In this century, emotional aspects have become increasingly important. Unlike realist and idealist points, there is no rational solution to manage love and hatred. However, something can be done through the following perspectives.
(1) Consensus building:
I would like to quote the following parts from Henry Kissinger’s article “Realist vs. idealist” in the International Herald Tribune.
The implementation of the freedom agenda needs to relate the values of the democratic tradition to the historic possibilities of other societies.
We must avoid the danger that a policy focused on our domestic perceptions may generate reactions in other societies rallying around patriotism and leading to a coalition of the resentful against attempts at perceived American hegemony.
A strategy to implement the vision of the freedom agenda needs consensus building, both domestically and internationally. That will be the test as to whether we are seizing the opportunity for systemic change or participating in an episode.
(2) Divide the counterpart:
The West must find truly reliable leaders in the Islamic world to prevail democratic values. To my regret, the media took up condemnation by Tony Blair and George W. Bush in the London terrorist attack. It is also important to pay more attention to anger against this terrorism among Islamic leaders of common sense. Otherwise, global citizens will regard it as a conflict between the Anglo-American alliance and the Islamic world.
In order to manage the hatred, Japan needs to find good friends in Chinese and Korean citizens. For example, in South Korea, pro-American internationalists share common values and understandings of the world with Japan. Therefore, it is necessary for Japan to establish good relations with them. This will be the first step towards weakening anti-Japan voices in Asia. Start it now Japan! Otherwise, Asian adversary to Japan never ends.
(3) More effort for good image:
In the era of emotionalism, more effort to improve the image of the nation is necessary. More mutual understandings to the grassroots level are getting increasingly important.
Above all, love and hatred is playing more and more greater role in international politics. This is an unprecedented challenge to us, because there are no rational solutions to this problem. Long-term perspectives are required to tackle this issue.
14 comments:
Political science 101: All nations act in their perceived own best interests. The question then is what are those perceived interests? Does it operate to the benefit, or detriment, of Iran to remain outside the world of nations? If Iran's leaders, in the absence of true democracy, decide that it is in their best interests to remain aloof from the rest of the world, they will.
We should work to find "common ground" with all nations; that is the role of diplomacy. But this in no way implies that any nation must compromise its principles, and we (USA) must not allow its foreign policy to adopt appeasement as one of its tenets. So if Iran maintains it's radical Islamic stance, that by itself should not affect relations with the US or UK (for example). On the other hand, if Iran maintains its policy of state-supported terrorism, then of course there will be serious problems.
The Islamic structure of many countries is opposite from western secular ideologies. We TRUST our people to make important decisions respecting government. We want EVERYONE to participate in our progress, and in the benefits of liberty, equality, freedom. Does a return to the middle ages benefit some Islamic governments? In the short term, yes -- because it allows some to retain power. But in the long run, no.
Ultimately, it will be the people of these opporessed nations that will have to rise up and demand better. Until they do, global progress is limited.
Thank you for stopping by my Blog.
Shah,
I also believe that hatred plays a major part in world politics, but few seem willing to address this reality. I'm not sure that American leaders WANT to accept the underlying hatred.
As you pointed out, a rational solution to hatred is elusive, especially when an ideology such as Islamism contains tenets to foster that hate in the name of religion.
To Mustang,
People in the Islamic world are beginning to rise up. Unfortunately, it is not the case with Iraq. The Baathist regime had excellent bureaucratic robots, but no civil leaders. This is one of the reasons why Iraq faces difficulty in making a new regime.
To Always on Watch,
I think it is necessary to research the cause of anti-Americanism worldwide. But strangely enough, those who denounced American "arrogance" in Iraq requested American intervention to Liberia and pressure to Burma. People in the global civil societies seem to have a mixed feeling to the United States.
As to anti-Japan sentiments, Taiwanese do not hate Japan so much as Koreans do. Why? That is how people feel. There are no rational explanations.
Shah, your comment to AOW is a very interesting one. Yes, people denounce American arrogance until there's something they need help with. I heard a German woman, a former EU MP, speak a bit on the subject and she said straight out that countries in the EU are very jealous of the US. They want to step out of its shadow and be another super power, hence why the EU (especially France & Germany) seems to always take an opposing view to the US. They like to be contrary for the simple reason of wanting to be different. Pity they don't give thought to that often pitting them on the wrong side of issues.
As for anti-Japan sentiments in Taiwan or Korea... hmm... could it be another case of jealousy?
Esther,
In Europe, "peripheral" countries, like Britain, Poland, Nordic, East Europe, and Baltic countries are more pro-American than "core" countries, like France, and Germany. However, they share fundamental values and understandings of the world.
This is not the case with Japan and Asia. People of younger generations in China and Korea have no war experience with Japan. They challenge Japan to satisfy their nationalist pride.
Esther wrote: "the EU (especially France & Germany) seems to always take an opposing view to the US."
In other words the US seems to always take an opposing view to the EU... :-)
Well, I disagree. On most issues the US and the EU (incl. France and Germany) agree more or less.
You wrote "always" => Please, name ten issues the US and the EU disagree on. Okay, #1 is Iraq, #2 is Kyoto, please continue...
Thank you for your comment Atlanticus.
I can add a few more disagreements, but not ten. #3 Palestine, #4 China, #5 agricultural trade... I leave the rest to Esther.
Though I believe that America and Europe share common grounds, it is understandable that Esther has an impression that the US and the EU disagree a lot. Some are critical security issues, such as Iraq and China.
From the news these days, people tend to focus on transatlantic rifts, rather than common grounds. No one can criticize Esther.
Nevertheless, I agree with Atlanticus that America and Europe agree on fundamental visions for the future.
I don't think your three examples are major cases of transatlantic disagreements. Both the US and the EU are pro-land-for-peace, pro-China and pro-farmers.
re #3: US and EU agree on the Road Map.
re # 4: I was furious, when Schroeder and Chirac wanted to lift the arms embargo. Many other German politicians and the German public are against it. Other EU countries are against it. The EU decided NOT to lift the arms embargo at this point. So the EU and the US agree.
Are you concerned that the EU is too pro-Chinese? Well, the US is very pro-Chinese: The US allowed China to buy a lot of the US (treasury bonds, companies etc.). I read that many Americans are concerned that China controlls the US more and more economically, and therefore perhaps one day politically... I don't want to raise conspiracy theories, but rather ask you whether you are comfortable with Chinese the enourmous investments in US treasury bills, stocks etc. => I don't think you can make the argument that the EU is too supportive of China, since the US depends more and more on China financially.
re: 5: I don't know where the disagreements are. Both the US and the EU are pro-farmers, becasue they subsidize their farmers with billions of money and distort the markets. Both sides are too blame.
I listed up some Euro-American "disagreements", just to show how difficult it is to name 10 issues. I say again that America and Europe agree on most of the issues of the world.
Someone made a mistake to say that the US and the EU always disagree. No one can blame it.
I picked up a couple of gaps between the US and the EU. This is just a try. It is very hard to name 10 disagreements between them. This is I would like to say in the previous comment.
Thanks, Shah Alexander. I know what you mean.
I was hoping Esther or someone else who got the impression that the EU opposes the US (or vice versa) all the time, would list a couple of issues.
I am simply tired of all these exaggerations. And by anti-European attitudes as expressed by Esther. What's the reason? Too much TV News or one-sided blogs? I think blogs are great, but apparently most Americans and Europeans (and others) read blogs by authors who share their opinions more or less. Consequently they do not question their opinions and prejudices and their bias gets stronger and stronger. What do you think?
It is true that people tend to read blogs with similar opinions, and intensify their biases.
In my impression, Americans are sensitive to Islamic terrorism and WMD proliferation. There seems to be some perception gap between Americans and Europeans. Of course, these problems pose serious threat to the whole global community. However, Americans are getting far more sensitive to these threats than Europeans are. This is something written in "Of Paradise and Power" by Robert Kagan. Blogs simply reflect this reality on the grassroots level, I think.
However, I believe both Americans and Europeans understand that they share common values and vision each other.
This is not the case with Japanese and Asians. No Americans commit vandalism against Europeans, and vice versa. Japanese blame China and Korea, and Chinese and Koreans denounce Japan in return. As far as I know, it is quite hard to find such a terrible emotional hatred between Americans and Europeans.
Here in Japan, anyone can be a blog star by simply blaming China and Korea. This is what happens these days.
Look - survival 101. If you have a knife, I will bring a gun and end the fight. If it ain't in our national interest, we ain't gonna do it! If we are threatened, we are going to strike. It's that simple. Wipe away your sensibilities to emotions in international policy. That is the thinking of failure, appeasement. Think in terms of the gun fight. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight if you want to win!
Realist perspectives, as you mention, is the key to international politics. Things like ideologies, values, and emotion, play important role as well.
Post a Comment