In the fall, I attended a debate on the rising tensions between the United States and China and how the trade war would impact global security. Professor Randall Schweller, the Ohio State University, argued that there is a growing threat posed by the trade war, and that the effects are felt by consumers in the United States. Dr. Derek Scissorhands, a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, argued that the trade war is not significant, because there is no trade war occurring.

Dr. Randall Schweller

Dr. Schweller argues the perspective of realism, pointing to the “America first” mantra that drives American foreign policy. In turn, this policy has driven the Trump administration to react to both rapid China’s growth, and overall “cheating” that robs the U.S. of hundreds of billions, according to Schweller. Both threaten the United States’ goal of reverting back to a unipolar system, and Schweller claims that Americans support this mission. He explains that Trump is not a cause, but rather a direct consequence of national values.

Holistically, China is a rising competitor who is “violating laws in order to achieve global and economic dominance”, according to Schweller.  Professor Schweller explains that China is catching up and the United States is responding, while the hurt of the trade war is felt primarily by consumers at home who lose access to cheap goods.

Dr. Derek Scissorhands

The trade war is overrated. The trade war is overrated because the United States is not participating in a trade war. Dr. Derek Scissorhands contends that China is not a fair competitor, and their development doesn’t compare to that of the U.S.. He argues that because China lacks free markets, and because their economy depends on intellectual property theft and secrecy, China is not a true challenger to the United States as a world power. Furthermore, Trump proves that the threat is insignificant as he continues to place collective tariffs on all Chinese companies, evading any meaningful action toward China throughout his entire presidency. Despite using the issue as a campaign platform, Trump has done little to effectively address the intellectual property theft of Chinese companies, rather he is collectively punishing all companies (incentivising cheating for innocent firms). These tariffs won’t help the American economy gain back the losses from intellectual property, which is said to be hundreds of billions of dollars, since China only accounts for 1% of U.S. GDP. Today, the U.S. and China are not in a trade war, Scissorhands contends. The Trump administration is trying to protect American money and American interests, and what is seen today is a scuffle in foreign policy, and not a war.

Conclusion

I found both debaters to present interesting perspectives that I had not previously considered. I think that both sides raised important points that properly contextualize the U.S.-Chinese relationship and power dynamic. Both debaters agree that the Trump administration is primarily concerned with money when it comes to China, and that overall, their effect on the American economy is insignificant. However, Professor Schweller describes China as a growing threat, pointing to the growing bi-polarity of today’s system (away from multi-polarity) and the response of the Trump administration, who placed 25% tariffs on $360 billion. Scissorhands sees the United States’ response as reserved and ineffective, thereby he refuses to label the tensions as a “trade war”.

While both sides make great points, I believe that their arguments are limited by only looking at the absolute power and absolute gains of China and the United States. Soft power drives the polarity of the system, and thereby should be considered when evaluating the severity of the power struggle between the U.S. and China. China becomes an insignificant threat when you solely consider their 1% stake in the American GDP, and the 50 trillion wealth gap between the two nations (Dr. Scissorhands). It is the soft power, or collective and relative strength that describes how China has come to be the threat that it is.

The debate, however, isn’t whether or not China is a prominent threat. Is there a trade war occurring? If there is, is it overrated? There is an acute focus on China by the Trump administration. Chinese relations was a platform for their campaign, and they have spent their entire term responding to the “Chinese threat” that the Trump administration has created in the media. Both debaters concede that China is at the forefront of American foreign policy, and Trump has responded to these threats throughout his presidency. With money also being the prime interest of the administration, I think that the conflict with China was a true priority, and this was reflected by its consistent acknowledgement of China, therefore confirming its rise to power. Whether or not this is a trade war should not depend on whether or not the measures taken by a country were effective, but rather how the trade relationship affects a nation. The United States is overly occupied with China, and has spent years spotlighting the country and actions taken against them. It is objective to conclude that China was a significant priority and venture for the Trump administration, and this ongoing competition is best characterized as a trade war.

Monday’s at The Bridge Tutoring Program

Every Monday and Thursday, the Bridge Community Center holds a tutoring program for refugees in the community, grades 2-12. I volunteer on Monday’s, and have opened the opportunity up to my fellow members of the Amnesty International student organization. A group of us go to the westside of Columbus every Monday to work one on one with these students who are behind in school. The program has a waiting list of almost 80 kids, as each student has their own tutor/mentor. Working 1:1 with Imran on Math and English has been an experience that I have grown from immensely.

On Tuesday (3/5), I attended the Climate Change and Environmental Issues panel in Drinko Hall at 6:30pm. The first panelist was Colin O’Brein, an attorney who is staffed by the organization Earth Justice – a nonprofit organization that litigates environmental issues. The second panelist was Scott Weaver, who is employed by AEP as the Director of Air Quality. This academic event highlighted some of the prominent environmental issues that threaten our globe and livelihoods today. In addition to this, the speakers addressed their own perceptions about what the greatest modern challenges are and how their respective companies and organizations are working in coalition with the green movement.

One of the most interesting points of the panel was the speakers’ articulation of what they think are the greatest obstacles to achieving environmentally conscious policies. O’Brein (Earth Justice) points to the nature of capitalism for one of the explanations. Companies will invest where the business is, where they will make the most money. If coal is cheaper, this is where the company will move. It becomes even more crucial that the public demand green energy when companies look for ways to cut costs at every corner. “Money talks”, according to O’Brien. This is explained to be exemplified in the case of Shell and their legal fight in the Arctic. Their ability to hire the lawyers and continue a lengthy legal battle will contribute to their success. Scott Weaver (AEP) extends upon this explanation, pointing to how companies like PG&E invested in renewable energy ventures, rather than investing in improving their own systems. This is one of the contributing factors that led to the most deadly California wildfires seen in history, that killed up to almost 85 people. Weaver points to this to exemplify the responsibility of companies to invest not only in green exploration, but in the improvement of our already existing systems. I thought that this area in which O’Brien and Weaver explain the challenges of modern progress is the most pressing part of the panel, as it is impossible to win a fight when you don’t know about the enemy. It is necessary that we acknowledge the major setbacks because we have the power to change them through mass mobilization or participation. If I could ask the panelists further questions, I would inquire about how we might interact with this fact that companies follow the money, and ask how we as individuals can stay informed and how to best keep our companies accountable for energy costs.

I appreciated this opportunity to hear about the issue of climate change from a new perspective – that of an employee of an energy company and of an environmental lawyer. These unique perspectives served for an informed panel that offered insight on how our energy companies and government are interacting with our high consumption market, all amidst a national green movement.

Ohio State University presented “ICS: Air Pollution & Human Health in China” in efforts to discuss prevailing health risks in China that demand our immediate attention. The event was held in Page Hall at 4pm, on Friday, January 25th. The speaker offered a unique perspective due to his background in molecular science, whereas I initially expected a more political approach to the issue. The seminar began by addressing how air pollution has been linked to adult obesity and type two diabetes – a study proved through lab tests on rats. Similar tests on rodents proved the correlation between early exposure to these air pollutants and development issues. The speaker then went on to exemplify how air pollutant particles in China have an inflammatory effect on blood pressure. The specific particles that are discussed are fine particulate matter, which are extremely fine particles that present more of an immediate risk to human health due to their size and complex. The powerpoint revealed a map of where the most concentrated areas of fine particulate matter is. The most extreme cases were evident in northern Africa and in China. Some of the lower concentrations were evident in South America and southern Africa. Interestingly, the United States had high exposure, but was not one of the most heavily affected areas on the map. Another surprising revelation included that Canada seemed to be more concentrated in fine particulate matter than the U.S. The speaker then went into more detail on what fine particulate matter concentration in the U.S. looks like. The map revealed that the highest concentrations were in cities along the Midwest. Although I believed that this may be due to the rich history of mining in the Midwest, the speaker clarified that this high concentration is also due to the Midwest states not being coastal states that affected by seabreeze, which carries fine particulate matter from industrialized areas to other nations. This effect is the reason for the mass concentrations of these air pollutants in northern Africa, where local industrialization is not the cause of the toxic air levels. I appreciated this opportunity to hear about air pollution in China from a more scientific approach, whereas my education on the topic surrounds the associated human rights issues.

Last week I attended a security conference at the Mershon center: “Societies Under Stress: Welfare and Penal Policies amid Rising Insecurity”. The session I attended took place in the afternoon of Friday, November 30th. Yanilda González (University of Chicago) lead the discussion on “Inequality, Policing, and Punishment” for the duration of Session 2. Her thesis was titled “Inequality and the Democratic Demand for Authoritarian Policing”, followed by commentary from Gustavo Flores-Macías (Cornell University). Gonzalez’s thesis began to summarize the inequality we see in society and how that fuels the violence and authoritarianism seen in policing. She argues that despite living in a democracy, policing practices are inherently undemocratic, and that we need to look at how inequality shapes social aspects of democracy. It may seem like a paradox, however, it is true that these democratic processes give leeway to undemocratic processes, according to Gonzáles. Her argument was supported by the general fact that police accountability and their use of lethal force is not a popular topic for politicians to rally behind, despite  the population’s general support for issue. This is why politicians focus on other issues, and authoritarian policing continues, unchecked. These undemocratic policing practices are the result of authoritarian coercion because they look how police look in authoritarian regimes: protecting private interests rather than the public. Gonzales refers to the case of San Pablo, where police account for 20% of the city’s homicides, and as the homicide rate decrease, the amount of police homicides increase. This is the result of racialized policing, which is known to be implemented into initial police trainings in many situations. Cops are often times trained to give African Americans a lesser presumption of innocence, one blatant way we know that policing in democracies are not democratic. This is evidence of authoritarian coercion, seen in the way that the voices of business owners and the rich prevail over public interest. This structural inequality in society prevents the necessary organizing that would bring about the abolition of inequality. This issue is not quick to be resolved due to its unpopularity amongst voters, also seen in the case of Sao Pablo and the Governor who unpopularly supports police reform.

The second speaker who commented on the work of Gonzalez also brought up some interesting points. One thing that stuck with me is how he questioned the notion of police reform itself. What does police reform look like? Is it changing the uniform? Changing the weapons? The training? He clarified that there is a notion that everything is better with democracy, and as this thesis proves, this is not the case. Corruption within democracies give opportunity to undemocratic processes, and these processes are slow to change due to their root in structural inequality. I think that this is an important analysis because police reform is indeed one of the most pressing issues of our time, as gun violence is the leading cause of death in the United States, and is a leading cause of death globally. It is important to understand why lethal force is used, how it is used unequally, and equally as important, why police practices are or are not subject to change. This session additionally opened my eyes to considering the changes I want to see in policing practices and what the best methods are to address the issue of police brutality. What needs to change in order to foster more democratic policing?

This past week I attended an information session in order to accumulate more information on career opportunities in the field of IR. The event was the U.S. State Department Information Session, which took place in the Journalism building on Tuesday, October 30th. The session was lead by Dale R. Giovengo, who has been a Foreign Service Officer for the past twelve years. He passed the Foreign Service Officer exam and obtained his job as a human resources officer after working for a retail company for thirty years. One inspiring part of the session was that Dale shared with us how he got to his career in the State Department. Rather than working there right out of school, Dale took a career change mid way through his life, which inspires my goal to work for the State Department. He spoke candidly about some of his experiences and how they shaped his career path, starting with being involved in Pakistani riots around the time of the Benghazi hearings. I thought that his stories were not only interesting, but also painted a narrative for me to better understand the role of a Foreign Service Officer.

Dale Giovengo spoke on behalf of the position itself and outlined the principle missions of FSO: to protect American interests abroad and gain security for Americans. Essentially, the President makes foreign policy decisions, and Foreign Service Officers implements the policy. Dale also revisited the identities different high ranking officials in the State Department (currently made up of almost 70,000 individuals), in efforts to test our knowledge. This information session was relevant to my area of study, as my specialization is International relations and diplomacy. Taking the foreign service officer exam is something I plan to embark on after school, and hearing more specifics about what it takes to land a job in the State Department will help me to plan my future better. This event would be helpful for any student in international affairs because there was valuable information about how Foreign Service Officers serve American interests abroad and what this role looks like. Personally, I was interested in the event because my academic advisor mentioned that the State Department is a common next step for students in my field. It proved to complement my studies because the strategy of global players in international relations and learning the different ways in which it the global community functions will help me to someday start a career in the State Department. The event was relevant to my classes and provided me with information on a career opportunity that would allow me to apply my studies. Although I am not sure if I want to work for the State Department or an intergovernmental organization, I am glad to have heard the different roles in the State Department and how I can get involved. I have gained knowledge on various aspects of State Department career paths and also on the Department itself. I can say that I am not only improved as a potential job candidate, but as a student I am also more aware of the functions of the State Department.

I attended the Rising China: Trade and America’s Pacific Posture debate in order to learn more about China’s foreign policy as America moves toward an America-first approach in regards to international relations and cooperation. The debate came at a crucial time because it was in reaction to the escalating trade war between China and America, and came days after China announced a monumental new round of tariffs on American goods. At the event, there was a panel of speakers who discussed America and Chinese relations in terms of trade, and looked at elements that influence nations and their leaders’ foreign policies. These foreign policies, as I have learned in class, are formulations driven by a series of factors: historical, state interests and motives, individuals and their decisions (and how much those individuals matter), and international cooperation. This event aided me with information which allowed me to  formulate more substantiated arguments about China for my international relations classes, such as Strategies for War and Peace and Theories of International Relations. I learned more information that helped analysis at the individual, state, and international level. The speakers at the debate contextualized the trade war and current foreign policy with information on the implications of these different levels. Starting with the individual level, he focused on the importance of the unique characteristics of the Presidents, or more specifically, Donald Trump, and how he affects America’s foreign policy. The speakers also touched on how specific state level interests drive the foreign policy by weighing movies of each nation such as the United States being driven by America first rather than increasing international cooperation. This administration has already pulled America out of a dozen treaties since taking office. Other motives that were highlighted in America’s foreign policy include protection of American businesses and intellectual property. Finally, the debate touched on the third way we evaluate foreign policy, at the international level; American sentiment toward China and the rest of the world, and Chinese sentiment toward the United States are contributors to American foreign policy. The nations and their alliances promoting international cooperation has an affect on the foreign policy at hand. The United States is heavily restricted in punishing China for unfair trade practices due to the fact that China joined the WTO years ago.  The information I took away from this debate provided me with the opportunity to hear about the different aspects of Chinese and American relations that drive their foreign policy, which is crucial to analyze in a time of irregularity, especially seen in the escalating trade war. If I could ask the speaker to elaborate, I would ask him about the trade war and ask about his evaluation of what decisions can, should, and will be made by Trump and Xi Jinping. Additionally, I would appreciate hearing more about how international treaties and alliances have affected China’s relationship with the United States. I appreciated having this opportunity to piece together contextual information that I did not have about China that will help me to better understand what drives Chinese foreign policy.

[The Home Page will show a running blog of your recent posts, which are categorized and show on that category’s page. Please delete this post or edit with your own information.]