"What should we do? Pressure from without -- cutting off gasoline supplies, for example -- to complement and reinforce pressure from within. The pressure should be aimed not at changing the current regime's nuclear policy -- that will never happen -- but at helping change the regime itself"The analogy here is Reagan's public and covert support to opposition movements in Eastern Europe (i.e Solidarity in Poland), which provided hope to dissidents and helped sustain momentum for regime change and democratization with civil society playing a major role. I'm not sure if this is really analogus to Iran, however. It was more likely Gorbachev's reforms, and the signal (or lack of credibility) that he would use military force to keep communist parties in power, which provided civil society in E. Europe much of their momentum. This is the argument I made in the following article (see abstract). Of course, if we push the causal chain further back, we could attribute Gorby's reforms to Reagan's tough stand against the Soviets, kicked off with the "evil empire" speech.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Civil Society in Iran and Eastern Europe - A Good Analogy for U.S. Foreign Policy?
Apparently Charles Krauthammer assesses Obama's Iranian foreign policy as an abject failure - or perhaps more accurately a missed opportunity - from both a strategic and moral perspective by not supporting Iran's opposition. Krauthammer goes one step further, evoking eveb regime change
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Democracy Promotion and Human Rights Under Obama
A couple articles in the post related to a possible shift in the Administrationa's position on human rights. The first article by Joshua Kurlantzick of CFR is somewhat critical, arguing that in his desire to distance himself from the Bush Administration, Obama has downgraded the role of democracy and human rights.
The second is a speech by Hillary Clinton at Georgetown, which seems to suggest the Administration's giving democracy and human rights more attention.
Perhaps Obama feels he's created enough distance and legitimacy to now comfortably address the topic of human rights and democracy.
The second is a speech by Hillary Clinton at Georgetown, which seems to suggest the Administration's giving democracy and human rights more attention.
Perhaps Obama feels he's created enough distance and legitimacy to now comfortably address the topic of human rights and democracy.
Obama the Realist
Beginning with Obama's Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, the Administration has provided greater clarity, a new sense of direction, or both regarding its foreign policy.
The speech had very strong realist overtones. I wouldn't disagree that Obama was all along a realist and pragmatist. Indeed, some have referred to the Obama Doctrine as realism rooted in values. E.H. Carr must be rolling in his grave.
But at the same time, recent statements may also suggest an updating of Obama's current foreign policy accomplishments (or lack of). Obama's engagement overtures to Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela, and the current situation in Afghanistan haven't gone anywhere so perhaps he's injecting new life and bite into his foreign policy.
The speech had very strong realist overtones. I wouldn't disagree that Obama was all along a realist and pragmatist. Indeed, some have referred to the Obama Doctrine as realism rooted in values. E.H. Carr must be rolling in his grave.
But at the same time, recent statements may also suggest an updating of Obama's current foreign policy accomplishments (or lack of). Obama's engagement overtures to Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela, and the current situation in Afghanistan haven't gone anywhere so perhaps he's injecting new life and bite into his foreign policy.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Spread of Ideas and the Protestant Reformation
I assigned Daniel Philpott's Revolutions in Sovereignty in my grad seminar. What struck me was the mechanisms leading to the transnational diffusion of ideas and the spread of a movement (in this case the Protestant Reformation). It's a classic example of social/transnational movement theory applied to history.
Philpott pinpoints the origins of the movement to Luther's theology. Luther didn't create ideas from thin air, but through a process of reflection, influenced by "late medieval theology, espeically nominalism, which emphasized God's inscrutability and fallen man's distance from Him" (p.123). Luther's own spiritual criss stemmed from "excessive monastic discipline," and his revulsion against corrupt practices of the Church.
Luther's ideas first spread within monasteries, then to the clergy, then to congregations. Missionaries and church pastors helped transmit ideas. Two novel means of disseminating information were the sermon (previously, the Word was not preached, but conducted through ritual and readings of Scripture) and the pamphlet (with the invention of the printing press).
Ideas here are powerful b/c they first shape identities. After potential converts encounter reformation theology, through a process of reflection and mental toil, they begin to identify themselves as Protestants.
Second, ideas are a form of social power. Converts begin to organize themselves and transalte their commitment to political orders (i.e. new converts might mobilize into political parties, congregations, etc...).
Its the poltiical theology of Reformation which becomes really interesting. The reformers were critical of the hierarchal authority of the Church (105-107). These new converts aligned (or were perhaps used) with secular authorities (i.e. Protestant German princes) who were also opposed to the Church, but more specifically, Charles V and the Holy Roman Emperor. These reformers demanded that the spiritual and secular realm be organized separately. Thus, Philpott finds a correlation between regions where the Reformation crisis was powerful, and strong political interests in establishing a Westphalian sovereign state system.
Philpott pinpoints the origins of the movement to Luther's theology. Luther didn't create ideas from thin air, but through a process of reflection, influenced by "late medieval theology, espeically nominalism, which emphasized God's inscrutability and fallen man's distance from Him" (p.123). Luther's own spiritual criss stemmed from "excessive monastic discipline," and his revulsion against corrupt practices of the Church.
Luther's ideas first spread within monasteries, then to the clergy, then to congregations. Missionaries and church pastors helped transmit ideas. Two novel means of disseminating information were the sermon (previously, the Word was not preached, but conducted through ritual and readings of Scripture) and the pamphlet (with the invention of the printing press).
Ideas here are powerful b/c they first shape identities. After potential converts encounter reformation theology, through a process of reflection and mental toil, they begin to identify themselves as Protestants.
Second, ideas are a form of social power. Converts begin to organize themselves and transalte their commitment to political orders (i.e. new converts might mobilize into political parties, congregations, etc...).
Its the poltiical theology of Reformation which becomes really interesting. The reformers were critical of the hierarchal authority of the Church (105-107). These new converts aligned (or were perhaps used) with secular authorities (i.e. Protestant German princes) who were also opposed to the Church, but more specifically, Charles V and the Holy Roman Emperor. These reformers demanded that the spiritual and secular realm be organized separately. Thus, Philpott finds a correlation between regions where the Reformation crisis was powerful, and strong political interests in establishing a Westphalian sovereign state system.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Humanitarian Aid and NGOs
For my transnational politics class today, I invited three guest panelists from the humanitarian/non-profit sector. Pete from Food for the Hungry, Brendan from Save the Children and Lynn from National Endowment for Democracy. Unfortunately, Lynn fell victim to the swine flu so we only had two panelists.
The panel discussion was not only informative and inspiring for students, but for me as well. Pete's story - from a logger in Montana to the director of policy with FH - and his recent experiences in Indonesia and Afghanistan were particularly inspirational. A few things I learned from the panel and students' questions.
1. NGO Vocabulary:
- The 3 M's (Military, mercenary, missionary): This was in reference to the three types of groups involved in aid work. Mercenaries are the contractors, and NGOs who follow the money (or the military). Missionaries (not necessarily in the religious sense) are those who are genuinely concerned about the people and there to bring change/improvement.
- The 3 Ds (defense, diplomacy, development): What's needed to bring stability, good governance, and improve quality of life in places like Afghanistan.
2. Afghanistan:
Pete just returned from an assessment trip to see whether and how FH could get back into Afgh, and returned a bit discouraged. A lot of money is going to waste. While aid has been pouring into the country, it hasn't been used efficiently or wisely. As an anecdote, Pete mentioned how a friend in a different NGO said it cost a million dollars just to "open-shop" and 90% of the funds were spent on providing security to the workers and operations. This doesn't even get into the corruption issue. Only a small percentage is being used directly to provide aid for people on the ground.
3. Value chain
Brendan, who's working on aid reform, mentioned the importance of the "value chain" -working on projects which provide added value to other projects. For instance, delivering food aid requires establishing a distribution system. FH might help farmers grow crops, but if they sit in storage and can't be distributed efficiently, they end up rotting, and everything goes to waste.
4. Working with corrupt or despotic regimes
In relief or disaster work, sometimes you have to work through the corruption if you're going to save lives.
5. Militarization of Aid
As a long term trend, the development sector needs to think carefully about delegating humanitarian tasks to the military. However, the US Navy's role in the 2005 Tsunami relief effort demonstrates the military's potential for effective and efficient mobilization of disaster relief. Although the US military sometimes acts before it thinks, in the tsunami relief effort, the quick response saved thousands of lives. On the other hand, after an earthquake in X region, FH requested the UN to helicopter in FH's disaster kits. However, the UN stated they hadn't processed all the necessary paperwork. The helicopters stood idle on the launch pad for eight days as NGOs waited for approval. Meanwhile, with each passing hour, the death toll climbed.
6. Protecting NGO workers in security scarce zones
FH's protection comes through relationships rather than guns. In other words, they are basing their protection by gaining trust from the locals.
For more on these issues, here's a recent book on humanitarian assistance and foreign policy: Global Compassion: Private Voluntary Organizations and U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1939
The panel discussion was not only informative and inspiring for students, but for me as well. Pete's story - from a logger in Montana to the director of policy with FH - and his recent experiences in Indonesia and Afghanistan were particularly inspirational. A few things I learned from the panel and students' questions.
1. NGO Vocabulary:
- The 3 M's (Military, mercenary, missionary): This was in reference to the three types of groups involved in aid work. Mercenaries are the contractors, and NGOs who follow the money (or the military). Missionaries (not necessarily in the religious sense) are those who are genuinely concerned about the people and there to bring change/improvement.
- The 3 Ds (defense, diplomacy, development): What's needed to bring stability, good governance, and improve quality of life in places like Afghanistan.
2. Afghanistan:
Pete just returned from an assessment trip to see whether and how FH could get back into Afgh, and returned a bit discouraged. A lot of money is going to waste. While aid has been pouring into the country, it hasn't been used efficiently or wisely. As an anecdote, Pete mentioned how a friend in a different NGO said it cost a million dollars just to "open-shop" and 90% of the funds were spent on providing security to the workers and operations. This doesn't even get into the corruption issue. Only a small percentage is being used directly to provide aid for people on the ground.
3. Value chain
Brendan, who's working on aid reform, mentioned the importance of the "value chain" -working on projects which provide added value to other projects. For instance, delivering food aid requires establishing a distribution system. FH might help farmers grow crops, but if they sit in storage and can't be distributed efficiently, they end up rotting, and everything goes to waste.
4. Working with corrupt or despotic regimes
In relief or disaster work, sometimes you have to work through the corruption if you're going to save lives.
5. Militarization of Aid
As a long term trend, the development sector needs to think carefully about delegating humanitarian tasks to the military. However, the US Navy's role in the 2005 Tsunami relief effort demonstrates the military's potential for effective and efficient mobilization of disaster relief. Although the US military sometimes acts before it thinks, in the tsunami relief effort, the quick response saved thousands of lives. On the other hand, after an earthquake in X region, FH requested the UN to helicopter in FH's disaster kits. However, the UN stated they hadn't processed all the necessary paperwork. The helicopters stood idle on the launch pad for eight days as NGOs waited for approval. Meanwhile, with each passing hour, the death toll climbed.
6. Protecting NGO workers in security scarce zones
FH's protection comes through relationships rather than guns. In other words, they are basing their protection by gaining trust from the locals.
For more on these issues, here's a recent book on humanitarian assistance and foreign policy: Global Compassion: Private Voluntary Organizations and U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1939
Monday, November 9, 2009
Coburn Bill to Cut NSF Funding to Political Science Defeated
"After a cloture vote on November 5, the Senate voted on the Coburn's amendment and soundly defeated it by a margin of 36-62" - APSA website. See APSA president Henry Brady's letter to the Senate stating the value of poltical science research.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Mr. Kim's Scam?
A sobering reminder to those (including myself) with rising expectations whenever NK discusses "engagement." North Korea has perfected its gamesmenship over three US presidents now. As the Post editorial writes, the scam goes something like this:
Pyongyang raises tension by firing off missiles, ejecting inspectors from its nuclear facilities, testing bombs and promising to produce more. Then it turns conciliatory, suggesting it might be willing to freeze its nuclear program and even begin to dismantle it in exchange for economic and political concessions. Next it begins talks, collecting as much in cash and diplomatic recognition as it can from Washington and its Asian allies. Finally, it breaks off the process before it has taken any irreversible step to give up its weapons or the means to produce them.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hard and Human Security: North Korea and Iran?
I met my former dissertation adviser at a conference in Baltimore earlier this month, and shared with him my research ideas related to North Korea. He was OK about the use of network analysis, but troubled by a study focusing on just one country. He sees a fixation on one country as a bad career move. Instead, I should make NK one case of a larger theoretical problem. Iran immediately popped to mind.
Iran and NK are both nuclear proliferaters with dubious human rights practices where the US focuses almost exclusively on the former and treads lightly on the latter. However, Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has made a pointed case that supporting democracy (i.e. the opposition) and human rights (those arrested or beaten after the June election unrest) can result in both moral and tactical benefits.
But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral. The Post writes:
Iran and NK are both nuclear proliferaters with dubious human rights practices where the US focuses almost exclusively on the former and treads lightly on the latter. However, Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has made a pointed case that supporting democracy (i.e. the opposition) and human rights (those arrested or beaten after the June election unrest) can result in both moral and tactical benefits.
But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral. The Post writes:
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."Hmmm...we could ask this same question about trust in signing an agreement w/Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately, in NK there is no visible opposition to work with. We only have the regime to work with. However, as with all governments, hard-liners and moderates do exist within the regime. If there's a way to identify and sway moderates, and perhaps open the country to the outside, could a more credible nuclear deal be struck?
Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"
Relevance of NATO
A few weeks we talked about "security communities" in my grad seminar on the role of ideas and identity in IR. Thanks to a North Atlantic identity, NATO endures even in the absence of a Soviet threat. Anne Applebaum, however, seems to disagree. She writes:
Applebaum's evidence is found in the way that countries frame the Afghan War. She notes that countries are not discussing the Afghan War as an international operation. Rather, national governments and the media portray sacrifices in nationalistic terms rather than as a collective enterprise. I suspect this is partially for domestic consumption, and perhaps elites privately concur that this is an international concern.
The fact is that the idea of "the West" has been fading for a long time on both sides of the Atlantic, as countless "whither-the-Alliance" seminars have been ritually observing for the past decade. But the consequences are now with us: NATO, though fighting its first war since its foundation, inspires nobody. The members of NATO feel no allegiance to the alliance, or to one another.
Applebaum's evidence is found in the way that countries frame the Afghan War. She notes that countries are not discussing the Afghan War as an international operation. Rather, national governments and the media portray sacrifices in nationalistic terms rather than as a collective enterprise. I suspect this is partially for domestic consumption, and perhaps elites privately concur that this is an international concern.
Political Science: Methods and the Policy-Academic Divide
In light of Senator Coburn's mission to end NSF funding for political "science," a friend/colleague decided to start an open forum on his f.b. The debate revolves around 1) the usefulness of political science research to the real world and 2) the types of methods we use. This debate was featured in a NY Times article. In addressing issue #1, my friend writes:
I also think Political Science could do more to address relevant policy questions and make our findings more accessible to the general public. My friend suggests the academic rules of the game should slightly change in the following ways:
Since I'm at a DC-based university, I've thought quite a bit about these questions - especially as I apply for research fellowships. Joseph Nye's op-ed in April on about the lack of policy relevance in poli-sci research was particularly apt. I am largely in agreement with my friend, but at the same time, we need not always look for convergence...even in the natural sciences and engineering, there is both basic and applied research. the "big picture" theoretical questions in the social sciences are equivalent to basic research. Some researchers will be more interested in basic, others in applied. And then there are those who connect the bridge. it's this middle category that our discipline could promote.
I also think Political Science could do more to address relevant policy questions and make our findings more accessible to the general public. My friend suggests the academic rules of the game should slightly change in the following ways:
1) Graduate students should be encouraged to take classes in policy analysis and media communication in which they learn to write concise and jargon-free memos. Such exercises will help them explain their research to both media representatives and policy makers;
2) Graduate students in Political Science should be encouraged to do policy relevant research;
3) Faculty should positively value the media and policy outreach of assistant professors and include achievements in these areas in the tenure review process;
4) Departments of Political Science should welcome back both assistant and tenured professors who temporarily depart from academia to pursue public service in government and other important work with international organizations, since they bring valuable experience to both teaching and research.
Since I'm at a DC-based university, I've thought quite a bit about these questions - especially as I apply for research fellowships. Joseph Nye's op-ed in April on about the lack of policy relevance in poli-sci research was particularly apt. I am largely in agreement with my friend, but at the same time, we need not always look for convergence...even in the natural sciences and engineering, there is both basic and applied research. the "big picture" theoretical questions in the social sciences are equivalent to basic research. Some researchers will be more interested in basic, others in applied. And then there are those who connect the bridge. it's this middle category that our discipline could promote.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Not In Anyone's Backyard
My article on the emergence of a transnational anti-base movement was published this month in ISQ. I was surprised when a colleague at Temple forwarded me a link with a review of it on the Duck of Minerva blog.
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2009/09/not-in-anyones-backyard-andrew-yeo-on.html
http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2009/09/not-in-anyones-backyard-andrew-yeo-on.html
Saturday, August 1, 2009
NK Brunch Meeting
KK called together a brunch together to meet CK, who was in town to share his story w/some NK policymakers in DC. I'd have to say JP is the king of analogies. Aside from no one wanting to touch the NK issue among policy circles these days, JP pointed out the current problem w/NK analysis.
Analogy #1: In medicine, there are 3 stages when approaching sick patients: diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. Regarding North Korea, everyone is focused on treatment without knowing what the correct diagnosis is. There just isn't any solid diagnosis of the problem. Part of the problem is there's not enough information. Nor will the patient let us make a diagnosis. We may look back 10 years from now and find that the treatment we were applying today were silly. 150 years ago, medical textbooks recommended bleeding patients to remove the bad blood (think about the procedure to save President Lincoln). In ancient times, doctors drilled holes in patient's heads (a procedure known as trepanation) to mental diseases. How can we provide diagnosis (i.e. understand N.Korea better) so we don't provide silly treatments?
Analogy #2: This was JP's advice to CK. NK experts are like a Star Trek convention: A nerdy bunch fixated on a narrow problem who only leave home when there's a Trekkie convention. CK needs to reach out to people outside this group to be effective, and to get ideas. Perhaps this means working through Singapore, or Norway. Something I learned today was the prospect of wind turbines for electricity in NK. Apparently Norway was also once a poor, backwards country, but once they discovered wind turbines to generate electricity, the mining industry flourished. Norway apparently has an interest in development work in NK.
Also, the Congressmen most noted for NK work (Ed Royce, Sam Brownback) may not be the best people to approach in setting up a business venture, or development projects in NK. Oskar Schindler may be an excellent example or analogy in promoting HR. Schindler may have wanted to save Jews, but initially he was running a business, and he needed Jews to stay alive to operate his factories. The survivors and relatives of Schindler's Jews may be open to helping the NK human rights cause, b/c it speaks to their own experiences.
Analogy #1: In medicine, there are 3 stages when approaching sick patients: diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. Regarding North Korea, everyone is focused on treatment without knowing what the correct diagnosis is. There just isn't any solid diagnosis of the problem. Part of the problem is there's not enough information. Nor will the patient let us make a diagnosis. We may look back 10 years from now and find that the treatment we were applying today were silly. 150 years ago, medical textbooks recommended bleeding patients to remove the bad blood (think about the procedure to save President Lincoln). In ancient times, doctors drilled holes in patient's heads (a procedure known as trepanation) to mental diseases. How can we provide diagnosis (i.e. understand N.Korea better) so we don't provide silly treatments?
Analogy #2: This was JP's advice to CK. NK experts are like a Star Trek convention: A nerdy bunch fixated on a narrow problem who only leave home when there's a Trekkie convention. CK needs to reach out to people outside this group to be effective, and to get ideas. Perhaps this means working through Singapore, or Norway. Something I learned today was the prospect of wind turbines for electricity in NK. Apparently Norway was also once a poor, backwards country, but once they discovered wind turbines to generate electricity, the mining industry flourished. Norway apparently has an interest in development work in NK.
Also, the Congressmen most noted for NK work (Ed Royce, Sam Brownback) may not be the best people to approach in setting up a business venture, or development projects in NK. Oskar Schindler may be an excellent example or analogy in promoting HR. Schindler may have wanted to save Jews, but initially he was running a business, and he needed Jews to stay alive to operate his factories. The survivors and relatives of Schindler's Jews may be open to helping the NK human rights cause, b/c it speaks to their own experiences.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Liberals and Human Rights
Intuitively, one would assume that "liberals" would take a stronger stand on human rights than conservatives. The demand for civil liberties, transparency, and basic freedoms are all issues liberals would naturally demand. Yet human rights have become the agenda of conservatives. When did human rights and the demand for liberal values abroad become the issue of conservatives (i.e. the rise of the neocons)? Are Democrats wary of pushing the human rights button, evoking the "freedom" rhetoric which rings so close to the Bush agenda.
We see the delicate balance Obama faces with Iran. Obama should provide the Iranian opposition moral support and denounce the use of violence to quash protestors. Yet he's been careful not to denounce Ahmadinejad, or make comments which would further incite the opposition, or suggest the illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (and by extension grounds for regime change). And from a "realist" perspective, Obama will likely be negotiating with Ahmadinejad's government on future nuclear policy. Thus he's exercising caution now with his words so as to not undermine future prospects of diplomacy or engagement with Ahmadinejad.
therefore is exercising caution. Glenn Kessler below gets at some of these points
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703850.html
But this digression still doesn't get at the heart of my question about the position of political liberals (i.e. Democrats on human rights). More salient for my research is figuring out what the liberal position is on human rights in North Korea. My tentative answer is that they have no position. Liberals have been largely silent on human rights in N.Korea. The agenda has been dominated by conservatives and evangelical Christians. I think there is a "moderate" position here, which I would fall under. Focus on providing humanitarian aid. Denounce the lack of political, eocnomic, and religious freedom in N.Korea, but w/out openly promoting regime overthrow (even if this is desirable). Perhaps there is a way to silently promote regime change, by pulling internal levels, providing humanitarian assistance, and working with local officials to institute market reforms.
We see the delicate balance Obama faces with Iran. Obama should provide the Iranian opposition moral support and denounce the use of violence to quash protestors. Yet he's been careful not to denounce Ahmadinejad, or make comments which would further incite the opposition, or suggest the illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (and by extension grounds for regime change). And from a "realist" perspective, Obama will likely be negotiating with Ahmadinejad's government on future nuclear policy. Thus he's exercising caution now with his words so as to not undermine future prospects of diplomacy or engagement with Ahmadinejad.
therefore is exercising caution. Glenn Kessler below gets at some of these points
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703850.html
But this digression still doesn't get at the heart of my question about the position of political liberals (i.e. Democrats on human rights). More salient for my research is figuring out what the liberal position is on human rights in North Korea. My tentative answer is that they have no position. Liberals have been largely silent on human rights in N.Korea. The agenda has been dominated by conservatives and evangelical Christians. I think there is a "moderate" position here, which I would fall under. Focus on providing humanitarian aid. Denounce the lack of political, eocnomic, and religious freedom in N.Korea, but w/out openly promoting regime overthrow (even if this is desirable). Perhaps there is a way to silently promote regime change, by pulling internal levels, providing humanitarian assistance, and working with local officials to institute market reforms.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thinking Outside of the Box on N.Korea
Two articles from the Post which I thought might help us think out of the box on N.Korea. When I mean out of the box, I mean thinking about issues outside of security, proliferation, and food aid, things like development assistance and the viability of economic zones.
The first article on agriculture development in Afghanistan doesn't apply to NK, but it' the principle of looking beyond existing models or frameworks which have continued to fail in the past.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804135.html
The second article pertains to the precarious state of the Kaesong Industrial Complex with S. Korean investors pulling out amidst NK demands, and increased political risk in conducting business with the North. Again shows why at the end of the day the security issue dominates the agenda. Must security issues be resolved first before moving forwad on issues of economic reform, development, human rights etc... or will efforts promoting economic reforms and development help pave a resolution to security issues. (Update: S.Korea's "sunshine" engagement policy was an attempt at the latter. Obviously it failed...but perhaps the program was undercut by the early Bush Administration's NK policy).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803683.html
The first article on agriculture development in Afghanistan doesn't apply to NK, but it' the principle of looking beyond existing models or frameworks which have continued to fail in the past.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804135.html
The second article pertains to the precarious state of the Kaesong Industrial Complex with S. Korean investors pulling out amidst NK demands, and increased political risk in conducting business with the North. Again shows why at the end of the day the security issue dominates the agenda. Must security issues be resolved first before moving forwad on issues of economic reform, development, human rights etc... or will efforts promoting economic reforms and development help pave a resolution to security issues. (Update: S.Korea's "sunshine" engagement policy was an attempt at the latter. Obviously it failed...but perhaps the program was undercut by the early Bush Administration's NK policy).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803683.html
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Passport DC
Taking part in Passport DC 2009, my brother and I visited several Embassy open houses on Saturday. We visited the Embassies of Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Each embassy provided or showcased samples of food, music dance, and traditional dress unique to its country, but the expressions of joy and happiness were all same. Keep in mind that several of these counties are currently afflicted by political instability, poverty, or war. Yet to see people celebrating and dancing, despite pressing current events taking place back in the home country, was quite a sight. Passport DC was a reminder that the human race shares a common bond through the love of food, music, and dance. A bond which cuts through space and time.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Course Evaluations on East Asian Security
I finally got my course evaluations from last semester. The comments were quite valuable. I learned that:
1) Students want to hear more about policy/current events, than the history side. several students complained it was more like East Asian history
2) Students like short writing assignments and actually want more of this.
3) Students enjoy in-class simulations and activities
1) Students want to hear more about policy/current events, than the history side. several students complained it was more like East Asian history
2) Students like short writing assignments and actually want more of this.
3) Students enjoy in-class simulations and activities
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Runny Noses
My Intro to IR students took their first midterm today. I was amazed how many students had kleenexes and cough drops on top of their desk. I guess sickness really does spread easily on campuses.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Secretary State Clinton's First Visit to China
Human Rights (HR) groups like Amnesty were upset over Clinton’s remarks in her first trip to China. She commented that pressing China on issues like Tibet, or religious freedom “can’t interfere” with dialogue on other issues such as economic and environmental cooperation, or the stalled 6-party talks with N. Korea.
HR groups interpreted Clinton’s statement as implying that HR would play less of a priority in U.S.-PRC diplomatic relations. This comment triggers a key debate. Are Clinton’s statements any different from past Administration’s approach towards China? Yes, Bush often criticized China for HR abuses, but the US continued to cooperate w/China on economic and security issues, resulting in a period of relative improvement in US-China relations.
If you approach this from a liberal perspective, the argument is (and I believe this is Clinton’s position), it’s more fruitful to maintain dialogue and cooperation on several key issues, rather than risk jeopardizing bilateral ties over one (alebeit very important) issue. The hope is that China will eventually improve its record on human rights as it moves to become a more responsible, internationally legitimate player in int’l affairs. On the other hand, is it OK for the US to lower its standards or principles to achieve cooperation in other issues?
There are short term and long term trade-offs. But it leaves us with a fundamental question: can we ever follow a morally responsible foreign policy 100% of the time? This leads to a follow-up question: what is morally responsible? Calling out states on human rights violations may be the principled thing to do. However, if criticizing China on HR results in icy relations with negative repurcussion for the global economy, the U.S. job market, more pollution, would this still fall under the rubric of morally responsible? Rather than "calling out" China (i.e. pointing fingers), perhaps the U.S. could "encourage" China to improve its human rights record. This would continue to acknolwedge HR abuses in China, w/out risking damage to other areas of cooperation.
Note: Today's Post had an editorial criticizing Clinton's remarks. While Clinton is correct that HR talk has not changed much over the past decade, her comments can support or break the will of thousands of Chinese who fight for greater government accountability, civil liberties, and human rights. Also, will a slap on the wrist on HR issues really sour economic and security issues if they are also in China's interest to cooperate? Very good point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html?sub=AR
HR groups interpreted Clinton’s statement as implying that HR would play less of a priority in U.S.-PRC diplomatic relations. This comment triggers a key debate. Are Clinton’s statements any different from past Administration’s approach towards China? Yes, Bush often criticized China for HR abuses, but the US continued to cooperate w/China on economic and security issues, resulting in a period of relative improvement in US-China relations.
If you approach this from a liberal perspective, the argument is (and I believe this is Clinton’s position), it’s more fruitful to maintain dialogue and cooperation on several key issues, rather than risk jeopardizing bilateral ties over one (alebeit very important) issue. The hope is that China will eventually improve its record on human rights as it moves to become a more responsible, internationally legitimate player in int’l affairs. On the other hand, is it OK for the US to lower its standards or principles to achieve cooperation in other issues?
There are short term and long term trade-offs. But it leaves us with a fundamental question: can we ever follow a morally responsible foreign policy 100% of the time? This leads to a follow-up question: what is morally responsible? Calling out states on human rights violations may be the principled thing to do. However, if criticizing China on HR results in icy relations with negative repurcussion for the global economy, the U.S. job market, more pollution, would this still fall under the rubric of morally responsible? Rather than "calling out" China (i.e. pointing fingers), perhaps the U.S. could "encourage" China to improve its human rights record. This would continue to acknolwedge HR abuses in China, w/out risking damage to other areas of cooperation.
Note: Today's Post had an editorial criticizing Clinton's remarks. While Clinton is correct that HR talk has not changed much over the past decade, her comments can support or break the will of thousands of Chinese who fight for greater government accountability, civil liberties, and human rights. Also, will a slap on the wrist on HR issues really sour economic and security issues if they are also in China's interest to cooperate? Very good point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/23/AR2009022302412.html?sub=AR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)