Tag: political process

The Importance of 1979 in World History

Posted on by fqzhang

When we think of the most important events of the past 100 year, certain years are particularly crucial in determining the course of history. Among the most important are those that marked the end of a period of conflict and the beginning of a new era of peace, namely: 1918/19 (End of WWI, Peace of Versailles), 1945 (End of WWII, beginning of the United Nations), and 1989 (end of the Cold War and the new era of globalization). However, for this blog, I would like to point to one lesser known year that marked not only the end of a period of conflict or start of peace, but also the beginning of a new period of global interactions, which, for better or worse, still shape the world we live in today.

Why 1979?

In the year 1979, several major events occurred around the world. I will list them by geographic region (East Asia, the Americas, and the Greater Middle East, in no particular orders of importance), and then discuss the impact of each of these events.

In East Asia:

The events in East Asia revolved largely around what China had done during that year. Two important event occurred:

  • China’s economic reform and opening up: In December 1978, during the 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, a national meeting of China’s policy-makers, a new national political and economic policy was implemented. First, the meeting confirmed the role of Deng Xiaoping as the undisputed leader (or “Paramount leader”) of China. Deng had been well known as a reformer who wanted to implement changes to China’s bureaucracy and the way the economy was run. Secondly, in part due to the first, a new national economic policy was set whereby a new model of economic organization was first introduced in the countryside (the Household Responsibility System), and leading to a dramatic increase in agricultural productivity and output. These reforms marked the first stages in the transformation of China from an economic backwater into one of the fastest growing economic entity of the past 35 years.china's reform and opening up
  • China and Vietnam fought a brief border war: The Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979 (or the Third Indochina War) was nominally fought over the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, whose Khmer Rouge government was supported by China, and at least launched in part by China to test Soviet resolve in defending its Vietnamese ally. However, the real significance of the war was not in the conduct of the war itself, but rather what the war represents. First, the conflict was the last conventional war in East and Southeast Asia. After a series of on-and-off conflict among East Asian nations from 1931 (when Japanese forces first invaded China) to 1979, the nations of East Asia is finally at peace with one another. During this period, the clashes of a variety of ideologies such as militarism, colonialism and anti-colonialism, national and ethnic nationalism, and finally communism all served to fuel a state of continuous conflict in the region. The end of the conflict also marked the beginning of a period of rapid economic growth for not only China, but also for other nations of Southeast Asia. The trajectory of East Asian history was forever altered after 1979.china-vietnam-war

The Americas:

The role of the United States during this time period cannot be exaggerated. It was the world’s foremost economic power; and by most measures, the world’ leading military power as well. The economic difficulties experienced by the United States during the latter half of the 1970s can be explained as an economy in transition from an export-oriented industrial economy to one based on services and high-tech information, along with a significant rise in imports for manufacturing goods. Nevertheless, the United States faced two difficulties as its economic output continues to grow, all with respect to energy:

  • The Second Oil Shock: In 1973, the United States experienced what is later termed the First Oil Shock, whereby, due to a confluence of factors such as a tightening of the oil market (where supply is barely keeping up with demand), instability in the oil producing regions, and finally an outright embargo on the part of the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) against the United States for its role in supporting Israel, led to a massive increase in the price of oil. However, this Second Shock of 1979 was due to quite different causes. The Iranian Revolution (to be discussed below) led to a sudden increase in the price of oil as several million barrels of oil were removed from the market. This event helped to trigger a recession in the United States, along with significant political fallouts for President Carter and the Democratic Party, and marked the rise of conservative, neoliberal thinkers in economic circles (The Chicago School of Economics, mot vocally represented by Milton Freidman). Moreover, the Oil Shock leads to increasing financial instability in the US and Europe, and helped to make an already fragile economic situation even worse by introducing an element of inflation along with economic stagnation into the economy.oil shock
  • The nuclear meltdown of Three Mile Island: The nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (a partial meltdown) was another significant event in the energy landscape of the United States in 1979. The accident, while not particularly significant in terms of destruction or radioactive materials released, did lead to a change in perceptions in the public eyes on the issues of nuclear power. This event helped to energize the environmental movement on the issue of nuclear power, and eventually this led to a freeze on all new nuclear power plant construction in the United States. Nuclear energy, which had seemed so promising to many Americans as a reliable source of energy, had now been relegated to the fringe. Another consequence of this event is the increasing dependence of the United States on petroleum as an energy source. Increasingly, the United States began to intervene on a larger scale in oil-exporting regions to ensure that a reliable source of energy supply does not become a problem for the United States.Three Mile Island

Greater Middle East:

  • Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The Soviet Union, through the invasion of Afghanistan in support of the Afghan communist government, in effect launched a series of chain reactions that had the most profound consequences today. First and foremost, the Soviets hastened its own collapse by expending an extraordinary amount of resources (something that it cannot afford due to its fragile economic situation), in both manpower and money. In addition, the image of the Soviet Union as offering an alternative to the “imperialism” of the United States was destroyed, and its influence in the world stage declined drastically. More importantly for the trajectory of world history, the conflict generated a huge response across the Islamic World, in both fighters and money, in support of the “holy war” conducted by the resistance fighters (known as the mujahedeen) to the Soviet Union. Over time, the conflict takes on an increasingly religious nature, where it is seen by many Muslims as a conflict to end the oppression of the Afghan people. Thus, Political Islam in its modern form was born. Another event also took place during the latter half of the conflict which have strong ramifications today. Among the thousands of young foreign Jihadists was a young man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, it is in Afghanistan that Al-Qaeda first started. It is important to note the name Al-Qaeda translates as “The Base”, the base by which Islamists in Afghanistan organized themselves and fought against Soviet aggression.Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
  • Islamic extremists took control of the Grand Mosque of Mecca: In late 1979, religious militants took over the Grand Mosque of Mecca and openly challenged the Saudi family’s religious authority. (The Sauds have claimed in their title that they the “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.) Later, Saudi security forces moved in and forcibly cleared out the insurgents, resulting in hundreds of causalities. The event, played out on televisions in the Arab World, shocked many who watched it. At the time, many in the Islamic world, from Philippines to Turkey to Pakistan, blamed the United States and Israel for this attack, which in turn led to massive demonstrations, including the burning of US embassy in Pakistan and Libya. The perpetrators were dealt with harshly, and all 68 rebels were captured and beheaded. However, what is truly significant about this event was that the role of religious authority in Saudi Arabia did not diminish after this attack. Instead, the religious conservatives were given more power. In order to appease the religious scholars and social conservatives, the Saudi government turned toward religion to uphold their own legitimacy. Religious schools became more prevalent; the social roles of women were cut back, and in some cases were removed from public altogether. After 1979, Saudi Arabia increasingly became a religious theocracy, with profound influence on the rise of Political Islam.Saudi Mosque seizure
  • Iran’s Islamic Revolution: The final event in the Middle East that is crucial to our understanding of the year 1979 was the conservative Islamic revolution in Iran. By the end of 1978, the government of the Shah of Iran was in its last throbs. The question facing many Iranians was not whether or not the Shah should go, but rather, what sort of government should replace it. The solutions were far ranging, from the Tudeh Party (Communist Party of Iran) to religious ultra-conservatives. While the average Iranian was debating and fighting among those alternatives, the Shah suddenly left the country and left a large power vacuum in a country where the heavy hand of the state had been ever present. Into this power vacuum, an exiled religious teacher – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – made a landing in Iran. The masses suddenly found a leader that they can unite themselves around, and within weeks, a religious theocracy, as though something coming out of the Middle Ages, was born. The Ayatollah possessed hatreds towards many groups around the world – communists (both inside and outside the country), Israel and the Zionists, and above all, the “Great Satan” in the form of the United States. This hatred only increased over time as he gained more political power. The impact of the Revolution can be seen immediately, from the Iranian Hostage Crisis with the United States to the inauguration of the decade long war with Iraq, all stemming from this watershed event of the Middle East.Islamic revolution in Iran

Now that we have come to the end of our list of major events of 1979, I would like to make note of a few more things:

First, even though in this article I have treated world events as separate in their geographic scope, in reality, all of these events are intimately connected and one often feeds off the other. For instance, American dependence on foreign oil increased just at the same time as Iran’s Islamic Revolution, which removed several million barrels/day from the world market; the fuel crisis of 1979 was certainly worsened by the conflicts in the Middle East. No event in the world took place in isolation, and each one influenced and shaped the outcome of the other.

Secondly, due the scope of this article, I am unable to discuss many of the important events in detail, but they are often important in their own right. 1979 was a year of many changes, yet it has frequently been ignored by many who are not as familiar with world history. I hope that through this article, I can at least spark some interests among my blog readers in the world around us, and view current events through a historical lens.

Finally, the history of the world since 1979, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the War on Terror since the early 2000s, the economic rise of China and increasingly East Asia as a whole, the challenges and benefits of globalization, all directly or indirectly traced their root to the tumultuous year of 1979. In many ways, the events of 1979 is still influencing the world around us, and we are still living in its shadows. 1989 Fall of the Berlin Wall

On Iran’s nuclear program: an alternative view

Posted on by fqzhang

Iranian nuclear program has drawn a significant amount of international attention – and condemnation – since it was uncovered in the early 2000s. While the issue is complex and multifaceted, I believe a few points should be examined. First, why is the Iranian government desirous of a nuclear program? And do the people really want it? Second, how should the rest of the world respond to it? Are the current negotiations with Iran the best way to approach this issue? And lastly, how should we all proceed from here?

The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld once said that “Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they woul6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f31467c8833-640wid be crazy.” Although his words may seem extreme, we need to understand what motivated the Iranian leadership to develop nuclear power, even in the face of mounting international oppositions. The Iranians’ own argument is that they need to secure their own energy needs in the form of nuclear power. This argument is hardly plausible: Iran is sitting on the world’s second largest reserves (after Russia) of natural gas. Iran’s South Pars gas field alone is estimated to contain 14×10^12 m3 of gas, around 5.6% of the entire world’s prove gas reserves. Moreover, the country contains the 4th largest reserves of oil in the world. Iran’s energy needs can largely be satisfied by its oil and natural gas, as can be seen in the chart below. iran energyIf energy security is not the real reason, then what is? The true reasons for such a program, I believe, includes the following:

  1. Scientific and cultural prestige: Let’s imagine that the Iranians do not in fact want to build a nuclear weapon (a highly unlikely assumption for reasons that I will explain later), the mere fact that Iran is capable of developing advanced technology is something that the Iranian government can be proud of. In Iran, like many other parts of the world, scientific advances symbolizes the greater progress made in a society. The Iranian government sought to legitimize itself by promoting science and technology (much like the Soviet Union spent tremendous efforts in space exploration to legitimize the ideology of Communism). The Iranian people want to see progress being made in a variety of different fields, whether it be a rocket launch or a prospective nuclear power generation plant. Iran is gaining prestige by possessing those technologies. In a sense, scientific prestige is also tied into cultural prestige. We need to remember that Iran is more of a historical civilization than a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. The Iranian people had inhabited the Iranian Plateau for thousands of millenniums, and for much of that period Iran (or Persia, as it is known for most of its history), is a leading force among the world’s nations, and not merely in technology. It is in early modern times that Iran had fallen behind. In a way, many Iranians want to regain that sense of pride which have belonged to them historically. As heirs to a rich cultural heritage, Iranians today no doubt want to relive a part of its ancient glories; developing nuclear powers along the lines of other advanced nations will symbolize a part of this regaining of prestige.Mideast-Iran-Nuclear-_Horo2
  2. Competition from regional powers: Let’s take a look at how the world appears from the position of Iran, and why its nuclear ambitions will likely lead to nuclear weapons. Geographically, Iran couldn’t be in a more dangerous position. As the map below shows, Iran is surrounded by potential or probable enemies. To its west, Iraq, despite its Shia majority (the majority religion in Iran), is embroiled in a complicated civil war with the radical Islamic State (IS). Further west, we see a similar situation in Syria, where Iran-backed government of Bashar al-Assad is fighting a multi-front war against IS and moderate rebel forces. Each of these governments, if they fall, would produce a serious threat to Iran itself; and these are just the militant organizations. Organized threats by nation-states posed a bigger problem still. In its southwest, across the Persian Gulf, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ferociously anti-Iranian and possesses a powerful modern military and an alliance with the United States; other Sunni Gulf States are no more friendlier. Further to the west, Iran faces the strongest military power in the region in the state of Israel, which had spear-headed efforts to contain the Iranian enrichment program. Further to its north and east, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India are all nuclear powers. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Iran felt that by developing the bomb, it can achieve a sort of parity with the other regional and global powers, at least in part to compensate for its relatively conventional forces.
  3. Security and Geopolitical leverage: In a point related to the second one, we need to be aware of the fact that Iran really has no natural allies. Culturally, it is the product of thousands of years of Persian civilization centered in the plateau of Iran, influenced by the forces of Shia Islam for centuries (today, an absolute majority of the world’s Shia Muslims lives in Iran), and the rise of political Islam in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For good or bad, few other countries possess such a unique historical experience. While this is a point of pride for many Iranians, at the same time, this also meant that Iran cannot count on any natural allies in the sense that the UK can rely on the US or Kuwait can rely on Saudi Arabia. The allies and friends it does have among governments are less than appealing: Iraq is bogged down in a struggle of a sectarian nature between Shia-dominated government and Sunni militant Islamists; likewise Syria is fighting its seemingly interminable civil war; the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon is considered an ally and a way for Iran to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, but is categorized as a terrorist group (its military wings at Shia_Crescentleast) by most governments around the world. Strategically, Russia can be considered an ally, but that nation is struggling in the face of western sanctions for its involvement in the Crimea and a falling oil price. (For a discussion of how falling oil prices are influencing foreign policies in Russia and Iran, see here). Iran is looking for new partners in China and India by offering them energy security; but this venture will be unlikely to result in any serious partnerships, especially if this partnership would result in possible international retaliations by the West. Iran is therefore left to defend itself against a myriad of threats. In this case, a nuclearized Iran can protect itself, or so the Iranian leadership believed, from military blackmailing. At the same time, Iran can project its power in what is known as the “Shia Crescent”, an area encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, shaping itself into a regional power. Iran believes that thus nuclear power adds more muscle to its voice in regional and international affairs.

Needless to say, no matter what the reasons are for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear power, the rest of the world cannot be happy about the emergence of another potential nuclear power. However, the present countries that possess nuclear powers are in fact rebuilding their own respective nuclear arsenals even while they are denouncing the Iranian’s attempts to do so. We see that the rest of the world has been upgrading their own nuclear arsenals as well. In a recent article on Business Insider, the dangers of a nuclear war is emphasized more than ever before. However, the difference is that Iran is widely seen as an irresponsible government, and weapons in the hands of such a state is a worrying fact. But how should the rest of the world respond to it? Along the lines of journalist Fareed Zakaria, I believe that there are two main ways for the world to respond: 1. Forcing a Regime Change, or 2. Forcing a Policy Change. Let’s briefly define what each option meant and discuss their relative merits later:

  1. Regime Change:

In essence this would involve the fomenting of dissent, support democratic political movements, and with outside help in trying to overthrow the government of Iran in one form or another. Most likely, the United States would be the leader in such an effort. In the meanwhile, the US and other parts of the world should not have anything to do with Iran since it is an illegitimate government in their eyes. In the views many, the only way to properly address the nuclear situation with Iran is wait (or help) the government to change and then deal with them later.

  1. Policy Change:

This would mean that we will actively engage with the present government of Iran, treating them as an equal partner in these discussions, and really accept the fact that the government of Iran, however repulsive, is here to stay for some time to come. The dialogues will be conducted in an open manner and be peaceful in trying to reach a deal with Iran. For supporters of this option, they do not believe that this is a policy of appeasement, but rather, a step-by-step method toward achieving our objective, whatever they may be.

As a sophomore in college, I may not be in the best position to recommend foreign policy to those in the highest levels of government. But, nevertheless, I believe that here in the US and the rest of the world that does not desire to see a nuclearized Iran, have to decide on an option fast and not to oscillate back and forth between these two options. How can you possibly struck a deal with a government that you have every intention to help overthrow? Personally, I believe that the best option remains to bring Iran back into the international system, which it had been an outcast member since 1979, and to engage with it in more direct dialogue. We need to bring in international partners, which must include China, India and Russia, to discuss options with the Iranians on what to do. We must make Iran as an equal partner in its negotiations and not treat it as a criminal state. We need to recognize Iranian interests and why they sought to nuclearize themselves and to stress our own positions and concerns in why we do not want to see a nuclear program: no, it is not that we desire to encircle Iran on all sides, and no it is not that we desire to see a weakened Iran that is susceptible to invasions at any given moment. There are too much distrust and misconceptions between Iran and the West at the moment, each is mistrusting the other’s intentions. Therefore, if we can build an international coalition on resolving the issue, we can legitimize our intentions and make the Iranians understand that it is in the interest of the rest of world for them to denuclearize.

Current policies in delaying Iran’s nuclear programs have many merits to them. Firstly, the alternative, that of calling Iran to immediately destroy their nuclear facilities, will only strengthen their resolves in continuing to build them. If not in open, then in secret. Therefore, delaying what Iran has been attempting to do, by years (a very possible prospect), leaves the rest of the world with more options in dealing with the government. But more importantly, it buys the rest of the world time. The structure of government itself may likely change with the passage of years. I do not necessarily mean a revolution, but rather a gradual process of liberalization that will see a new generation of Iranian leaders that do not want to confront the world and or is filled with xenophobia, but rather sought peaceful coexistence. Younger generations of Iranian do not have the fervors of religious fanaticism that may have characterized some of their parents; in fact, I believe that many young Iranians today want to embrace the international system and be a part of modern society. I believe that will the passage of time, Iran can be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system and we can work with Iran toward this issue. However, in order to do this, we must first talk openly with Iran.

The importance of continuing dialogue with Iran cannot be overstated. If left isolated, Iran will retreat into itself and develop and deepen a paranoia of the rest of the world and perhaps the unthinkable will happen: a nuclearized Iran ready to use its weapons on its neighbors and beyond. As a historical analogy, imagine what if Henry Kissinger had never traveled to China to open up dialogue with that secluded nation, China today would possibly have been another North Korea: a government that is isolated and clung to an outdated ideology with a belligerent attitude toward the rest of the world. But to the credit of the US government (both the executive and the State department), rather than seeing this happen, the US government actively engaged with Chinese leadership and brought China into the international community of nations; a community that China has a stake in. In a similar line, I believe that by keeping the dialogue option open with Iran, we can hope to make some progress. Of course, this can only happen with Iranian commitment as well, and it needs to tone down the rhetoric against its neighbors and their allies, most notably Israel and the United States; it needs to show real commitment in following through with its promises; but above all, Iran needs to see that it is to its own security and benefit that it becomes a part of the international system rather than a challenger to it. Perhaps, eventually, Iran will be able to develop its own peaceful nuclear program, much as how Japan and South Korea has developed them, without feeling the need to weaponize it. All of these will likely take an enormous amount of time, likely decades; but I believe that in the end, the path of continued negotiations and dialogues with Iran will be preferable to any other alternative.

For related topics see:

Resource dependency, oil price decline, and the reshaping of the international order

Oil companies and the ethics of overseas investment

Questions of Identity: What defines our nation?

Posted on by fqzhang

While having dinner at Berkeley’s dining commons, I was talking with an international student from South Korea. We were discussing our respective backgrounds. He was telling about how in South Korea, everyone identifies with one another, mostly in the form of culture and a similar language. He also mentioned an identifying factor that is hard to imagine in the US: race and ethnicity. In Korea, everyone belongs to the Korean “race” and this ethnic identifying factor is important in how Koreans see themselves as a nation. Then he asked me about something that he is confused about: What defines America? What is it that makes America stick together as a nation? Taken aback by this question, I couldn’t come up with a response. Then I stated that in the US, we do not value race, ethnicity, or even culture or language as much; rather, we as Americans share a certain set of values such individualism, respect for the law and democracy. However, as soon as I uttered those words, I realized how textbook like I sound, for these are the responses a course of American politics would probably gave. While he nodded in assent, I myself wasn’t entirely satisfied my response.

I have always enjoyed talking with international students, they often offers a fresh perspective on things that some of us born in the US or living in the US have taken for granted. Take the question of what defines the US for example, I have never thought about how bewildering the American Identity must have seemed to others. We are a nation that is multi-race, multi-religion, multi-cultural, and even multi-lingual (even though English is the de facto language of communication); indeed how is it that the American nation can stay together for so long?

After careful thought, I came to the conclusion our national identity is defined by several values. Most importantly, I believe that the US is defined by our inclusiveness to people of all different background, at the same time, we helped to foster immigrants and native-born citizens with a certain set of values that define America. And I believe the acquisition of an American identity happened in several stages. Firstly, those who immigrated to the United States are already breaking the bound with their old home country for political, religious, economic, and a variety of other regions that causes them to be no longer attached to their old identity. This is important because by forming a new blank slate (a table rasa if you will), a new identity can be imprinted upon them. Secondly, the gradually process of assimilation, or at least acceptance of American culture and the American way of life happens gradually. Through working, interacting with others, watching TV and accessing the internet, individuals can acquire a new perspective on things, a perspective that respects the diversity of American society. One key aspect of this acculturation to the US lies in the learning of the English language. This is not necessary merely for the cultural sense, but also to facilitate the understanding of what the larger society is about. Finally, the acquisition of an American identities is completed when citizens began to appreciate the political institutions of the United States, possess an understanding of the American political culture, and appreciate the nation for what it is. The acquisition of citizenship status is merely a formalization of the process of becoming an American. Throughout this process, a person began to identify more and more closely with the identity of an American.

However, this process of becoming an American is not without its challenges. At each stage of the process, a person may fail to progress to the next stage. For example, a person may remain so attached to their home country that they refuses to accept anything else even though they physically had come to America. Moreover, a person may refuse to learn the English language, or work, or interact with anyone else in the US. Or they may choose to fill their living rooms with foreign media and essentially recreating their home country in America, and isolate themselves from their surroundings. Under these circumstances, a person cannot become an “American” in the cultural sense of the word. And even when they chose to became a citizen, they did not truly complete the process of becoming an American in their heart and mind.

But what about remaining American after we began to identify with each other in a community? I believe that the decision of remaining American is an expression of our personal choice. We take pride in the community in which we belong in. Here, I draw upon the ideas of the famous French theorist, Ernest Renan, who argued that choosing to belong to a nation is a daily process of affirmation in a community. A nation is not a concrete concept that is defined by its borders, institutions, or other perceived similarities. Here in the United States, we are not defined by the 49th parallel North or the Rio Grande, but rather by a set of values and shared experiences that all of us treasure. The fact that we are living together and form a community is a testament to our continual will to be American; for if not, we can easily move away from this country, or “vote with our feet”. Each day, while we might not think of it as such, we are constantly reaffirming our desire to remain American by exercising our right to work, to express our opinions, and paying attention to the things going on around us.

However, this is not without its challenges as well. For the values that define us need to be constantly reinforced through more direct actions such as engagement with the political process by the simple act of voting. As Americans, we not only have rights but also responsibilities and if we neglected some of these simple acts, in a way, we forfeit our right to remain in the American community. If a nation is indeed a larger community of people that chose to remain together, then it is the duty for every member of that nation to constantly reaffirm their commitment to that community through their engagement with the nation and other members of the community. If the members of a nation cease to become engaged with one another, then the nation and the force that is binding it together will cease to function as a cohesive force.

This issue of what defines America affects me personally, for not too long ago, I became a citizen of the United States. As I was sworn in to become an American, I was overcame by a sense of apprehension. For what it is that I need to do, now that I am a member of the American “nation”. Should I behave in a different manner? Are my loyalties completely transferred over to this new nation? After the sworn-in ceremony, I did not feel any different than before, does this mean that I have failed in this transformative process?

Later, I recognized that the best way to feel at ease in this nation is to engage with its nation- and community-building process. By that I am suggesting that I will go out and vote and encourage others to engage in the political process as well, and volunteer my time and efforts and engage with the community around me. To appreciate on a daily basis what we do in this nation and to cherish the social, political, and cultural institutions that define the United States. But I above, I will continue to value and uphold the bonds that unites Americans together and to encourage others to do the same, making us stronger than ever before. A nation at its core is a community and it is the duty of each member of this community to develop a strong bond with one another, so that together we may progress into the future.