Month: July 2015

Good versus Evil: international relations through American eyes

Posted on by fqzhang

Recently, I finished reading of the biography of Kissinger by Walter Isaacson. Isaacson is an excellent biographer (he had completed biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and more recently, Steve Jobs.), who brought out the best of Kissinger and his brand of diplomacy. But what intrigued me the most is its comment on the way that Americans have historically viewed conflicts between nations; as a battle between Good and Evil. Invariably, the American nation saves the world from fascism, militarism, and during the Cold War, communism. This lens of good versus evil is how many Americans have historically viewed the role of the United States in the world.

This have lead me to think about issues of international relations based on this perspective. What is it like to apply this “Good versus Evil” mentality to the world stage? Does this sort of thing apply today, and is there an “evil ideology” or foreign entity that sought to overturn American democracy?

As mentioned before, Americans have traditionally viewed the world through black and white lenses, nations are either good or bad with scarcely any shade in between. As problematic as this may seem firsthand, in fact throughout America’s history, this has not presented problems for its foreign policies. Historically, American foreign policies have shifted between isolationism (it appears currently, we are in a state of isolationism, after years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq), and advent internationalism. In periods of Internationalism, we as Americans tend to think of the world as suffering from an evil that we must save the world from. And throughout much of America’s engagement with the world at large, the enemy does seem evil or capable of inflicting great damage and cruelty; and in the early 20th century at, does appear to be in great danger. I will list a few examples below:

  • Spanish American War: Spain’s oppression against the people of Cuba is indeed extreme, and American intervention (whatever the cause or intention) does succeed in removing the brutal Spanish rule
  • World War I: American involvement in the war can be thought of as to end a genocidal conflict resulting from extreme nationalism. So while it might not be a “War to end all wars”, it did end a bloody one more quickly than it might have been otherwise
  • World War II: This war is the classic example of the American view of Good versus Evil. Nazism’s evil influence cannot be disregarded or downplayed; without American intervention, it is doubtful that most of Europe and Asia will be free from the tyranny of German or Japanese rule.
  • Cold War: the menace of the Soviet Union in Europe cannot be exaggerated, even though, of course, no shooting war actually took place. American presence and intervention indeed secured many governments from revolutionary forces who would have had devastating consequences. (As to what the right-wing governments that the American government had done, that is topic for another day.)

Historically, both foreigners and Americans have characterize American role in the world in such terms as well. David Lloyd George, the prime minister of Great Britain who represented that country at the Paris Peace talks after World War I, even refers to Wilson as Jesus Christ. Ronald Reagan, the American president, referred to the conflict with the Soviet Union in Biblical terms, referencing the war od Gog and Magog.

When applying these ideas to the world at large, this meant that Americans intervened in the world stage after it is convinced that the enemy is evil (of course, there are other considerations as well, but the portrait of the enemy as evil is one of the chief reasons for the intervention, at least that’s the public perception of it).  Nations could be in ranked in the world on a line of good to evil, and nothing captured this better than the label “Axis of Evil” initially applied to Iran, Iraq and North Korea, applied by president Bush and Secretary Rice during their time at the White House.

The reality of the world is far more complex of course. Many nations are what can be called “Freemies”, not exactly friends, but also not exactly an enemy either. Almost all countries can be fit along those lines in the middle, since in one area, they may be considered to be “friends”, such as security, while in other areas they are direct competitors, i.e. the economic sphere. Many are baffled by this contradiction and how to resolve it using diplomacy.

The American public needs to be convinced that the world does not really operate on a principle of “good” vs “evil”, but in large measures are based on interests. Nations cooperate with one another not really because they are “friends”, which will stand by each other through storm and calm. But rather, they are working together because they have a shared interest in seeing each other succeed and that they can get the most out of the international system through working together. Lord Palmerston, prime minister of the United Kingdom, said it well when he stated: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” These are the governing principles of international relations that most of the world adheres too, and if America as a nation are to adapt to the conditions of international relations as it exists currently, we must adhere to this concept. Of course, that is not too say that we should be a hyper-Realist and see the world only in terms of interests and forget our roots in democracy and freedom, but that simply, we need to recognize that this is how the rest of the world operates and if we are a member of this global community of nations, it is in our best interest to be moderate in our thoughts and actions and to see the world not as a black and white image of good and evil, but rather as a collection and patchwork of interests and ideas that needs to be looked into.

A musing on the word “farmer”

Posted on by fqzhang

Here in the United States, we frequently use the word farmer to describe someone who engaes in agricultural pursuits or who derive a large source of their income from farming activities. Accoding to the most commonly used definition (as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary): “a person who cultivates land or crops or raises animals (as livestock or fish).” Based on this definition, a large portion (over a billion in fact, according to official figure, but like with all statistics, the true figure is much higher) is engaged in agricultural pursuits. Farmers have always been recognized as one of the largest groups of people in society, and their role in the production of food is very well appreciated. But are all “farmers” created equal?

I remember hearing about people in my hometown who are considered to be “farmers” (in rural areas of California) but were in fact large landowners who owned thousands of acres of land (chiefly planted with almond trees) and whose revenue is in excess of 10 million dollars a year. Now compare a picture of this individual with a sub-Saharan “farmer” who engages in subsistence farming (like other 60% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa), and whose produce can barely feed his own family of 7, and you quickly get a picture of the diversity in the word “farmer”.

The word “farmer” in its modern usage is essentially an American construct, as it implies ownership of the land you are working on and have to be associated, at least in America, with large estates and strong independent ownership. The millions of people who work on those farms on a contractual basis are termed “farm workers” rather than farmers, since they are merely needed for the harvesting and planting of fruits/vegetables/crops. In many ways, being a “farmer” in the United States doesn’t seem to be a bad occupation: you receive a steady source of income and derive a sense of satisfaction from working for yourself. Granted, no one in a capitalistic society is entirely free from the fluctuations on the market or the uncertainties of weathers, but with economy of scale (which many farmers in the US enjoy), over the long run, farmers seemed to be living a decent life. With increasing consolidation in the United States in the farming industry, the small family farms are increasingly becoming a thing of the past, and we entering an age where large corporate farmers are becoming the way of the future.

For the rest of the world, “peasant” is the more appropriate term. Even in advanced developing nations like China, over 30% of the labor force engaged in farming as their daily occupation, and in the rest of the developing and underdeveloped world, the peasantry ranges from 40% to 80% of the population of the area. The peasantry is a poor lot with none of the connotations that we associate with being a “farmer”. But unfortunately, this is also the state of the world that we live in. However, to capture the true state of the world’s farming community, we should use the word “peasant” a little more.