Week 6: China Blue and Cheek

Cheek describes China's classes in much the same way as I would describe our own, which is interesting considering how differently the USA and China are viewed and portrayed. I noticed at one point that Cheek referred to the kind of crackdown v. acceptance two-prong strategy Kurlantzick discussed when he was describing the Working Class, and also the Underclass, to some extent.

In watching China Blue I was struck by the similarities between migrant workers in China and migrant, especially immigrant, workers here. I was deeply saddened by how complicit we in the USA and other Western nations are in contributing to the poor labor standards in China, and the abuses of workers. It forces me to question to what extent the different forces and actors influence the conditions of workers there. Consideration must be given to Western CEOs, shareholders, managers, and consumers, as well as to governments and the laws set forth concerning labor laws, tariffs, international trade, etc., and perhaps lastly, the responsibility falls on the managers and CEOs in China who control the day-to-day mistreatment of workers. I am frustrated by how multifaceted the problem is, because it makes it seem far too complex and ingrained to be remedied. How can I assist Little Jasmine? Already I almost never buy a new pair of jeans, but I know I purchase a good deal of products from China which are produced under similar conditions. But I my family is not like most of the students' at Ithaca College, and coming here for school limits my purchasing choices further. I cannot afford to by only fair trade products, though I try to do so as often as possible. Yet as I said, the problem is so much larger than myself. my buying fair trade goods does next to nothing for Little Jasmine or workers like her, and in some ways by diverting my money to more expensive but ethically more sound products only brings the demand down on "free trade" goods, causing prices to fall in order to avoid a surplus, which in turn would further lower Jasmine's wages. So how do we respond to this crisis? It is not only in China where we see it, though it is certainly widespread there. However, it is visible here, among immigrants and migrant workers, and it is a serious problem no matter where it arises, and no matter what laws govern the nations in question. Yet, I am curious about the note in China Blue that mentioned labor movements being illegal, along with unionization. I am curious about this, and will be incorporating these ideas into my part of out Wednesday issue report.

Interesting News Article

I was reading this story because I studied in Ghana and thought it was interesting to see how Bush was received there, and towards the end there is a section on competition with China to set up African military bases, which I found interesting and thought i would share.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1D97988F-6FFB-4BD0-8C43-C3F8420F79B1.htm

Week 5: Tank Man

First off, let me say how much I enjoy Frontline. They always do an excellent job, and this docmentary was no exception.

I was struck by the images from Tiananmen Square; I had never before realized the extent of the massacre there in June of 1989. However, what astounded me more was the resilience of the students and workers in the movement, and their willingness to risk their lives continuously in the face of violence out of true sincerity to their cause. That kind of determination seems rare, though it may be that it is simplay all too often repressed around the wordl wherever it arises.

The two Chinas that have developed lead me back to the Kurlantzick article, and my feeling that the Communist government has abandoned communist ideology for the sake of economic progress, while simultaneously weeding out any dissent towards the Communist state, despite the fact that the capitalist drive coupled with political oppression has created an authoritarian kind of state that seems to be doing very little in the way of representing the needs of the proletariat, and the masses, while promoting the unequal distribution of wealth and the spread of greed. It seems counterintuitive, but I feel like I must be missing something, there must be more to it that what I am interpreting. Still, it is strange to see workers suffer so greatly under a Communist state, while wealthy businessmen and corrupt officials reign. It perturbs me.

It is interesting how an identity has been created for this Tank Man, whether people believe it or not. The idea that mystery and solitary definance are what make the story so enticing is fascinating. I suppose it is our (human?) obsession with hope, and rather than grab onto the plethora of clips and photographs that show the massive uprising and widespread violence and resistance, people are generally more drawn to the single man against the tank. Perhaps it is the fact that, despite the vast numbers of protesters, the struggle between the people and the state can be captured in the idea of a David and a Goliath, a small and insignifican tank man up against the giant military machine. This imagery suits the purposes of the actual power struggle with greater accuracy, it seems. Yet in China, David did not triumph over Goliath, a truth that has been marred by the economic growth, but exacerbated by the concurrent growth in quieter dissent, which has been consistently silenced by the Government - not for the people, but against them - and aided by Western profit-seeking corporations like Yahoo!

I am ashamed to have a Yahoo! mail account when I read information such as this, and yet it further reminds me that my life is made much simpler by my buying into these corporations, and therein lies the dilemna: for those of us, from China to the US, who wish to fight the dominant paradigm, we must make sacrifices, some small, others massive, to do so. It is its own market with risks and opportunity costs to consider. Whether I use Yahoo! is not really the question, but whether I choose to express my dissent is, and the form of such dissent is important. In China, huge sacrifices may have to be made by people who choose to hack into censored material, on Yahoo! or elsewhere. I am beyond privileged to be able to live without such considerations facing me daily. I can easliy decide not to use Yahoo! mail, and to instead research which companies do not have any (known) links to repressive censorship or corruption, and the only way I am affected is that my address book will have to be informed of my decision.

I try to live without taking things for granted, but I willingly admit that the Internet and the freedoms I enjoy in utilizing it is something I have taken for granted, and when confronted with cnesorship of the kind imposed in China, I am deeply ashamed of my dependence and expectant attitude toward the "freedom of information." Could I ever make the kind of sacrifices so many do in China in order to get access to half of the sources which are availale to me? Would I ever be brave enough to try to stop a tank? To run towards soldiers with guns rather than away from them out of sheer desperation and determination? While I crave the sort of passion those acts require, I am frightened by the notion that I would ever face anything like that. My naivete is unvelied, and I am shamefully aware of my privilege, in a way that only has been clear to me once before, in Ghana. There are parts of me which are conflicted by this story of the Tank Man, and in this study of China in general, and I am unsure how to reconcile my thoughts.

Week 5: Kurlantzick

"Indeed, Beijing seems to want it both ways: to appear to be more tolerant
even while relentlessly suppressing dissent." (3)

Truly this is the case, especially as China prepares in earnest for the summer Olympic Games. The two-pronged strategy Kurlantzick describes, as well as China's two-faced approach to the world - an internal face and an external one - seem to be all too effective at getting the Chinese government what it wants: more global economic markets and less attention paid to its domestic problems.

I am in a unique position, because all too often I realize how much more I am made aware of by being president of Amnesty at Ithaca College, which opens my eyes up to the human rights abuses perpetrated by China and other countries around the world, to an extent that I would never be privy to otherwise. Certainly I am glad of this in some ways, but when I read articles like Kurlantzick's I am sadly familiar with the subject matter, so much so that I am rarely surprised but often saddened.

What I could really appreciate in Kurlantzick's article was his elaboration of the methods pursued by the government as a means of quelling dissent, especially in regard to the priority of economy over people. In regard to the Internet, for example, he writes, "Beijing not only allows its citizens to view financial reports, stock quotes, and other business-related material on the Internet, but has adopted policies designed to help Internet companies survive." (5) Yet personal Internet use faces massive crack-downs, and a number of prominent dissident bloggers have been arrested, including a recent case that made the front page of the New York Times (more press than many of China's human rights abuses recieve). What I am most struck by is how, in my opinion, this hierarchy of priorities seems contrary to socialist ideology. When a country that touted Communism as the best ideology for the people becomes engrossed in repressing its people for the sake of economic growth and capital flows, something is utterly wrong. Even as China attempts to crush religious movements and social organizations for being in contradiction to the ideology of the state, the government does everything in its power to ensure economic growth and a competitve edge, working to showcase its riches and material success to the rest of the, predominantly capitalist, world.

I can only hope that the numerous dissidents voices grow louder, and that human rights groups, perhaps especially as we come upon the Olymics, put greater pressure on the Chinese goverment, as well as on governements and multinational corportations who do business with China. As Kurlantzick states, there are some Chinese civilians who are not about to give up any of the freedoms they fought for or gained in the early 1990s, and more groups are becoming confrontational or are seeking support outside of China to stand in solidarity with their various causes. From Falun Dafa to the Free Tibet movement, there are media sources and activist networks all over the world that people outside of China are joining, raising their own voices with those of the dissidents. It will be interesting to see how China deals with growing concern over their human rights record in the coming months, even as they crack down on dissenters and activists within their borders, and bulldoze housing projects and build on rural lands, potentially provoking even greater unrest.

Week 4: Falun Dafa

According to the Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) website,

"Falun Dafa practitioners cultivate themselves while living normally in the
complex environment of secular society. People of all nationalities, races,
socio-economic backgrounds, gender, ages, occupations, and different faiths are
welcome to practice, and do so entirely of their own free will, at their own
pace, and for as long as they choose. "(falundafa.org)

How is it that such a peaceful organization, dedicated to living spiritually in secular society, could pose such a threat to the Chinese government that they would want to persecute practitioners, even executing some, selling their organs on the black market, torturing them, and imprisoning them?

These tactics are beyond extreme, in any instance, but they seem all the more horrendous when up against a movement that promotes peace and soundness of mind, body and spirit. I suppose it has much to do with the fact that by 1998, only six years after it was first taught publicly in China, Falun Dafa had over 70 million Chinese followers. That is no small feat, even in a country of 1.3 Billion, and I suppose such sheer numbers could provoke fear in the authorities, whose legitimacy is dependent on the loyalty of citizens to the secular party ideology.

Still, such repressive violence disgusts me, as it does others, and Falun Dafa is widely supported around the world by organizations like Amnesty, where I first heard about their struggle against the Chinese government, to Human Rights Watch. Yet still, even as late as November of 2007, Amnesty publishd the following quote by Zhou Yongkang, Minister of Public Security in China,

"We must make efforts to create a harmonious society and a good social
environment for successfully holding the 17th Communist Party Congress and the
Beijing Olympic Games [...] We must strike hard at hostile forces at home and
abroad, such as ethnic separatists, religious extremists, violent terrorists and
'heretical organizations' like the Falun Gong who carry out destabilizing
activities." (http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGASA170522007)

These "destabilizing activities" are the threat, and it is an ideological threat, a threat to the Communist and Socialist reputation and to state authority and secularism, and to the repressive government. It is the alleged "leaking" of state secrets, and the assemblies on state grounds. It is the mere existence after 7 years of a banned spiritual organization in an authoritative state. It is extraordinarily sad.

Week 3: Pei, Guthrie, and Hu

It was helpful to read these articles, as I feel much more informed about the resons behind China's current economic and political situation. I especially enjoyed Hu's piece, and his clear breakdown of the various ideological and practical issues facing Deng as his reforms were implemented and decided upon. I have always felt ignorant when it came to Chinese history, and it is the era from 1949 on that I have long wanted to have a better understanding of.

The human rights arguments Hu laid out were interesting, concerning the various trade-offs that governments may consider when working to implement reform and deciding upon what will eb best for the most people, based on these trade-off priorities. Furthermore, I was intrigued when he stated that there were three ruling principles regarding China's view of human rights: 1) Human Rights are within national sovereignty, 2) Human Rights vary by nation-state, and 3) Survival, or Subsistence, is the number one human rights priority in China. As an individual who is very invested in human rights work and ideology, these ideas drew my curiosity, and I look forward to looking later this week and next at the dissidents websites and at the Amnesty International article. It makes sense with Deng's focus on economic reform, as laid out by both Guthrie and Hu, that subsistence would be #1, because it is evident that economic rights seems to tump both social and political rights in China, as a result of the way the political and economic reforms went, and the ensuing potential for chaos and the threats against Communist and Socialist legitimacy which human rights pose.

I found it interesting in Guthrie's article when he noted the differences between China's reputation and its reality, on pages 38 and 39. It is true that I, at least, often thought of China as an authoritarian state with horrendous human rights violations a daily occurence, in part due to excessive corruption. It was helpful to me when Guthrie made clear that this view is skewed and undermines the advances that have been made, in large part because of Deng's economic and liberal reforms. It now seems obvious that China could not be the major player it is today if all of my ignorance had proven truthful in so many ways.

In reading all three articles, I thought it was interesting that such emphasis was placed on the way that increased liberalization and freedom can actually lead to more dissent and demand for greater reform and guarantee of rights. Hu explicitly points this out on page 74, as well as at other points in his article, and it immediately made me think of Pei's article in which he argues that the increased social unrest has come, in part, because of the economic growth and reforms China has experienced. I am interested in considering this idea futher, and discussing it with other members of the class. Whether or not this argument is true, I believe it is always preferable to have increased freedom, human rights, and democracy, however, that may indeed threated security and stability, so what are the costs of granting greater freedoms and rights, and what are the costs of authoritarian control, and what are the benefits of each, at least in regards to sceurity and stability. These are the ultimate questions I came away with, and I may end up trying to find a way to make these ideas the focus of my final report.

Week 2: Klare and Zhang

I was frustrated with the Klare reading, because I fond many of the points made to be almost hypocritical when speaking about China's military and economic progress. Whether this was coming from Klare himself of from his analysis of references, I am unsure, but his wording troubled me in some places. For instance, his talk of building up the military to counter China's seems to be to be both presumptuous and unduly aggressive. Later he quotes Fallon as saying, "It's certainly cause for concern to see this continuing buildup [by China]...It seems to me to be more than might e required for their defense. We're certainly watching it very closely, [and] we're looking at how we match up against these capabilities." Obviously the US matches up, because the US itself has unnecessary military buildup that could easily - and often does - appear as a threat to other nations. I find this argument to be dripping in ethnocentric ideas of superiority, which bothers me. Further, Klare states in the middle that China has moved into the number two spot - behind the US - for use of oil, and speaks as though this is preposterous. What I find preposterous, however, is that the US is still ahead of China in energy usage, and that any American could have the audacity to argue that CHINA is using too much energy for its 1.5 Billion people, while 300 Million Americans use more than most of the rest of the world combined. It is that kind of arrogance that makes the US appear a threat to the rest of the world. Not to mention, the US is often a threat to the rest of the world, and not even China wouldl be presumptuous enough to imagine that it could currently compete militarily with US technology, so the enitre issue of China as a threat seems to me to be a non-issue promoted by the conservative right to avoid focus on areas where their positions have garnered criticism. China as a threat is a thinly veiled scare tactic in my opinion, and Klare's article only strengthened my feelings on this.

Week 2: Cha and Beeson

Q1: Note the issues - negative and positive - regarding China that seem to be coming to the fore around the Olympics.

Q2: Make note of the regional issues mentioned. What does Cha say about Japan? What does he say about Korea?

Q3:How does Beeson's excerpt help to make sense of references to Japan and Korea from Cha's piece, including key historical moments, developments, and trends as well as East Asian regional relations?

Q4: What other items of note does Beeson mention in this historical overview?

A: In the Cha reading from the Washington Post, China is first put forth as an "ancient and celebrated" (1) civilization, as from this point Cha goes on to elaborate on the innovations and reforms being implemented in the face of the impending games. Cha also points out how sport diplomacy has played a role in the regional relationships in East Asia, bringing in political undertones to sports from ping-pong to the Olympics. Furthermore, the fact that China is holding the Olympics only after Japan and Korea both did is telling. It also shows how time has altered the world view of power and economic might in East Asia. Japan hosted the Olympics in 1964, serving as a reminder of its leading role in Asia up to World War II and even after as it worked to reassert its legitimacy as an Asian leader in the developed world.

Cha argues that China is using the Olympics as a stage on which to showcase their economic growth and prosperity, demonstrating the importance of their emergence as what many perceive to be the leading Asian nation, not to mention its role as a power on an international level. Renovations and massive reforms are demonstrative of an attempt to revitalize Beijing and usher in a new and modern era for the Chinese, as its eminence is established in the global market, economically, politically and militarily.

Yet China's role is not taken for granted by all, and is highly scrutinized by some. The government is facing political pressure from human rights activists, internal dissidents, journalists, and NGOs, not to mention from other nations at the UN. China must open itself up ideologically if it wishes to appease the vociferous appeals for respect of human dignity and liberty. Steps have been taken by the Chinese government in response to the growing criticism concerning both internal and external human rights abuses that China is accused of perpetrating and condoning, but to what extent the attempts are genuine cannot be known. With regard to Darfur, where China has been criticised for dealing in arms with the genocidal regime, there has been progress at the UN as China has chosen not to veto Security Council resolutions dealing with the conflict. Still, the New York Times recently published an article dealing with arrests and repression of active dissidents within China which leads some to believe that the goodwill internationally could well be a short-lived facade of humanity and humility. Only time will tell. Still, South Korea was pressured when it hosted the Olympics in 1988, and what followed was increased democratization where there had been authoritarianism, so pressure could prove great enough to enact real change with time.

Week 1: Krause and Williams

As a starting off point, I will set up this first blog as a series of replies to the study questions posed for the week, since I found that to be a helpful format for organizing my reading an analysis of the piece. I will give more time to certain questions, as I see fit, and I will skip those questions which I feel I have given time to in other responses.

Introduction

Q1: How has security garnered attention since the end of the Cold War?
A1: Optimists have newly focused on cooperation through global capitalism and liberal democracy while pessimists became concerned with growing ethnic conflict and fear "an anarchic future" (Krause 33). These people, as well as those who remain neutral in their outlook, tend to agree that the post-Cold War era is one with increased focus on economic and environmental issues, as well as one with more voices clamoring to be heard concerning human rights, labor struggles, minority and indigenous rights, and more. As the world moves further away from the East-West divide, issues are no longer perceived as black and white. Questions concerning the fractionalization of the USSR, especially with regard to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and growing conflict in Georgia and Chechnya, became matters of concern as ethnic and cultural loyalties became the focal point rather than the natin-state. Around the world the topic of nuclear proliferation came to the fore as talks began among nations to settle agreements concerning demilitarization and the dismantling of nuclear weapons facilities. Beyond issues of military concern there were many whose voices were raised concerning growing environmental awareness and the threat of global warming and with it increased emphasis on carbon emissions. Environmenal concerns also have begun to play a role in the realm of humanitarian work with a growing focus on sanitation and environmental standards to attempt prevention of health problems among people without access to clean water or to sewage treatment systems, among other problems. Human rights in general have grown in scope, and movements and struggles around the world have utilized technology to promote worldwide awareness, communication, and solidarity on issues from the genocide in Darfur to oppression of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Increased technology, the fractionalizing of the USSR, and growing environmental and human rights advocacy have all played a role in the changing face of security studies and of matters of security since the end of the Cold War.

Q2: To what extent is there a consensus on the definition of security?
A2: There is little consensus on the definition of security; however, traditionally, "security studies" have been concerned primarily with the nation-state and militarism. However, as mentioned above, from about 1990 on the scope of "security" has broadened to incorporate more individualized, as well as more "universal" ideas about what is needed to ensure security.

Q5: What is the central conventional argument against incorporating broader questions into "security studies"?
A5: Dorff argues that "problems" are not solid enough to constitute security threats, and thus should not be up for policy consideration. "Problems," as Dorff sees them, are economic, social, and ecological issues not directly related to mililtary concerns. Yet, Krause and Williams hold that claiming that "problems" are outside of current security concepts is a means of avoiding reform and reconceptualization without providing a strong argument against the potential benefits that such restructuring could result in.

Unpacking the traditional Conception of Security: The Evolution of Disciplinary Authority

Q1: What do they mean by "security, after all, is a historically variable condition"?
A1: Ideas of security depend on contemporary politics and are determined by historical specificity in this way. Different pressures and threats, the actors involved, the science, technology and communication - these factors will all depend on the period of history one is referring to, and will then be reflected in the security concerns and definitions of that era.

States are the Subjects: Anarchy is the Condition; Contractarianism is the Solution

Q2: a. In conventional security studies, states are the locus/source of security. From this perspective, what is the assumption made about the security of citizens? b. What does it assume about the realtionships between citizens of different countries?

A2: a. Conventional theory assumes that there cannot be security for the individual without the state because rational beings will live in a natural state of competition unless they can agree to live by a social contract, as argued by Hobbes. Further, Krause and Williams argue on page 41 that, "The declaration that the state is the subject of security, and anarchy the eternal condition of international relations, is premised not on objective facts but is grounded in a deeper set of claims about the autonomous nature of subjectivity and its relationship to sovereignty. This underlying methodological individualist premise is shared by neorealist and neoliberal approaches."
b. Citizens are thus obligated to one another within a states, but will maintain competition with non-citizens, as they are not obligated by the state to coexist under any sort of contract or authority, as they do within their own state. Strategically, this implies that nations, too, will exist in a constant state of competition and stalemate, and it further implies conditions of rationality and objectivity are possible with the assistance of science - a position that those who oppose the traditional conceptions of security are apt to critique, beleiving that even science cannot be objective because rationality does not presuppose objectivity.

Challenges to the Tradtional Conception: Individuals as Persons, Citizens, and Humanity

Q1: Give an example of a type of individual security and how the focus on the individual (rather than the state) highlights the potential conflict with state security.

A1: Threats to individuals as citizens: In this case the state may mitigate the insecurity of citizens, however, it depends on where the treat is coming from. In some cases, the state itself acts against the security of parts of its citizenry, arbitrarily or systematically, which can lead to major human rights violations which often cause problems on an international level with regard to state sovereignty. On the other hand, these threats may come from another state or from a non-state actor, wich poses its own challenges to the state in terms of how the state could defend its citizens against these problems. For instance, in some cases multinational corporations will use threats and violence to crush union organizing, or will refuse to comply with environmental regulations or labor standards. In such cases, they may exploit their role in developing nations where there are fewer regulations in place, and thus are targeting citizens in developing nations or those who work in export processing zones (EPZ) over citizens in industrialized nations where labor standards are higher and where jurisprudence carries more weight. Alternately, we have the very specific case in the USA of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, which were acts of violence taken by non-state actors against citizens, and these cases are common around the world today, unfortunately, from sucide bombers to larger premeditated acts of violence near embassies and in public areas. These new threats from non-state actors challenge traditional security theory and demand attention and policy reform to protect citizens.

Security, Community, and Identity

Q1: How have security studies that focus on communal identity and culture (as a way to understand security) challenged the idea if state as the source of security?
A1: Competitng claims to national sovereignty put national security into question. For instance, as with the fragmentation of the former Societ Union, and especially with the decentralization of the former Yugoslavia into a number of smaller, ethnically homogneous, states.