The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globaization

There was a time after graduating college that I contemplated on taking up foreign service to make better use of my language skills and also because many friends think I am most apt for the job not only because I know many things about people and different cultures aside from their languages as a result of frequent traveling (now ruined by Covid-19 ) and because above all, I handle issues in a very diplomatic way. On the other hand, I know in myself that I know very little about world history and especially about the Balkans, Central Asia, and other not so prominent geographic spaces but which contribute to the unfolding of world history. There were some points in my life that I would buy books on globalization to better understand the concept as a process, a system, and a phenomenon, and supplement it with books on related topics. Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat was very much talked about then and it was this reason that I probably bought every book of his that I could find in Booksale.

Getting TLATOT for only PHP75 is a big bargain!

I started reading this book only last year and finished it last month, but I was reading stuff in between (not to mention doing a mountain of chores and income-generating activities coz a girl's gotta earn her own money and doesn't live off others). I instantly liked Friedman because of his accessible writing style which betrays his playful and witty mind, but then it changed toward the end when it became more apparent that he is a proud American who, although aware of globalization's negative consequences, would rather insist on this US-led system because of the "benefits" that the world will reap from it. As an advocate of free market capitalism, he voices out the importance of competition and the ability to be agile in today's rapidly changing environment. To give him credit, he does raises interesting and some valid points but I still have my reservations.

The book is comprised of 20 chapters, each detailing our journalist's experiences with the globalizing world as he moves around and talks to the rich and powerful shapers of world events, in one way or the other, directly or indirectly since we are all connected more than we realize. So below are some key takeaways/ insights:

1. Globalization is THE new international system, characterized by both clashes and homogenization of civilizations, environmental disasters and rescues, triumphs of liberal free market system and the backlash against it, the durability of nation-states and the rise of enormously powerful non-state actors. And an important thing to remember is the role of CYBERSPACE/INTERNET.

2. The Lexus here is a symbol for modernization, prosperity, privatization of economies; in more concrete terms, the lexus represents material improvements in the form of global markets, financial institutions, computer technologies. Olive trees refer to the abstract things that root us--- sense of belonging, individuality, personal rituals, relationships, sense of confidence and security. 

3. Golden Arches Theory banks on the global popularity of the famous fast food franchise and influenced by liberal IR tradition. It states that no two countries that both have McDonald's have ever fought a war against each other ever since they each got their McDonald's. It's funny how shortly after the first edition was published, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. (Mine is the 2000 edition.) Then again closer to home and considering recent events, we see that GAT is a very weak theory with China being aggressive (or for some scholars, assertive... But maybe its assertiveness is read by outsiders who do not have to contend with direct conflicts with this gluttonous panda) to its southern neighbors with which it shared centuries of relations. I also remember when I was still an employee of a multinational food company around 2014 or 15 and suddenly Russia and Ukraine had a fight over Crimea. I remember that time well because we had a Ukrainian visitor with whom I spoke Russian, realizing later on that Russian and Ukrainian are actually very different. The awkward thing is, at that time, Ukrainian nationalism was seen to be very fierce despite their small size compared to a giant Russia so the visitor would remind me that the two are different languages and indeed they are. I have to add that US played a role in this crisis because as usual it keeps on interfering with others' internal affairs and as usual it succeeded in throwing away then Ukrainian President out of the country. (*rolls eyes)

4. Friedman does acknowledge the ill effects of globalization, the thing he absolutely supports. So in this book he points out the things required to survive and compete and still emerge as successful. His core suggestion is by INTERNET DOCTORING which is essentially helping companies be e-ready. And since we also cannot leave out the nation-states, there is a need that a country has excellent infrastructures, the hardware as Friedman calls it, as well as robust regulations and law enforcement. He emphasizes the role of the Electronic Herd (i.e. technocrats) as primary source of capital. And despite having being the US's ally in this part of the world to contain China, the US has made little to help build this hardware that we need. So now that our President breaks off ties (partially) with US and pivots to China, I sure am more content. Because as Friedman himself says there are freemarket democrats and there are also freemarket kleptocrats and the latter are far more in number in my poor country.

5. Aside from world politics, I also pick up some useful insights for personal development:

- Beat the system at its own game

- The fast eats the slow

- Openness can lead to rapid growth (just look at China since 1979)

- You don't earn a living, you learn a living (page 447 talks about constant upskilling)

- When you are at the top, be generous and benign to keep your position

  The last quotes from Paul Schroeder: "If you look at history, the periods of relative peace are those in which there is a durable, stable and tolerant hegemon who does the adjusting and preserves the minimal necessary norms and rules of the game. And that hegemon always pays a disproportionate share of the collective costs, even foregoes opportunities for conquest or restrains itself in other ways, so as not to build up resentments and to make sure the system stays tolerable for others." (That hegemon is without a question the US. But these days it should also apply to China and China knows it, that's why it is focusing on its soft power's "peaceful rise" alongside hard power, in a move to tap into smart power.)

Prisoner's Dilemma

A few years back, I came across a funny article on IR that compares the discipline to romantic relationships. Many disciplines actually teach a lot about relationships, mainly economics and politics, and better the combination of both: political economy.

I just finished reading Stephanie Lawson's 2015 "Theories of International Relations", something which I should have read and digested prior to taking up Asian Studies. Yes, I was able to survive two grueling years in the program where I almost expired on the last semester because I took 12 units, 6 units of core courses, and 6 units of Arabic. It was a suicidal move but then it now gives me inspiration and reminds me that a strong woman will always be a strong woman. The book is very well written, offering all the major theories while explaining briefly the many strands together with their proponents. One strength of the book is that it offers historical episodes which are analyzed from relevant theories' POV and thus offering readers a welcome into the complexities of IR and that there are no simply black and white, but a long stretch of different shades of gray. Lawson is also able to fit in major Western philosophical traditions into political science and IR but sadly lacks more examples of non-Western IR thought except perhaps brief descriptions of Occidentalism, Afrocentrism and negritude, and Asian Values. As always one can easily say that the book is very Western although the author is very much conscious of it and even explains that whether we like it or not, such is the prevailing IR theories at the moment since non-Westerners may just mirror these Western IR theories while passing them off as non-Western. I encounter the same observation in my other book which focuses on Asian philosophical traditions' influence on IR theory-building. I was able to read only a few chapters because it was a difficult read with so many concepts and -isms that this girl has very little idea of. Or maybe, the struggle is due to us scholars being indoctrinated with Western thought that we now bear little affinity with our Asian roots, a predicament that I seek to rectify by immersing myself in largely Asian cultural products nowadays to somehow get into and better understand Asia's zeitgeists.

So anyway, about Prisoner's Dilemma. It is a classic example in game theory which I first encountered while an Archaeology student. I remember wanting to cry back then because I felt like I should have chosen economics for my undergraduate instead. I just found this idea very simple and very rooted in human behavior. So basically in connection to the realist tradition in IR, states are said to be locked in the same dilemma when they see their neighboring state getting stronger. So they need to prepare also in case something happens. Clearly this speaks of lack of communication and trust, two important foundations for a peaceful relationship.

Sounds familiar? In romantic relationships, one can never stress trust and communication too much. The thing with lovers' quarrel (LQ) is that one party sees something which for him/her is a threat to the relationship. Of course, this may just be due to false assumptions. So when this doubting party does not open up and communicate, it will behave is a rather weird manner which will trigger something in the other party. In the end the two parties will both be fighting over something that may just be a misunderstanding in the first place and the fight could have been prevented if the two are open and are confident enough to communicate their thoughts and feelings. But pride gets in the way. Same as in the prisoner's dilemma wherein a party is afraid of being taken advantage of, demonstrating a lack of trust for the other, thus will potentially choose to benefit himself/ herself.

Looking back, in my relationship with A, it has always been me who was the giver. Well, he did treat me to a number of restaurants, but that doesn't count much as I can certainly pay for myself. I always communicated my misgivings, always letting him see how his actions affect me and our relationship with the hope and trust that if he truly values our relationship, he will do something about it. In the end, I was surprised to learn that he kept a lot to himself until he couldn't take it. That shows that although he tells me he trusts me, he has been lying all along and that he was just leading me on. He misses the point of TRUST which is trusting that your partner is mature to be able to talk serious and awkward things with you. His lousy excuse was that he was afraid I will be angry. Of course people will be angry, people have emotions after all. But it is in talking things out that anger can also dissipate. By not opening up, problems will arise and trust will erode. And so in my eyes, he just played me, because at the start, trust and open communications were what I specifically asked for which he did not have the guts to give to me. 

Q at least is more honest, though I think still not 100%. I still feel that he has a lot of insecurities and still hasn't told me his complete story yet, although he says that he is not an insecure person. One thing I appreciate is him telling me that he will never lie to me, which I have learned, should be taken with a grain of salt. I think I have done quite a lot to get people to open up and meeting halfway is always a rule I abide by. It can get tiring to always be the one who understands. No wonder strong, deep people usually commit suicide, because people around them always think it's okay to take strong people for granted. And when this happens always, even the strongest of persons will fall into a state of depression that this world is not suited for him/ her.

International Relations Theory Week 1

So I decided to go back to taking online courses, which I should have done way way earlier to prepare myself for masters. And in 2016 I just jumped into a program with a blank slate except for tidbits of knowledge gained from reading newspapers. The struggle was real, and even up to now, I still struggle with many concepts and theories. The -isms drive me crazy. So in the third week of COVID-19 lockdown (or ECQ/ Enhanced Community Quarantine if you may), I decided to enrich my knowledge of IR concepts, which I hope, will be useful in the future. I'm putting my notes here for posterity's sake since keeping written stuff requires paper. I'm going paperless. Everybody is welcome.

WEEK 1

IR- question of peace and war, conflict and cooperation

- more inclusive in terms of actors and relations (inter-state, inter-society, state-society relations, inter-region, international organization, economic relations)

Thucydides- "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."

- essential task is to understand origins of war

Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)- after Greeks won over Persian expansion

- between Athens (naval) and Sparta (land-based)

Thucydides's Trap- the fear associated with the shift in the balance of power contributes to the beginning of war. Fear makes states suspect others of betrayal and power for self-defense. International politics is driven not by individuals but by laws of history.

Melian Dialogue- Athens persuading Melos to pay tribute but the latter declined and the Melians were slaughtered. Melos wanted to preserve neutrality.s

Athens: "Right as the world goes is only in question between equals in power, while teh strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

- morals and rights only exist between equals and power.

"The standard of justice depends on the equality of power."

Decline of Classical Tradition

- rise of Roman Empire (Pax Romana) left no place for the balance of power concept (no other state to challenge Rome)

- Romans consider those in their periphery as uncivilized and barbarians, who put a threat to their advanced domestic order

(Note: Explains why China never developed IR theory because they never treated others as equals.)

Christian universalism (16th-17th centuries)- permanent transformation from one condition to another with the final destination as end of hitory/ "Kingdom of Heavens"

Renaissance and Return of Classical Tradition

-Italian Wars (1494-1559), the first centralized states, first post-feudal balance of power in Europe

- two powers want the same thing is the beginning of conflict

Decline of the authority of the Roman Pope- Lords of many states' disrespect for Rome and emerging equality of relationships becomes one of the most inspiring reasons for Renaissance political thought.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "The Prince" written for Lorenzo de Medici

"War should be the only study of a prince."

- war is a normal condition as states are always competing. The main responsibility of the rulers is always to defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival. His only responsibility is to protect his power and the people in his country. 

"The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present."

- states can give promises to others but may not bear moral responsibility with regards to others. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while defending self-interest.

"Politics have no relation to morals."

- A responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics, is states follow these values, they will disappear in the end.

- Similar to what Thucydides said that only strength matters. Politics is so serious that a prince should not approach politics with a normal human attitude to questions like morals, justice, humanism.

Machiavelli draws a clear line between internal and international. What is permissible internationally does not exist inside the society, and what is normal inside of the society like morals or justice does not exist in International Relations

Side note: I was once surprised to find my ex with a copy of "The Prince" and back then I remember feeling he might be corrupted by Machiavellian thought because you know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I was right. Looking back, he really acted like a Machiavellian prince except his domain is his family and not a state. He never sincerely cared for others and everything he did is for his family and to increase his stature in his clan's eyes too redeem himself for his past misdeeds. This is why he can easily manipulate people without feeling guilty. He was obsessed about power and glory and never cared about values like integrity, respect, and justice. Looking back, his dividing line serving as basis for how he treats a person is if that person is within his ethnic circle or not.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

- human beings lived in a condition of "war everyone against everyone" (state-less state of nature) thus a state is needed toe scape from this situation. Leviathan (sovereign state/ supreme ruler) will maintain order and end anarchy, thus making possible economic development, art, and knowledge.

- social contract between individuals and government and the important unit is not the individual, but the state.

Clash of Leviathans: The Thirty Years War

- States are in continuous competition and rivalry because of their independence and jealousies. Survival is the main purpose.

Achievement of personal security and domestic security through the creation of a state leads to international insecurity that is rooted in the anarchy of state system.

Leviathans are doomed to fight a war everyone against everyone because of feelings of insecurity and eagerness for power, wealth, and glory.

It is impossible to establish a Leviathan over Leviathan as states will never give up their sovereignty. Anarchy is a norm and the eternal state of the international system. Individuals can only give up freedoms to the national government for safety and security, and not to world government.

Hobbes was inspired by Thirty Years War (1618-1648; war against the the Hapsburg hegemony)

Peace of Westphalia (1648)- realist triumph

- several negotiations among bureacrats (lawyers) instead of heads of states.

3 principles of Westphalian sovereignty

(In IR, by order, refers to Westphalian order)

1. "Whose realm, his religion"- a sovereign defined religion in a certain area

2. "Every king is the emperor in his kingdom"- all states are independent and equal to each other

3. No one can be stronger than others- balance of power as the key principle of international politics.

And if we look at the international relations nowadays after the end of the Cold War, we will find that when one nation tried to become stronger and become dominant over the others, the others resisted. And the reason for the anarchy in international relations, the reason of the decrease of the order in international relations is exactly because of the conflict around the terms of one power to become the strongest and dominant and resistance of the others. 

Henry Kissinger on the Westphalian order- Not about substance but about procedures, about how states should treat each other, about rules, order, law.

微微一笑很倾城/ Love 020 (First Impressions)

So I have been crying while watching Godzilla (yes, I cried buckets of tears but don’t judge me!) and 四月わ君の噓 (which I can totally relate to and which is about music so I really am bound to cry!) and every Saturday I go to the municipal library to use their free WIFI and watch Youtube videos.

the virtual wedding of Yixiao Naihe and Luwei Weiwei

I stumbled upon Love 020 (a.k.a. A Smile is Beautiful/ 微微一笑很倾城) one day while randomly watching videos on Youtube. It kept appearing in my feeds and so out of curiosity I clicked episode 1, thinking it’s another one of those wuxia or fantasy dramas. (My sister also said she often sees it on Youtube… Hmmmm…) It turned out to be a good mix of both, except that the period stuff is limited to the virtual world of gaming while the characters are actually university students. It’s hard to believe that Mainland China has made this series. Previous attempts were a flop, like the Mainland version of Meteor Garden, which I never bothered to watch even an episode. So maybe what they say about China finally being serious with strengthening soft power is true. Also, what a fine way to finally showcase how well-off Chinese citizens are now. Love 020 is, in my opinion, a successful project because of the following elements:

1. good-looking actors and actresses so one can’t help but go KYAAAAAAAAAA~ (Compared to previous drama series where they fielded in common-looking actors… ugh!)

2. Excessive use of computer graphics which is sending out a message that China is now technologically advanced (After all, they now have the four modern precious inventions which are very relevant in today's digital age as the four precious ones were in the past. Indeed, we are seeing the revival of China in this century.)

3. The cutesy plot is similar to J-Dramas which feed on female fantasies of the ideal man (KYAAAAA~ again… My Domjouji ideal will soon be overshadowed because… Yangyang, why look so hot either as 肖奈/Xiaonai or as his virtual alter ego Yixiao Naihe 一笑奈何!!! *insert smiley with hearty eyes) Xiaonai is not just the top player in the online game, he is also a basketball player, a swimmer, a budding technopreneur, a go player, and a heartthrob to boot. (They should have added that he is a talented pianist or violinist, too! *sarcasm) If a person is that kind of a package, he will surely have large eyebags, but no, they packaged him as everything you can look for in a man, except he’s not a musician. BOO! (Coz damn it, the Chinese have a very long musical history, why not bank on that??? Come on!)

On the romance part, I find it really superficial that Xiaonai falls in love with Weiwei upon seeing her play, because she plays calmly and with grace, her swift fingers confidently pressing keyboard keys and effortlessly defeating her virtual alter ego’s adversaries with poise. (As in many shallow TV series, the characters fall in love because of superficial things, not because of virtues and values. Ugh!) It just so happens that Weiwei is an equally strong character. She is the top female player in the game, the Computer Science Department Beauty Queen, a brilliant techie who knows how to fix her own laptop, and is a loving friend. So in a way, it is refreshing to see a strong independent woman in this series unlike the those we usually encounter in K-Drama (Goblin anyone?). Her only “flaw” is just she “was an old shoe”, having “married” in the game to complete a quest and getting divorced by the asshole so he can “marry” a different female player. So when the super popular top player 一笑奈何 proposed to her, we see people’s double standards who think 芦苇微微 is not good enough for him but nobody condemned her previous “husband” for requesting “divorce” in the game. But 一笑奈何 acts as the perfect gentleman when he ensured that there will be a lavish wedding ceremony and that those who badmouth his wife are horribly punished. KYAAAAA~. And they really are a perfect couple because they both are so well-composed and sensible, both are well-respected and looked up to in school, and both are good-looking.

Luwei weiwei on her second wedding day--- this time to someone who will become his real lover

Yixiao Naihe on horsebck leading the wedding procession

First date as husband and wife... KYAAAA~~~

Notes:

1. The characters study in one of China’s prestigious universities, Tsinghua. I am astounded at how different the dormitories look compared to the ones I visited in Xiamen (not Xiamen University). I don’t know if these are just edited but I find Tsinghua University a beautiful place and the dormitories are very clean, tidy, and full of cute stuffs, like the ones you usually in Taiwan or Japan. So is this China’s way of luring international students to one of their best schools? If that’s the case, I WANT TO GO (and perhaps find my Xiaonai there KYAAAAAA)!!!

2. Is this China’s way of encouraging its youth, especially women, to take up Computer Science? I’ve watched one interview after Xi Jinping’s super lengthy speech during the last National People’s Congress and the Party openly says that science and technology are top priorities for the country’s continuous development. After that, a female scientist was interviewed about the pros and cons of working in the science sector because apparently female scientists are only allowed to work up to a certain age, a limiting factor indeed for women who have brilliant minds (and needless to say, an unnecessary loss to China’s booming tech industry.) So maybe they are lifting constraints for women after all?

So anyway, I will have to watch all 30 episodes to know. But this early, after watching two episodes, I already formed some observations and hypotheses. LOL. It’s the month of love (except I am lonely in a faraway country IN WINTER season) so I am allowing myself to partake in kilig moments in this series… while trying to shut my hyperactive mind up coz my overthinking often overshadows my [frail and fragile] heart. 

****************************

Trivia: Yangyang played the role of Jia Baoyu in the 2007 remake of Dream of Red Mansions. *hearts in eyes.

Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World (Dennis Ross)

The first time I laid eyes on Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World, I rolled my eyes and thought, another one of those bullshit books about America as savior of the world! Really! It's bad enough that Marvel Comics created Captain America, that character hero of the World War. I hadn't thought of buying the book at first but curiosity got the better of me. I randomly leafed through a few pages, just to see if there's something worth my while in it and when I saw sections on the discussion of statecraft, I was sold.

Statecraft, as defined by US diplomat Dennis Ross (also author of the book), is the "use of the assets or the resources and tools (economic, military, intelligence, media) that a state has to pursue its interests and to affect the behavior of others, whether friendly or hostile (p.2)." As such, it "involves making sound assessments and understanding where and on what issues the state is being challenged and can counter a threat or create a potential opportunity or take advantage of one  (p.2)."

With the definition established, Ross gathers cases wherein statecraft is practiced, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Starting with the German Uuification in NATO to the Serbian conflict and to the political chaos in the Middle East, Ross examines and evaluates how America positions itself in each case while inserting short discussions of two important tools in statecraft: negotiation and mediation. From the cases stated, he offers examples of both good and bad examples of statecraft practice.

Ross concludes with how America can deal with China whose booming economy is causing it to rise as a major global power. He reiterates and emphasizes again the basics of statecraft: clear objectives tied to reality, clear and realistic means to achieve the objectives, recognizing key points of leverage, and timely consulting with key persons involved.

While this book focuses more on state-level cases, I think an average person would appreciate this book as it can also serve as a guide to negotiations and dealings in life. (Aside from that, it also allows readers to have glimpses of what diplomats really do and how they do their job.) Still, I am not sold to the idea that America is the hope of the world. Methinks it is the scourge of the world.