BALANCE of CULTURE

Rising Issues of Our Pivot to Asia

China's latest national defense paper, published today, has some fascinating notes on "some country" that has "strengthened its Asia-Pacific military alliances, expanded its military presence in the region, and frequently makes the situation more tense." 

While the paper's significance is mostly symbolic (such publishings are rarely read by the country's military higher-ups), most strategists would probably agree that the overall message dances around the United States and the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia." This Asia pivot, or "rebalancing of Asia," was actually established by the Obama administration a couple of years ago but for some reason seems to be all over the media lately--even more than when it was introduced. 

Despite the specific label, the pivot does not mean that the administration is turning away from our nation's other pressing engagements in the Middle East. However, the one thing it does indicate is our government's prioritization for future growth and sustainability. As we clean up and extricate ourselves from our volatile ME commitments, the Asia Pacific region's concerns and opportunities are becoming harder to dismiss or contain. While the Asia pivot isn't an exact synonym for the popular "Asian century = 21st century" concept, it is most definitely related.

I recently attended a meeting on Asian security where a US government official stated, "The most pressing issues of our time, such as climate change, will be won or lost in Asia." China is ready to assert more influence in the region--which is understandable because the region is literally its own backyard--while the US aims to at least maintain its historical regional interests while carefully balancing out China's ambitions. It is clear that both the US and China are ready to actively engage in these global concerns--let's hope that both countries' future policies are based on mutual gain and diplomacy instead of hegemonic, zero-sum approaches in the Asia Pacific. 

Letters of Resignation

How time flies! Just over ten years ago, foreign service officer John H. Brown sent in the following letter of resignation to then Secretary of State Colin Powell: 

To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

March 10, 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.

The president has failed:

--To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

--To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

--To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

--To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

--To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.

Sincerely,

John H. Brown Foreign Service Officer

Two other FSOs resigned over Iraq: Mary Ann Wright (her thoughts on the Bush administration's approach to North Korea ring true today) and John Brady Kiesling (who wrote from his post in Athens, Greece). Though they wrote these letters over ten years ago, I think that all governments could certainly find relevance in many of their positions today. 

Brown joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has been affiliated with Georgetown University since 2001. His blog, John Brown's Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, is a must-read for those interested in diplomacy, foreign policy, and cultural affairs. 

Art and Diplomacy 2013

After connecting with the State Department on its global art initiatives when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, I'm thrilled to see a brief piece by Secretary Clinton about our Art in Embassies program. The program now celebrates 50 years of work and continues to contribute to our vast diplomatic resource pool:

In my line of work, we often talk about the art of diplomacy as we try to make people's lives a little better around the world. But, in fact, art is also a tool of diplomacy. It reaches beyond governments, past the conference rooms and presidential palaces, to help us connect with more people in more places. It is a universal language in our search for common ground, an expression of our shared humanity.

This subject really brings me back to my grad school days, where I researched the history and significance of nations using large international exhibitions towards cultural diplomacy. Although I was the only one in my program to combine art with international relations (and got plenty of resistance for it, I should add!), it's thrilling to see this topic discussed more and more in the mainstream media. 

Diplomacy's Evolution Isn't Death

NYT op-ed columnist Roger Cohen boldly started off this week with a thought-provoking piece titled "Diplomacy is Dead." Personally, I'm always wary of statements that declare a concept or trend is "dead"--not only because such aggressive sentiments obviously serve as link bait in our media's online era, but also because they often seem to reflect a preference for protecting some kind of established and rigid way of viewing things that are nevertheless evolving. Why can't things evolve before journalists rush to proclaim some sort of "death"?

While his argument was compelling and very well-articulated, I felt that it centered on the circumstances of the past in order to judge the efficacy of diplomacy today. I'm interested in history's realpolitik just as much as the next IR nerd, and I would never dismiss the diplomatic feats that were accomplished in the 20th century and earlier. But it's 2013 now and global conditions are starkly different, changing at much faster rates than fifty years ago thanks to current information proliferation and growing social liberalization.

The US may have "lost its dominant position of power without any other nation rising to take its place," leading us to live in a "nobody's world," but this sounds a bit extreme and even alarmist. The mere notion of a world that must adhere to a Cold War-type of power rubric is strange to hear today--isn't our current world full of rapid power diffusion, with so much economic and political interdependence between states that diplomacy undeniably becomes even more important than ever? It seems to me that the diplomacy of yesterday is part of what cultivated a considerable chunk of the globalization we witness now--and with globalization comes change.

Change does not necessarily imply that anything has died. What it does imply is that diplomacy is no longer simply the exclusive top-down concept it once was, where elusive state officials were the only individuals with critical access to influence abroad. Although social media's role has had its share of skeptics and detractors, even in the wake of the Arab Spring, these new tools are crucial for both world leaders and "pie-in-the-sky citizen-diplomats." The connectivity we now enjoy with social media is possible only from years of technological progress. If today's online "noise" and "blathering" are somehow considered legitimate impediments to diplomacy today, then our approach to engaging with the world--not just world leaders--urgently needs more sophistication. 

The Media's Desperate Pivot to Pervy

As part of the Obama administration's "pivot to Asia," President Obama is officially the first sitting US president to visit Myanmar, formerly known as the Burma. 

While most analysts realize this trip is an initial diplomatic push towards more democratic and economic reforms in this key region, the folks behind Drudge Report decided to frame it as some kind of pervy debacle, according to their photos above. Quite a stretch.   

Not only does this misinform the public on the most base and classless level (the sexualization of Asian women is getting seriously old at this point), it completely undermines Aung San Suu Kyi's incredible political struggle for human rights in a seemingly impossible situation. There she is now, an influential party figure after years of political imprisonment in her own country. But Drudge only "sees" one thing. 

To be fair, other sites have jumped on this theme as well, also going into detail about the president's "playful" and "flirty" meeting with Thailand PM Yungluck Shinawatra.

But all you have to do is keep reading, and you'll see Secretary Clinton doing the very same things. It's called being a friendly and polite diplomatic guest, but some "journalists" would clearly rather focus on their own disturbing racial fantasies. 

Military Invasions Leading to Cultural Influence

Stuart Laycock started researching for his new book after his 11-year old son asked him a very simple question: How many countries has Britain invaded overall?

Britain's history is much better documented than most countries, and for obvious reasons--at the end of Laycock's two-year research cycle, he concluded that all but a mere 22 nations in the world had at one point experienced some kind of British invasion. Again, that means every single country in the world except for 22. That's just stunning.

To be entirely accurate, Laycock actually suspects that some of the untouched 22 (such as Mongolia) could have been invaded by Brits at some point but the lack of hard evidence restricted him from including such cases. 

The next country to top the list of most world invasions is France, which shouldn't surprise anybody who can remember their high school history classes. 

And the connection to today? Notice how these countries have extremely active and well-funded cultural organizations that work as ambassadors for their people instead of their governments. Britain has the British Council, France has Alliance Française, and I'll also throw in Germany's Goethe Institut.

None of these organizations are embedded within their government structure, as that would be adding unwanted baggage to an already difficult task. Sometimes the role of people and culture is to try to balance out their government's mistakes as well as to ensure the distinction between citizens and states. 

Definitely on my reading list now: All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To

China-Japan Island Conflict Benefits Hawaii

As the East China Sea islands dispute escalates between China and Japan, peripheral parties to the situation have begun formulating their own roles. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta predictably wants to mellow things out, subtly comparing the current bilateral tensions as something akin to living in the past.

While the American perspective on the Diaoyu-Senkaku conflict may appear to resemble a distant armchair analysis, US troops are indeed directly involved in the scenario by way of Hawaii:

Some 70 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, Hawaii is set to play a central role in safeguarding that same country (and other Asian allies) against the potential threats of the 21st century, including those being attributed to a rising China.

It's a role that will likely benefit the Aloha State, which already enjoys a strong shot in the arm for its economy due to the military presence here.

But this certainly doesn't mean that China is in any way an official "enemy" to troops stationed in Hawaii. Peaceful coexistence is the ultimate goal for all parties, and Hawaii is looking like it will continue to benefit from both American military precautions as well as the persistent swells of Chinese tourists eager to spend time in a paradise not riddled with a glaring geopolitical conflict. 

Refocusing Haiti's Infrastructure

Remember Haiti? I kid (sort of, considering how the nation's rebuilding has literally fallen off the media map since last year). But according to Haiti's ambassador to the U.S., Paul Altidor, the Haitian government is trying to focus on moving away from "survival mode to investment mode." 

Good call, since traditional humanitarian aid as we know it oftentimes does not lead a community out of the hole of poverty. And evidently at least eight very familiar American hotel chains are planning to either build or expand properties around the island, including Marriott, Comfort Inn, and Best Western. 

Time to Create Worlds in Mexico

Time to create worlds in Mexico…excited for this project!

From First Ladies to Bitter Bettys

As part of the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit yesterday, Korea's first lady Kim Yoon-ok hosted a slew of global leaders' wives to an official luncheon where the women enjoyed Korean hansik cuisine (kimchi pancake, japchae, noodles, etc.). Afterwards they relaxed and were treated to live performances of traditional hanbok and ballet as well as an intimate show by K-pop stars JYJ and Seong Si-kyung.

I can't emphasize how important it is for the spouses of world leaders to get together and develop their own discourse with one another, even if it is simply another way for their men to passively network and gather information. Surely these women do not agree on every issue, but they nevertheless are confident and successful enough to engage with each other through casual cultural experiences. Even if they cannot come to a consensus on every conversation, a symbolic stance of unity and support is exactly what civilized and educated women should strive for.

In a world where so many girls and women have little hope for a life beyond illiteracy to even sex-trafficking, I firmly believe that women need to support fellow women much, much more. It sounds simple, but to be honest, women have a tendency to shun other women who they deem as some kind of a threat, and often in ways much less slick than their male counterparts.

I'm particularly embarrassed for adult women who enjoy the luxuries of being a Western female today, only to use their privileged positions for bitter attempts at entitled social gatekeeping. This behavior is an archetype for a reason, and this behavior starts early. Remember the movie Mean Girls?

Luckily, there are plenty of women who don't feel the instantaneous need to become Bitter Bettys whenever they feel threatened--or if they do, they hide it well and recall what it means to truly be civilized adults.

There's always room for change, and women must start supporting each other if we want the world to improve beyond what our elite men have basically created--and some would even call this world a "mess."