Matthew Lu's Open Salon Blog

Hot air and simple gifts

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:09:32 -0400

Your correspondent is currently reading Alexander Wendt's A Social Theory of International Politics: I hope to finish it by the end of this week. Nevertheless, I also read an article Wendt wrote which preceded and inspired his book; the article is: Anarchy is what States make of it: the social construction of power politics.

While I am nearly done with his book, I will refrain from applying constructivism until I have finished it.

Yet his article makes an interesting point. Of late, I have discussed moving Sino-US relations towards a grand strategy constructed around a win-win relationship. Alexander Wendt has some theoretical advice:

Of changing a system from a Hobbesian one to a more Lockean one, he writes: "The vehicle for inducing such change is one's own practice and, in particular, the practice of "altercasting"--a technique of interactor control in which ego uses tactics of self-presentation and stage management in an attempt to frame alter's
definitions of social situations in ways that create the role which ego desires alter to play.95
In effect, in altercasting ego tries to induce alter to take on a new identity (and thereby enlist alter in ego's effort to change itself) by treating alter as if it already had that identity."

Since (I, unfortunately, must nonetheless explain Wendt a little) Wendt points not to anarchy as having a constitutive effect on poor relationships between states but on how one state perceives or believes another state to be, the way to alter a system from one of absolute distrust (Hobbesian) towards one of cooperation (Lockean) is to change the other state's perception of oneself. The second quote illustrates how in Sino-US relations: China must act as if America already sees it as an ally (while reacting using the generous tit-for-tat strategy when America does not respond in kind) and make unilateral overtures appropriately.

President Hu Jintao did just that at the UN this week. This is from Reuters:

--
"We will endeavor to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level," Hu said.

The pledge, which marked the first time China has said it will accept measurable curbs on its emissions, was seen as an attempt to counter critics, especially in Washington, who say Beijing is doing too little.
--

It is a good start on Beijing's part; more can yet be done. On the Taiwan issue, I believe that Beijing's and Taipei's largest museums should have a cross-museum program set up. It would celebrate their shared culture as well as put pressure on the British Museum to return some of our treasures. Taipei would display many of its best treasures in Beijing for half a year and Beijing would do the same in Taipei; that isn't quite cross-Atlantic, but it's good PR and it is a move that would demonstrate China's peaceful intentions. From another angle, by initiating this, Beijing would symbolically show itself as the center of the Chinese civilization, exploiting the kin-country syndrome that Huntington describes. China would shore up its position within its civilization as well as make a gesture of good faith. As far as using Wendt's theory is concerned, this sharing of cultures would help China form a collective identity with Taiwan, moving the system the two interact in towards a more Lockean direction.

These are simple gestures but effective ones; with some PR work and hot air, China can start acting very harmoniously. And besides, what better way to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the party than to show some treasures of Chinese culture unseen for nearly a century?

Me, My Friends, and I

Tue, 1 Sep 2009 06:09:26 -0400

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN31455925

President Obama's National Security Advisor Jim Jones declared that Mr Obama's foreign policy has aided and enhanced America's counter-terrorism capabilities.

"We have better human intelligence. We know where the terrorists are moving...Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies...the trend line against terrorism is positive."

Of interest to this blogger is Mr Jones' inclusivity: Mr Jones opts to include not only America's allies, but her 'friends'. Mr Jones' distinction between friends and allies implies that America has abandoned the 'with us or against us' tone of the previous Administration under Mr Bush; nations that are not America's allies can still be her friends in the effort to curb terrorism. Such a vision would include countries like China and Russia -- though not traditional American allies -- in counter-terrorist efforts.

That is wise. This blogger has long argued that the self-interests of separate nations around the world intersect very much on the issue of terrorism. So far, terrorists have confined themselves to weapons that cause local damage; in the age of what Mr Milligan-Whyte, founder of the Center of China-America Partnership and pioneer of the 'New School' of Sino-Chinese relations, terms Species Lethal Weapons, terrorist attacks can no longer be considered domestic, national threats. Mr Milligan-Whyte points out that "the danger is that after an attack or accident using Species Lethal Weapons or Science, there may be little or no need for a solution to terrorism, because the attack or accident may be species lethal."

Referring to 9/11, he writes, "If the attackers' desire had been to cause more catastrophic permanent damage to America...other more destructive targets could ahve been selected, such as nuclear power plants, biological research centers and disease control centers."

Mr Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has reportedly read Mr Milligan-Whyte's book, "China & America's Emerging Partnership: A Realistic New Perspective". Jones' description of Mr Obama reaching out to world leaders out of national friendship reflects Mr Milligan-Whyte's policy advice: "Greater American tolerance and respect for other nations' interests, ideals and different ways of life are fundamental requirements. Diversity in the international system...is innate in mankind."

Mr Obama's refreshing approach to international relations has given America new tools to fight terrorism even as Mr Obama retracts old ones leftover from the Bush Administration ('aggressive interrogation'). In effect, Mr Obama has been able to ease tension between America and partners she must work with (but perhaps not love) and regain her moral authority by curbing torture while simultaneously enhancing America's effectiveness at counter-terrorism.

Mr Obama's recognition and acceptance of diversity, as well as what Mr Jones' describes as a "radically different" foreign policy strategy, likely reflects Ms Clinton's reading of Mr Milligan-Whyte who advocates exactly this sort of win-win strategies. I encourage you to check out his upcoming new book: CHINA & AMERICA'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN MANKIND'S FUTURE as well as the book Secretary of State Clinton read: CHINA & AMERICA'S EMERGING PARTNERSHIP: A REALISTIC NEW PERSPECTIVE.

The once and future guide

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:08:33 -0400

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704192.html

Not so long ago, the United States made the pursuit and maintenance of moral authority one of the tenants of it's foreign policy. The incident that comes first to this blogger's mind is one that Henry Kissinger has roundly criticized in his 1994 book DIPLOMACY: America's intervention on the side of Egypt during the Suez Crisis of 1956 against its English and French NATO allies.

Mr Kissinger's analysis (which I do not have on hand and, regrettable, cannot therefore quote) is a good starting point. He writes that Egypt sought to make overtures to both NATO and the Soviet Union, playing the two blocs against each other to better place Egypt in the new world order; when Egypt warmed to the Soviets, America and England withdrew their financial commitments to Egypt (the building of the Aswan Dam). To finance the construction of the Dam, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, an old Anglo-French joint colonial venture. As the old colonial powers and the new state of Israel geared up for war, America forced its NATO and Israeli allies to withdraw. America, then under President Eisenhower, realized that it could not condemn the Soviets' brutal suppression of Hungary while simultaneously supporting colonial imperialist gestures in Egypt. To retain its moral authority to inspire revolutions to destabilize the Soviets, America -- putting it bluntly -- betrayed its allies to side with a country that was warming to the Soviets. But what is counter-intuitive from a strictly geo-political standpoint is a wise and prescient in a more nuanced analysis: for America to inspire revolutions behind the Iron Curtain it had to stand apart as an ideal example. Today, for America to undermine religious fanaticism, it must similarly deploy moral authority as part of its arsenal; to do that it must again stand apart and stand morally upright.

Mr Holder's step is a positive one. Mr Obama, like Mr Eisenhower, has felt that retaining (or, in our modern case, retaking) America's moral authority is more important than the loyalty it owes to the CIA. The analogy can yet be carried farther: in much the same way that America sought to destabilize the Warsaw Pact by inspiring popular, democratic, and capitalist revolutions through leading by example, America is now seeking to win 'hearts and minds' in much the same way. If America is to destabilize and deprive radical Islam of its recruits, it must deprive them of something to rail against; transparency and accountability is one step for America to regain its moral authority.

A new best-seller, CHINA & AMERICA'S EMERGING PARTNERSHIP: A REALISTIC NEW PERSPECTIVE argues that for America to regain its position as a world leader, it must lead through moral authority. Deprived of moral authority, the American military is powerless: in stabilizing Iraq, it was the moral support lent to General Petraeus by Muqtada al-Sadr that armed American troops with the support (or, at least, lack of hostility) of the local population. Moving forward, America will need the same support--willingly given--if it is to combat terrorist threats; to do that, America must first regain and then deploy its influence with strong, persuasive moral authority. The book, which is part of a series of eight books written by Mr John Milligan-Whyte which together form a 'New School of America-China Relations', is a persuasive text and I urge you all to read it.

Re-opening the old wounds of 'enhanced interrogations' hurts; but it is a good first step for America to begin to recapture its moral authority. Mr Eisenhower understood the need for moral authority to undermine the Soviet bloc; I trust Mr Obama understands the need for moral authority in the fight to keep America safe from terrorists.

A heart happy birthday to Mr X

Tue, 19 May 2009 00:05:14 -0400

I have taken a long break from blogging because the end of my high school career is fast approaching and I want to spend more time doing things I never had time to do before and become better friends with people I never had the chance to in the years past. Given that this is my senior summer, I will probably extend my blogging holiday through mid June.

In the interim period, I already know what I'd like to discuss. I am reading a book by groundbreaking IR theorist Alexander Wendt titled "Social Theory of International Politics". I will expand my thoughts on the European project from the Idealist perspective that I expect to be armed with after my reading. I also met an Assistant-Secretary General to the UN, a Doctor Edward Luck while I was visiting Dartmouth College. I had lunch with him with five other students; it was a surprisingly close lunch where I managed to have a good dialogue with him. As director of the UN's R2P (Right to Protect) initiative, Dr Luck had much to say about intervention on humanitarian grounds; I had discussed the possibility of a paramilitary wing given to the Hague and I have more thoughts on that as well.

Today, of course, Free Exchange continues its tradition of celebrating Malcolm X's birthday. Mr X does not have his own day as Dr King does. That's unfortunate because Dr King's pacifist option would likely have been much less appealing if Mr X's much scarier speeches were not the alternative.

This year, Free Exchange would like to focus not on his political views (as your correspondent chose to last year), but his personal life. Mr X embodies the spirit of inquiry I have sought to foster at Free Exchange. Mr X's trip to Mecca marks a change in his rhetoric and a fundamental change in his beliefs. Increasingly wary of the Nation of Islam and beginning to doubt its message, Mr X made a pilgrimage to Mecca.

His pilgrimage and search taught him that the Islamic message he had long been preaching was flawed. Islam's original tenets were about one thing; he had been preaching another. Publicly and in his actions, Mr X changed from a determined racial separatist to one willing to extend a hand to the other side. While he still fundamentally believed that black men ought to accept that they were victims, move on, and empower their communities, he understood that not all white men were enemies. Indeed, he came to believe that, ideally, there ought to be peace between the races, not enmity.

I founded Free Exchange to air my own thoughts but it has since become a way for me to see my ideas challenged, taken down. Hegel's theory of thesis-antithesis as the driving force of progress is correct in its assessment of the transformation of knowledge. Malcolm X, among many other things, embodies a willingness to accept a new synthesis after one explores both thesis and antithesis.

Today, in a more personal post, I do not recommend policy nor fashion analysis for a country, institution, or the world; instead I urge a personal and, above all, intellectual course of action -- that of introspection, questioning, and an acceptance of error in the pursuit of more nuanced understanding and better modes of inquiry. Malcolm X did not make superficial changes: he did not merely tweak his rhetoric, nor did he internally change but refuse to acknowledge fault in public. Malcolm X underwent a fundamental change and changed his life accordingly. That is the lesson I wish to keep in mind this year and the lesson Free Exchange will continue to embody and promote.

Renovating the political pillar

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:04:43 -0400

The exciting stock-market rally of the last few weeks persisted in part because the government and the Fed's announcements of optimism and detailed plans to shore up the American financial system have given investors a sense of confidence. Confidence in America's political stability and the rule of law in protecting economic transactions has long been a pillar that held and still holds up the American economy. It is a mistake to allow that pillar to fall into disrepair.

As I have argued before, the executives did not deserve their pay; but the stakes are far higher. A friend of mine summed up the fiasco over the AIG bonus payments as "the American government extorting its citizens." Indeed, most of the American executives promptly returned their bonus money following death threats on their families and public outrage. Alexis de Tocqueville eloquently called it "tyranny of the majority"; your correspondent lacks his sense of restraint -- it is mob rule. The 90% tax on executive pay is not only unconstitutional because of it targets a select group, it is an alarming example of when the American government responded to an outraged majority to target a minority.

The unconstitutionality of the bill and its mob-rule origin chip away at the pillar of political stability that is key to any economy, and one that has seen the American dollar replace gold as an international standard. Today, the Federal Reserve reported that requests for loans from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) dropped 64% this month from $4.7b to $1.71b.

“It is a big disappointment,” said Stephen Stanley chief economist at RBS Securities Inc. in Greenwich, Connecticut. “There are some folks who have decided they just don’t want to play in any government programs.”

Undoubtedly, Mr Stanley is referring to comments like these (pulled for Bloomberg): “I can do very well for my clients without venturing into federal waters which are inhabited by sharks...We are leery of doing anything with the federal government.” -- David Kotok, the chairman of Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Vineland, New Jersey, who manages about $1 billion.

The market's performance in January through February was demonstration enough of what lack of confidence in the political pillar can do: from January 1 through February 27, the Dow dropped 19.52%. The government ought to hold more rigorously to the constitution than ever before, and make a public point of it; it should also resist the public choice temptation to respond to populist outrage. If political winds continue to blow the populist way, the gust will gnaw further at the crucial political pillar that helps hold up the American economy. Every dent in that pillar will correspond to a drop across American indexes.

Now, more than ever, we must carefully examine the speeches of the likely candidates running for election (or re-election) to Congress to see which way politicians are leaning. At this stage of the recession, reassuring both foreign and domestic investors that America is politically stable and rational is crucial. Data and reports are, obviously, important. But in the coming months, politics will play as large (if not larger) a role than data and financial reports.

It's time to renovate the pillar after the damage the AIG fiasco caused.