Today, it happens in an instantaneous email, text, or satellite transmission. Truly, the world is smaller. And make no mistake; a smaller world is easier to conquer.
For example, rebellious Confucian scholars toppled the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, exchanging it for the Ming Dynasty. Originally, unified under Genghis Khan, the sons and grandsons decentralized the Mongol Empire into various Khanates, including the Yuan. Conquest and expanding trade routes made their world paradoxically larger and smaller. The Mongols spread too far, too fast and were ripe for collapse by...
1) Too little military to maintain too much border
2) Tax farming corruption leading to a growing gap between urban rich and rural poor
3) The devastating plague
The leader of the Ming revolt, Zhu Yuan Zhang, rejected Mongol culture by closing off trade with Central Asia and the Middle East, and reasserted Confucian ideology. Thus the Ming set off a yo-yo effect of sorts; China, a great civilization that was vitally connected to trade routes, shut herself off and turned to internal strengths. During this era, “isolation” was still possible because of great distances to other empires.
Those great distances have been conquered by cell phones, airplanes, and instant messaging. The world still grows larger and yet smaller. Isolation (though appealing at times) is no longer a viable foreign policy. Sorry Geo Washington.
(see President Washington's Farewell Address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington)
Regardless, a cyclical pattern exists in world history between periods of hegemonic power whereby an overgrown, centralized authority collapses. Decentralization ensues (remember the Dark Ages/Feudalism?). Gradually, power is consolidated until a strong centralized authority re-emerges from the ashes of decentralization. The shifting process may take many long centuries or mere decades. History’s lesson: Rinse and repeat.
Is the globe (which has been primarily decentralized since the birth of the "nation-state") headed towards a strong, global-centralized authority (a single, global government)? No, this is not WWE’s “New World Order.” Considering current events (including the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, NAFTA, the UN, the EU, WTO) one might conclude that yes, indeed, we are headed for such a scenario. Is this good for American hegemony? Um, no.
Regardless, a cyclical pattern exists in world history between periods of hegemonic power whereby an overgrown, centralized authority collapses. Decentralization ensues (remember the Dark Ages/Feudalism?). Gradually, power is consolidated until a strong centralized authority re-emerges from the ashes of decentralization. The shifting process may take many long centuries or mere decades. History’s lesson: Rinse and repeat.
Is the globe (which has been primarily decentralized since the birth of the "nation-state") headed towards a strong, global-centralized authority (a single, global government)? No, this is not WWE’s “New World Order.” Considering current events (including the Law of the Sea Treaty, NATO, NAFTA, the UN, the EU, WTO) one might conclude that yes, indeed, we are headed for such a scenario. Is this good for American hegemony? Um, no.
By the way, this was mentioned in class: Why would the USA even consider surrendering a portion of its sovereignty to a larger, global governing body (see Sea Treaty)? The usual answer: money. But what is the ultimate cost of free trade? What will it cost generations of future Americans, including our children and grandchildren, if we sell out small portions of our sovereignty for profit? Of course, the issue is more nuanced than I portray. As always, read and question for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea).
I face a pressing conflict as a public school, social studies educator. I am charged with the task of creating “informed and productive citizens.” Does that mean citizens of the United States of America or citizens of the Global Community? Some of my fellow public educator colleagues across the nation would argue the latter. Since it is American tax dollars that pay my salary (and also because I strongly believe it to be true) I will pursue the mission of shaping “informed and productive AMERICAN citizens.”
I still mean it when I pledge allegiance to the flag every morning. I get goose bumps every time I hear the National Anthem, especially at Friday night Cougar football games, standing side by side, surrounded by my community and my students. I believe in democracy and freedom. I believe America is not perfect, but still the best place in the world to live. Like President Reagan, I believe America’s best days are still ahead.
I face a pressing conflict as a public school, social studies educator. I am charged with the task of creating “informed and productive citizens.” Does that mean citizens of the United States of America or citizens of the Global Community? Some of my fellow public educator colleagues across the nation would argue the latter. Since it is American tax dollars that pay my salary (and also because I strongly believe it to be true) I will pursue the mission of shaping “informed and productive AMERICAN citizens.”
I still mean it when I pledge allegiance to the flag every morning. I get goose bumps every time I hear the National Anthem, especially at Friday night Cougar football games, standing side by side, surrounded by my community and my students. I believe in democracy and freedom. I believe America is not perfect, but still the best place in the world to live. Like President Reagan, I believe America’s best days are still ahead.
(See President Reagan's Farewell Address http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/farewell.asp)
Of course, how could I be a good teacher and not equip my students for the inevitable and increasingly global economy? Let’s face it, America will either remain the global hegemony or it will not. Will democracy and freedom win the world? Or will some other ideology or force centralize its own global power? Either way, the world is smaller now. A smaller world is easier to conquer. The only question is who will conquer it?
Of course, how could I be a good teacher and not equip my students for the inevitable and increasingly global economy? Let’s face it, America will either remain the global hegemony or it will not. Will democracy and freedom win the world? Or will some other ideology or force centralize its own global power? Either way, the world is smaller now. A smaller world is easier to conquer. The only question is who will conquer it?
35 comments:
Our class discussion was really intense Mr. Houston, it made me aware of what is actually going on around the world.
---
Stefan K.
Well, as you know, I don't support a completely unilateral worldview. Let's face it, US hegemony is declining in the status quo, and there's almost nothing we can do about it.
As of right now, submitting to LOST is the lesser of two evils. The way I see it, right now, the US has two options:
1. Continue the unilateral mindset and completely disregard intentions and concerns of other nations. Continue encouraging and fueling the foreign hatred of the US - because that's really going to get us somewhere.
or 2. Give concessions on certain issues. Giving in to LOST may reduce US sovereignty to a certain extent, but making a few concessions on LOST doesn't necessarily mean we need to completely submit to the will of other nations. A multilateral United States has a much better chance of surviving.
If you really think about it, what do we lose from LOST, other than a fraction of our sovereignty? LOST guarantees us a claim to the Arctic oil deposits. The Convention guarantees us access to shipping lanes, and provides our military with freedom of movement on the high seas. This freedom of movement would otherwise be burdened and impacted by cumbersome bureaucratic regulations of various island nations. The Convention lays a framework in place for managing international relations and conflicts. It also gives the US over 300,000 square miles of new internationally recognized jurisdiction. Ocean pollution is also a major issue right now. The Convention puts a framework in place to address the pollution of oceans.
Now, on to "soft power". We're not going to survive much longer if we maintain a unilateral vision. Countries will eventually cease supporting us in our wars. Our troops are already overstretched enough as it is. America succumbs to isolationism, and this emboldens enemies and terrorist organizations. Face it, a lovable US has a much smaller chance of being attacked than an isolated one. Terrorists don't hate our culture, they hate the way we express ourselves in the world. Again, I'm not saying we should completely submit to the will of terrorists, but we shouldn't completely ignore their threat. Our current "War on Terror" effort can hardly be classified as being anything close to successful. Plus, soft power enables cooperation with other nations on terrorism. The US can't go storming into every country in the world to put an end to terrorist cells and hubs. Sharing intelligence and cooperating with other local governments would effectively reduce the risk of terrorism drastically.
Oh, and Bush pissing off China: REALLY good idea... NOT.
I think that America is headed for a decline, it is falling into the dynastic cycle- right now we are in complacency mode. With the world as interconnected as ours, complacency means that we are going to be passed, so if America submits to the Sea Treaty or not we won't remain the hegemon for long. Not that I agree with signing the Sea Treaty, but all I'm saying is that I think we are in a decline. We may be able to bounce back- we've done it before (from the Great Depression) but I think it will take a lot of effort, which we are lacking in right now.
Mr. Houston, are you going to put all of our class discussions on here? You really should, I'd love to post more on the topics since we don't have much class time to talk about them in-depth.
Also, my sister wanted me to thank-you for making Fahrenheit 451 interesting. She told me how she thought it was pointless until you tied it to real world events. She said that you were good at making the class think.
LOS is indeed very key to hegemony in my opinion, i agree with jeff's second sub point, that sure we may loose some of our sovereignty, but there are benefits of signing the treaty as well. for example shipping lanes,and military acsess to the seas. More than LOS however i think a better way to retain U.S. hegemony is taking part in "soft power" jeff quoted this earlier so i wont re explain it. But ill give a metaphor to soft power. Its like being the big brother that your little brother and his friends look up to. You don't have to be mean, sovereign and keep to your self. but in the end, no one is gonna mess with you because your the one that can mess someone up.
Mr.Houston you made the claim that the US would function under someone if we signed LOS, but a) we are already part of other international org. and b) they would be like the parents in the metaphor, becasue the leader of the LOS wont have a bias to one country but the leader will be multiple representatives from all countries
i propose to increase soft power in either of two ways, 1)pull out of iraq, or 2) commit to more humanitarian work around the world
type in soft power and nye into google and you can find articles that nye has published. They are actually pretty interesting. go check em out
Responding to Sohan and adding to what he said:
- Pulling out of Iraq will be perceived as being done out of US troop overstretch and weakness. In my honest opinion, it would never work. That's actually one of those cases that can actually permanently damage heg.
- Humanitarian work around the world would effectively work in improving soft power. However, any development assistance must be perceived as genuine and honest. Any ridiculous, BS attempts of "conditioned aid" (aid where the US receives something in exchange) would further fuel the current negative international perception of the US (killing soft power). Genuine efforts have worked in the past, and have yielded long term benefits. Take for example, Pakistan in 05 (I'm pretty sure it was 05). Pakistan suffered a monumental earthquake in Kashmir, killing around 75,000 and affecting millions around the area. What did the US do? They immediately diverted troops and helicopters from Iraq to aid Pakistan. They were the first ones to arrive "on the scene." What effect did it have? Almost 50% of Pakistan immediately changed their views of the US. To this day, a surprisingly large majority of this 50% still holds this positive perception of the United States. Why? Because when the US truly makes a compassionate humanitarian effort to aid and benefit other countries, countries gain respect and admiration for the US. Other countries begin to model US action. There have been so many cases where this has been proven to be empirically true.
As George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton, "If we are told by a foreign Power -- what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little."
The United States is engaged in the world now more than ever before in our history, and we must be mindful that our sovereignty rests always with the American people and never with a foreign government or international organization.
Jeff,
You state, "Again, I'm not saying we should completely submit to the will of terrorists, but we shouldn't completely ignore their threat."
Are you in fact saying that we should "partially submit" to the will of terrorists? What exactly is your stance here?
Mr. Houston is right. We should definitely be taught to be American citizens rather than global citizens. We already know what a disaster the UN is and a unilateral worldview may not be best for the country.
As for Sohan's comment:
Pulling out of Iraq would directly put America in a state of emergency. We would completely be allowing Al-Qaeda to terrorize the world. Increasement of soft power? No- more like, what Jeff said, showing the world signs of fear.
All of you Democrats aren't going to get what you want. If you listen to the Democratic candidates all of them will say that they're going to pull out "most" of the troops. Meaning, we'll still occupy Iraq for as long as it takes. That, for some reason, doesn't seem to be presented on the glorious news stations such as CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Now that my point is taken care of: multiple references to Wikipedia in this article would suggest its credibility- anyone agree?
Houston:
I'm basically saying that a hard-lined approach to solving terror drastically fails. Let's face it, the "War on Terror" isn't exactly one of the United States's most successful ventures. Why? Because the unilateralist ideology has hurt our credibility with other nations who had previously supported us. The US needs a substantial shift in policy, because the current mindset is extremely flawed. To reference an argument I mentioned earlier, "Terrorists don't hate our culture, they hate the way we express ourselves in the world." To change the US policy would substantially increase our ability to fight terrorism, my reasoning for this is explained earlier. The alternative I propose is one in which the US acts with a balanced level of "hard power" and "soft power," as opposed to the current unilateralist ideology.
Conner:
"We already know what a disaster the UN is and a unilateral worldview may not be best for the country."
Are you perhaps referring to "a multilateral worldview?" Because your current argument kind of contradicts the point that you're trying to make. But anyways, if you're going to indict multilateralism, let's see some more arguments and warranted evidence. I've already provided my reasoning and solvency, let's hear more from you.
I think we've all pretty much proved how bad of an idea an Iraqi pullout would be. Like I said earlier, compassionate humanitarianism is critical to increasing the American reputation.
Oh, one more thing Houston:
I like the quote that you referenced, however, I believe it doesn't apply as much in the context of today's world. When George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton, it was in the context of a MUCH less interconnected world. In the present globalized civilization, it's simply impossible to shut oneself off from the rest of the world. There are threats to the US "imperial mission" and there are other countries stepping up to the plate. Just to name a few: China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. Relations are worsening more and more with these major powers. China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran have nuclear and oil ties, which further complicates the United States relationships to these nations, because in the event of a conflict (assuming that WMDs aren't used), a domino effect will occur with major escalation in the world. A US war with any one of those four countries that I mentioned would certainly draw in the other three. Israel and the rest of the Middle East would be dragged into the conflict in a matter of seconds. Then, India and Pakistan appear in the game. Germany, after suffering humiliation after two World Wars, would remilitarize (again), and most likely invade France (again) and take over France (again). And who knows what North Korea would do?
No, "unilateral" worldview as in all of the countries as one. That's why the UN is terrible (disagreements) and that's why a conquered world under one authority wouldn't work. Decreasing hegemony would follow.
I've never made a single argument supporting one single united world. It's an impossible to achieve utopian ideal. I doubt anyone wants a truly unilateral world.
I'm simply advocating a more multilateral US, not this "unilateral world" that you're referring to. Connected and interdependent countries don't represent a "unilateral world."
I'm not arguing with you Jeff. I'm responding to the original post that Mr Houston made. If I had to respond to your solvency, I would actually agree. No to pulling out and yes to genuine relief efforts.
i agree with jeff, and mr. houston here.
A) a multilateral approach is nessesary to improve anti Americanism and in turn decrease the likely hood of a terrorist attack
B) but too much multilateralism or soft power would make the U.S. look weak and that also would uniqely be bad
we all agree that US heg is good, and the transition away would be 10x worse, the debate is how we sustain our hegemony
OK so what are we talking about here? how to sustain hegemony or how to reachieve it? im lost =(
I basically agree with Jeff except for his idea on humanitarian work. The US is currently in a massive debt (in the trillions i believe) and the fact that our troops are spread so thin because of the "War on Terror," doesn't help much either. These two things play a key part in humanitarian work you first need money to provide aid, and then you need troops to support/achieve the objective of the aid. Also we cant go around helping every single country who hates us,(prolly wont accept our aid in the first place) And if we spend so much money on all of this humanitarain work we'll only go more in debt, and we'll thin out our troops even more. We as a country need to stop thinking about everyone else and start thinking what we should do for ourselves. I just think its ironic how so many countries hate us, but when a natural disaster (such as the Indian Typhoon) occurs they expect us to be the first ones in and providing basically all the aid. So my idea to keep hegemoney is: 1. Stay in Iraq, if we pull out we will only appear weak and terrorists may strengthen their attacks. 2. WORK ON OUR DEBT, seriously our trillions of dollars in debt doesn't help our enconmy much, 3. We need to stop outsourcing and relaying on "services", we need to return to the good old days of products and manufacture them ourselves. Having China, India, etc. do it for us only weakens us and provides them with more money. 4. Stop thinking about the world as our problem, other people can fix it too let the UN take care of it.
So ya thats my ideas, now you can all bucther it and make feel stupid enjoy!
Actually Kevin, you'd be surprised. Not all aid requires massive amounts of money. Sending healthcare workers to develop African infrastructure to establish self-sustainability would actually require little to no money at all. Troops are entirely unnecessary in the administration of foreign aid. Troops would actually probably hurt the cause by establishing a more "Master-Slave" relationship between the aid donor and the beneficiary and is likely to hurt hegemony in the long run. By simply sending "compassionate humanitarianism" that Fitzgerald Mullan proposed in 05 in "Healer's Abroad," the US can reverse negative perceptions and increase its soft power. I can see where you're coming from, with the whole "stop thinking about everyone else and start thinking about ourselves," but as I mentioned earlier, complete isolation in today's interconnected world will inevitable fail.
As for your proposals, I agree with numbers 1, 2, and 3, however, rebalancing the economy isn't going to be as easy as it sounds. In our capitalist society, there are inevitably always going to be Senators that push for (and pass) random, arbitrary pieces of legislation that only benefit themselves, and hurt the US economy as a whole. To truly rebalance the budget and eliminate any possibility of falling farther into the deficit, we'd need to restructure the entire legislative system.
Jeff i still think though your whole idea on humatrian projects will fail in the long run, even if they don't cost a lot it will still add up. A few dollars here and there wont hurt at start, but it will add up in the end. Also your coming to this discussion with your own personal views, what of the American people? Will they support this spending of money in other countries? or will they think why not use that money to approve our own problems both economically and politically? And about your ideas on the legiastalve body, isn't it already corrupted? Our founding fathers ideas of a "government for the people" is no longer relevant. It is common knowledge that many senators think of themselves before the common American citizen. What we can do to fix this? I don't know but we need to start fixing our corruption and start looking for honorable, loyal, and good presidents/senators (Abe Lincoln, JFK, etc will all be good presidents to base these choices on) And also troops are needed in these humanitarian efforts, who will be there to protect the humanitarian aiders, American doctors, etc? The UN? Don't think so, troops are needed to not only protect these people, but also to be used as fast efficient transportation of supplies, medicine, etc. For example aiding Africa won't be easy as you say so, you need to take into account all the different cultures, rebel armies, and the fact that Africa is no walk in the park. All in all the price of humanitarian work for nothing in return will be staggering, including the movement of troops and supplies that can be used elsewhere
Kevin, do you know how much of our yearly foreign budget is spent on foreign aid? Most Americans perceive it to be 15-20%. The truth is, only .1% of our foreign budget is devoted to foreign aid. Part of the reason why Americans wouldn't be willing to spend the money in other countries is because of a campaign of misinformation presented by the media. If the media actually did its job and enlightened Americans on the difference between illusion and reality, I'm sure a lot less of the American public would object. Plus, money could be reallocated from PEPFAR to fund this new approach to foreign aid. PEPFAR's current ABC system isn't doing too hot because of a lack of healthcare infrastructure. Developing infrastructure in Africa would not only cost nothing at all if we were to reallocate funds, but it would actually probably save us money in the long run.
Not all of Africa is comprised of these rebel armies. The American media's conception of Africa is characterized by representations of conflict, disease, and catastrophe. These representations are rooted in colonialist and dehumanizing practices that shape actual bad policies. The only way to overcome these bad policies is by rejecting the negative African discourse that's constructed by the media. Only then can true policies be implemented.
when i said these rebel forces i did not mean all of Africa, yes some parts of Africa are rebel free. But what about areas such as Darfur, Congo, Somalia, etc. These areas are in dire need of aid, and are basically overrun by rebel forces (jangaweed,etc) how will you come to defend the aid forces without troop protection? And you did not address the point i made of American citizens supporting your ideas, and my troops point.
Also about the whole media thing, yes its true they provide information that is often misleading, or represent Africa as a place of devastation, famine, and war. But, the media is only really affecting the American citizens, not the government. The government knows the real truth in Africa and will not be mislead by the media, so in the end the media does not play a major role in shaping our foreign policies and ideas. Also if fixing Africa is as easy as you say it is, why hasn't anyone tried/succeeded in doing so? We tried in Somalia but that failed (ending with 18 killed, 73 wounded and 1 captured). These and other major events of "aid" in Africa have come to shape our ideas on how Africa is impossible to fix. And another point, your coming at these topic as a American citizen but what of the other point of view? What of the actual people who will be receiving this aid? What makes you think after (more than likely) years of anti-American ideas/polices, they'll just say "hey, come on in help us out!" They probably wouldn't, Jeff you need to address both sides of the story and the possible consequences that come from your "soft-power" idea before you take a stand and propose your plan.
Jeff, Conner, and Sohan,
I am very impressed with your passionate and well thought out arguments. Well done!
A few thoughts:
1) Humanitarian aid is a good and necessary thing. Serving others is essential to earning credibility with our global neighbors, however, that should not be our motive. We should help others because it is the right thing to do.
However, a) Humanitarian aid should not be a role/function of our government. It should be the role of private organizations and individuals. Our society has grown too dependent on "mother government" for sustenance. We must become more self-sufficient, both as individual citizens and as a nation (no longer relying so heavily on other nations to loan us money for expenses we cannot afford).
2) I agree, GW's Farewell address was for another time and place. While we cannot be isolated, I strongly assert that we must find a way to improve international opinion without surrendering our sovereignty.
3) How to maintain (and strengthen) US Hegemony
(ie -the Houston Doctrine)
a) Maintain US Sovereignty; avoid subjecting ourselves to international laws.
b) Eliminate national and international debt. Do not buy things we cannot pay for.
c) Reduce "debt lifestyle" and habits of individual Americans.
d) Secure borders and encourage immigration of a legal nature.
e) Increase exports, decrease imports; increase raw goods production, reduce "service oriented" businesses.
f) Eliminate dependence on foreign oil (and consequently making other nations wealthier) by converting to other sources of fuel.
Wow thanks Mr. Houston for acknowledging my contribution =(
And i do agree with your "Doctrine" you basically wrote what i have been trying to say in 6 short sentences.
Kevin, don't let your feelings be hurt. Have more confidence in your ideas. They are good ones.
Two things you said that I would like to comment on:
1)
You state, "Our founding fathers ideas of a 'government for the people' is no longer relevant. It is common knowledge that many senators think of themselves before the common American citizen. What we can do to fix this?"
Response: It is true that our system has become corrupt and the average American has a harder time having their voice heard compared to many special interest groups and high-powered corporations. Nonetheless, I disagree with your sweeping statement that the ideas of the Founding Fathers are no longer relevant. These ideas are the best hope of government in the world (past and present).
How do we fix the problem of Senators putting themselves first?...we fix this by electing honest people. The problem is such people are rare. And when you finally find one, they are usually not interested in being a politician. The best representatives must be FORCED into office by the people. Enough of these phonies who are groomed to be president or senator from birth. George Washington didn't want to be president. He wanted to farm the land at Mount Vernon. But the people UNANIMOUSLY forced him into office. We must stop voting between the lesser of two schlub candidates. Anyone who desires to be a senator or congressman isn't fit to be one. It should be a duty of servanhood rather than an elite class of corrupted self-interest and power. Call me a naive and idealistic, but I believe we often complicate matters and overlook simple solutions.
Instead, we must search the nation for authentic and honest leaders and give them no choice but to represent us. The biggest obstacle to this happening is the character and questionable judgment of the American people. Sorry to say it, but have you seen the audience of Jerry Springer lately? Yikes, these are the voting masses.
2)
You state, "the media is only really affecting the American citizens, not the government."
Response: Not all levels of government are privy to the same levels of intelligence. I assume you mean that the media does not affect the highest levels of government? I disagree. The media both influences and is a tool of the government.
You state, "The government knows the real truth in Africa and will not be mislead by the media, so in the end the media does not play a major role in shaping our foreign policies and ideas."
Response: The media's role is dependent upon the strength of the leadership. But don't underestimate the power of either the media or the people. If the media illuminates an issue and the people are moved to action, then our policy will be shaped.
You state, "If fixing Africa is as easy as you say it is, why hasn't anyone tried/succeeded in doing so?"
Response: The answer is money and scarcity of resources. The real question is, "Is this the role of the American government?" No, it is not. There are homeless people, dying people, orphans, criminals, and broken borders in America. What business do we have trying to "fix" Africa unless we have our own affairs in order? The answer is none. I think it is important to help Africa and others in the world, but we are not effective because our own "house" is in dissaray. We must restrengthen ourselves so that we can be in a position to lead and to serve the world. We want to be the credible and influential leader of the world, rather than the despised and crumbling empire.
Mr. Houston i agree with you, and as you may know i am not good in putting my ideas into paper, and when i said "If fixing Africa is as easy as you say it is, why hasn't anyone tried/succeeded in doing so?" It was meant to be a question to Jeff because he thinks its really easy to do it, and once again you wrote down exactly what i was thinking when i wrote the question.
Comments:
1) Mr. Houston- you say that we should give aid because it is the right thing to do. But you also say that we shouldn't give aid unless we ourselves are fixed. Does this mean that only perfect people should do the right thing?
2) I agree with Jeff- the representations do shape policy. Representations determine the effectiveness of policies, the acceptance of them, and the policies which we prioritize. If for example you constantly hear how hard a class is (for example:AP world) then you strive to do better and work harder than if you hear a class is super easy.
3) Aid is good. I also agree with Jeff on this point. Most people do not know how little foreign aid America is giving. I really don't think that giving more would drastically hurt the US. Now, foreign aid could be expensive, but the benefits we could reap from it could be just as good.
a) we would feel good- just decided to add this point because of the discussion we had in class that you are always selfish when you do something good.
b) its the right thing to do- no explanation needed
c) soft power- although already mentioned, soft power plays just as big a role as hard power. We will inevitably became a "tyrant of the world" if we don't actually do some good. Also, at the bottom of everyone's favorite American hegemony card, Thayer, he mentions that humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. Want a real life example? Remember at the beginning of the year when everyone turned in their first essay. When we got it back, most of us had a nice big F on it. (An example of Mr. Houston's hard power) However, Mr. Houston also gave us the chance to rewrite it (an example of his soft power) By doing both, we had a favorable opinion of Mr. Houston and still knew that a) he wanted us to be better writers and b) he could fail us.
4)Back on to LOST, the US is the only major power who has yet to sign. The benefits may outweigh the disadvantages.
a)I'm not saying that we should give up our sovereignty. But at the point where our own NAVY is pushing for the treaty, it shows that a loss probably wouldn't be all that large.
b)PSI- Also, there is good evidence that LOST would strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative(PSI), which is a UNITED STATES LED global effort to stop countries such as North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear and missile technology.
c)OIL- The US would also get access to about 3.36 million square miles of ocean. Recent figures suggest about 400 billion barrels of oil could be located in the arctic, which takes care of sub point F on the Houston doctrine.
d) Environment- LOST could promote better environmental policies including the protection of indigenous species and the monitoring of the oceans.
Megan -
I can see why my comments might lead you to logically conclude that they are exclusive and contradictory, but let me explain why they are not.
I believe we must first improve ourselves so that we can be a greater help to others. Certainly, we can help others now, but is there a way to help in a significantly stronger fashion by tightening our belts first? My comments are not contradictions, but rather a strategic sequence of actions. What help would we be to Africa (or anyone else) if we collapsed mid-effort because we ignored our own national vitality?
You state, "Does this mean that only perfect people should do the right thing?"
Of course not. First, there is no such thing as a "perfect person." Second, everyone should do the right thing. Third, without a supernatural revelation of what "the right thing" is, how can we get all of us humans to agree on a specific standard? This is the futility of relativism and pluralism and part of why belief in God is appealing to me personally.
No, it means I advocate maximizing our potential to do well by preparing and solving internal issues BEFORE going to our neighbors. It is foolish to endeavor on something as massive as "fixing" Africa without first counting the cost and then preparing.
For example, I would not go out tomorrow and run a marathon. I am not equipped to win, much less even finish. I would train and research and change my diet to maximize my potential impact in the race. It could take months of effort, but the fruits of my labor would be worthwhile. Of course, if a child were burning in a fire, I would not have the luxury of taking time to train. I would like to think I would race into the fray without thought. Hmmm, no, we must not wait until we are perfect to help others.
Similarly, if I were going to war, I would take time to properly recruit and train forces, as well as, build supplies and weapons. Now, I realize that sometimes an attack may strike unnanounced, leaving you without time to prepare. Aids and hunger, etc are similar enemies that will not wait on us to prepare. They are here and they are killing humanity as we speak. Therefore, the preparations and attack must occur simultaneously. I realize my comments were based on a "best case scenario."
I simply advocate running the most "effective" system rather than operating as we currently do by running up huge debts and then tackling problems outside of our sovereignty without adequate preparation or strategy.
Make no mistake, sometimes charity and giving are more similar to waging war than we are comfortable admitting. I don't want to go into Africa to fight Aids or poverty and lose. Just like a war, I want to go in with more than enough resources to claim undisputed victory.
Paradoxically, I am ashamed to admit that I currently do not believe such a total victory on Aids and poverty (and all else that plagues the world) is possible (without divine intervention). In fact, it seems so impossible, that I feel barely willing to attempt to help in the slightest way. That is awful. The futility of such a cause is overbearing. I like to think of myself as an optimist and an idealist, but as I write this post I am surprised to find myself staring in the mirror at a pessimistic realist. Yikes!
I hate it when an argument turns into a self-revelation!
Mr. Houston-
Alright. To tell the truth I think America does need to fix some things before rushing into solve the major problems, BUT our position in the world doesn't really allow for this time-out. So I think the best option is to try to do our best with what we have and make something out of it.
I think you sort of agree with me at the end of your metaphors. I see the best- case scenario but a more real world approach would be to try and fix both our internal solutions and our aid to others at the same time- risky, but it may be the only option.
While a total solution to the world's problems isn't directly at hand, we should never give up. Just like at AP if we don't do that well. To give up would be worse than failing.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds
/2004/nye_softpower_chitrib_051604
.htm
no spaces in the url
check it out, i think it provides a sweet article as to how soft power can be achieved.
Every major civilization always had a problem with overextended borders. As Americans, decades of supremecy have weakened our ability to see the big picture. A single world government solves the problem of border control, and would unify the human race as never before. United we stand or divided we fall. We must not allow ourselves to see ourselves better than those of other countries, for this itself violates the very constitution in which we built this nation on.
You are all motivated by the same basic thoughts that corrupted our nation. "Screw the rules, I have money," is not a valid approach. We succeeded in overthrowing Britan because we were willing to put our lives down for the state. We changed the course of World War 2 because the individuals were pledged to support our country, regardless of personal cost. Now, individual wealth is more important then maintaining the state. We're more obsessed with entertainment then health. We pay thousands of dollars to watch stupid celebrities act like complete imbisiles. Why? What do we gain from paying Johnny Dept $100 million dollars for every movie he makes, when the same money could be used to develop the cure for cancer, energy-efficient tools and transportation, or foreign relations. Who cares that Brittney Spears is using drugs and abusing her children? Theres thousands of those kind of people, but they don't get on the 7:00 news. Why are we paying China, so we can make a few extra bucks now, while later we'll end up killing our economy. It's not gonna be cheaper if the dollar keeps going down like it is. We are the most industrialized nation on the planet, but we also seem to think that we have the most money, so the rules of the world don't apply to us. God isn't convienent for my buisiness, so get rid of him. And we wonder why so many people don't like us. Because we act like idiots.
Cougar Conquer Case in UAE, Aluminum ATX Mid-Tower Case in UAE, ATX Gaming Computer Case in UAE
https://pcdubai.com/cougar-conquer/
Cougar Conquer Case in UAEE, Safe Shopping Multiple Payment Options Express Delivery PC Dubai Moneyback Guarantee.
1633929500635-8
Post a Comment