Category: Topic Brief Page 15 of 16

Topic Brief: 2008 Kenyan Elections

By

On February 12, 2008

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

Overview

After a few weeks mired in the mess of American politics, it’s time to return international issues and the mess of politics that is Kenya – long one of the most stable African nations.  Six weeks ago Kenya held a presidential election that was won – albeit questionably – by Mwai Kibaki.  Since that time, ethnic violence has spread throughout the country, with all major ethnic groups against the Kikuyu – the tribe Mr. Kibaki is from.  While international efforts have arisen to try to prevent Kenya from becoming another Sudan, including a special envoy by Kofi Annan, the lack of a united front or response has failed to create enough pressure to end the political disputes that continue the violence.

Read More

Topic Brief: Super Tuesday 2008

By

On February 5, 2008

In Topic Brief, U.S. Extemp

Overview

With 24 states having some variety of primary/convention/caucus, Super Tuesday had the potential to be the deciding day of the primaries. On the Republican side, John McCain used the day to gain a decisive lead. However, the Democratic debates stated closely contested – the difference currently between Clinton and Obama built almost entirely on super delegates. As such this brief will try to address both the why of the vote as well as the effect that this vote will have on the general election.

Who Won Where and the Delegate Count:  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Read More

Topic Brief: China-United States

By

On February 1, 2008

In International Extemp, Topic Brief, U.S. Extemp

By Michael Garson

Following the Cold War, extempers were cursed: they could not find a counterpart to American power. Surely the world will be much tougher to explain when it is unipolar! “Luckily”, China has happily fulfilled the role of rising foreign power that is supposedly hell-bent on supplanting the United States as hegemon. With a powerful economy, growing military, and non-European location, China is a dream for extempers. Not just can global events be tied into American power, but now they can be linked to China. Crisis in Africa? China’s fault. Democracy not catching on in Asia? China’s fault. A tree falls in Brazil? China’s fault. Aside from the fun that extempers can have in linking China to any and all speeches, understanding China’s intentions requires a great deal of research, analysis, and luck. Without the bombastic rhetoric that the Soviet Union employed, it can be hard to solve for China. This brief hopefully will provide enough information and possible explanations to give extempers a chance to get a better grasp of Sino-American relations.

This brief aims to examine how China and America interact by providing two hypothetical, and highly popular extemp questions. “Is China anti-American?” and “Can China overtake the United States” will both be examined as questions and answered in the affirmative and negative with three reasons supporting each response. Hopefully, this style of analysis will more closely lend itself to understanding the construction, and destruction, of arguments in an extemp-specific context.

Relations with the United States

Is China anti-American?

This question is largely derived from the politics of fear and a desire to better understand the world. First, the politics of fear are not a purely post-9/11 phenomenon, though President Bush and Rudy Giuliani have perfected it to a science. The basic concept is that you can scare the populace into action. Many nationalists see a country that is rapidly growing and immediately fear the worst: China is coming to take over the world. Therefore, evidence and logic are being pieced together to create a narrative. This story explains that China poses an existential threat to the United States.

Additionally, this question helps policymakers, and extempers, understand the world. Historically, growing powers have insatiable appetites for control. Likewise, they contend that China seeks to emulate the Soviet Union’s rise. The difference here is that China learned from the USSR’s mistake and has used economics. If dollars were used to end the USSR, the yuan could be used to wage war on the United States. Whether or not you believe China is anti-American, it is important to avoid clichéd arguments and faulty parallels. Examine all facts and look at which story of China’s rise makes the most sense.

Yes

1. Building alliances

At present, China is significantly weaker than the United States. By any measure

(military, economics, politics, diplomacy, culture), America is light-years ahead of China. Therefore, it would be obvious to the allegedly anti-American Chinese to build an alliance. The United States is not so far ahead of the world that it could withstand a multilateral political assault on its power. China’s economic overtures into the Middle East and South America are completely understandable. China needs oil to fuel its economy and markets to sell to. However, recent months have shown China moving from economic partnerships to political ones. As the amount of “international political conferences” increases, concern should follow. The more countries talk, the more likely they are to air out dirty laundry and attempt to address grievances. Some of those grievances likely include the United States. The main link necessary to make this argument is that China is engaging with the world maliciously. One is hard-pressed to look at political alliances and unequivocally claim that China is attempting to use mid-level powers as pawns to stop the American juggernaut.

2. Using economic power

With underdeveloped and overmatched political power, China’s only chance to

get under America’s skin is in economics. With billions of American dollars in storage, China has shown flashes of malice. Two summers ago China responded to an American tariff on Chinese textiles by removing the export tax. This one act, and myriad other isolated incidents, show that China is not afraid to unleash free-market principles on the world. Despite accusations of dumping, China is only scratching the surface. On a nearly weekly basis, newspapers are reporting about a new Chinese economic venture that threatens American jobs. Anytime China enters the global economic market, it can be interpreted as an overtly provocative act by alarmists.

3. Opposition to US on key issues

It is virtually a given that countries are going to disagree on issues. However,

when China and the United States do not see eye to eye, it is hailed another flashpoint in a growing Cold War. Famously, China has protected North Korea from American pressure and intervention. Support for a poor country led by a dictator with nuclear ambitions certainly seems suspicious on this side of the Pacific. Additionally, China has resolutely supported dictatorships and genocides if it serves the national interest. The Sudanese government has been shielded by China’s desire for oil. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to be so bombastic and hostile partially due to Chinese support. There are so many disagreements that it could make even the most optimistic of extempers wonder if China is being obstinate. By supporting such unsavory characters, China has made politics exceedingly difficult for the United States.

No

1. Chinese desire for regional dominance

The underlying principle of China’s supposed anti-Americanism is that somehow

feels wronged. After all, countries would not have conflicts if there were not irreconcilable differences. In the case of China, some will argue that these differences do not exist. The central desire of the United States is security and prosperity at the national level by implementing security and prosperity abroad. One could argue that the United States does not want to control the world, but feels it is necessary.

China offers not a threat, but a solution to this situation. China is willing to take Asia off of the United States’ hands. As will be described later, China wants to implement a tribute-style system in Asia, where major policy decisions in the region run through Beijing.  Though certainly not the most democratic or “American” of countries, China only wants to control its own backyard. To the extent that stabilization of a continent is good, China is simply not anti-American.

2. Has not used power against America

In the world of politics, talk is cheap. It is easy for world leaders to condemn

other countries for running roughshod over international norms and expectations. The big leap is from words to action. Even if we are to accept Chinese rhetoric as decidedly anti-American, which it really has not been, there has been no subsequent action. Sure, China has occasionally sent missiles into the air and repealed export tariffs, but those actions can be declared to be anti-American. China could easily justify all their actions in the past decade under the banners of political unification and economic growth. Using the American judicial system, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. To level the charge of anti-Americanism on a country that has yet to accept the title could have very deep ramifications. To make the argument circular, labeling China anti-American could increase tensions, actually making China anti-American.

3. China needs America

The most obvious reason that China is not anti-American is because it would be

stupid to be. China simply cannot afford to intentionally oppose the United States. As evidenced by the Middle East, the United States do not take kindly to overt opposition. While an invasion of China would range from unfathomably counterintuitive to impossible, the United States could use diplomacy to make life a little tougher. Both countries are powerful to ruin each other (Mutually Assured Destruction theory makes a comeback!), so anger and destructive plans would be unwise.

Aside form the military angle, the United States serves as a key political and

economic asset. The United States currently calls the shots globally and its approval is a prerequisite for power. Influence in the international community with other democratic, industrialized countries would be difficult if the United States did not formally recognize China. Economically, the United States is a huge consumer of Chinese products. China has built an export-driven economy. Despite the recent economic slowdown and upsurge in economic nationalism, the United States has continued with insatiable appetite for foreign products. If China truly was anti-American, they would not continue to sell goods to them. Further, China currently holds a great deal of investments denominated in the American dollar.

Can China overtake the United States?

This type of question is exceedingly popular for policymakers and extemp question-writers. There is something very enticing about the idea of the world shifting from unipolarity. Impacting out of this question can be both fun and easy. Letting the globe be controlled by a communist country would unleash myriad ramifications that would interest even the most disinterested of judges.

The danger is in not defining terms. One of the most overlooked aspects of answering an extemp question is clarifying what exactly is being answered. Without a definition to what the question is alluding to, the next 5 minutes of the speech will be a complete waste of time. Power need not be defined in such literal terms as “Having an economy x times bigger than the 2nd largest or a military that can destroy the next 3 largest combined”. Simply saying in the introduction that “overtake” means being the most powerful is also not enough. Defining “most powerful” as the country that has the power to push its agenda the farthest would be sufficient. Though it makes answering the question and linking points to the answer harder, clarifying terms early gives the speech clarity, coherence, and a direction. Otherwise, a speech is 7 minutes of vagaries and incomplete arguments.

Yes

1. Economy will eventually surpass America’s

It would be pointless for this brief to trot out dozens of studies, charts, and graphs that determine precisely when China’s economy will be larger than that of the United States. An extemper can find out that information after spending a few minutes on Google. It is not the date of the change, but the seeming inevitability of it that scares American policymakers.  As noted in the previous brief of globalization, the significance of economics in global power is larger now than ever before. The ability to buy and sell alliances on the open political market has become commonplace. With double-digit growth, China does not even have to sustain its current growth rate to pass the United States. As America’s economy slumps due to high commodity prices, bad investments, and increased debt, China seems primed to be number one.

Within the context of a speech, it is imperative to link economic dominance to other measurements. Power is such a vague concept, that it is not enough to let a large economy be directly linked to hegemony. To provide evidence for this contention, I would advise extempers to use examples of how China has translated economics into politics. Numerous bilateral trade deals have been put in place. As referenced earlier, China’s relationship with Latin America is almost entirely out of economic convenience. Using Latin America as a case-study, extempers could show that if the world starts to see China as a stronger economic ally, then global support will shift to the Far East’s leader.

2. Undeveloped population and political power are resources

Though not entirely fair, it is somewhat logical that countries with more people

will be more powerful. Larger populations give way to greater economic growth, a stronger political base, and a larger military. With the possible exception of India, there is no more underutilized population than that of China. Roughly a third of China’s population in the booming southeast region of the country.  This means that there are 700 million people living in China’s rural areas to the north and west. In other terms, a population more than twice the size of America’s is largely engaging in subsistence farming in small towns. China’s meteoric rise despite only using a fraction of the population makes the sleeping dragon that much scarier. Again, extempers need to be sure to link a larger population into terms that can be directly associated with power. Explicitly how people can improve an economy, society, and military, coupled with an explanation of how those three factors directly lead to power may seem tedious. Yet, it is imperative that the judge is constantly aware that each argument and statistic is part of the competitor’s attempt to answer the question.

Aside from ignoring the majority of the population, China has yet to fully capitalize on its political capital globally. To reference previous briefs that addressed types of power, China may have more soft power than it realizes. As a refresher, soft power is the concept developed by Joseph Nye that allows countries to advance an agenda by showing common interests with another country. In other words, China’s role as the less-than-democratic counterpart to the United States may be very attractive to certain countries. Many countries around the world reluctantly align themselves with the United States out of fear and convenience. The support of the largest military and economy tends to let many smaller powers ignore any ideological disagreements. If China continues its rise, it could offer an alternative to small powers looking for protection. Hugo Chavez and Middle Eastern leaders would be free to say and do anything under the cover of China’s protection. Latin American populists and nationalists would no longer fear the United States. Though it would be extremely unlikely there would ever be a threat of conflict, China has the possibility of restarting a Cold War, bipolarizing the world. The only way to do this would be to add pressure to smaller powers to fall in line under the Chinese banner.

3. US is willing to give up the role

After World War II, the United States was left alone as the superpower. Despite a challenge from the Soviet Union, America has remained number one for roughly six decades. Being in control has offered alliances and a serious attempt at global democratization. Also, debts have been left unpaid since the world needs the United States as the global net consumer.  However, in the words of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility”. The costs of leading the world are taking their toll and may be enough to convince the US to step aside and let China give it a try.

To review some of the problems of hegemony:

–          America has needed to lead efforts to stop despotism (World Wars, counter the USSR, get involved in Somalia, Yugoslavia etc.)

–          If America did not act, it was called selfish and racist (as evidenced by inaction in Rwanda)

–          If America did not act perfectly, it was called heavy-handed and inept (as evidenced by action in Somalia and the 2nd Gulf War)

–          Even if it does act nobly and effectively, it can be called imperial by helping to rebuild a country (Japan, Germany, Afghanistan)

–          It is looked at as the source of problems and solutions in the global economy

o   The United States is virtually required to be a net consumer to keep other economies afloat

I am not suggesting that the United States wants, or should, stop being a global leader. That debate is for another brief and largely irrelevant to China’s rise. However, it is relevant to the extent that a question involving China’s power relative to the United States could be partially answered by answering the American side of the equation. A rising China is irrelevant if the United States grows at the same rate. A falling America and growing China allows the extemper to show how the two countries will intersect sooner rather than later.

No

1. China lacks institutional alliances

Global (co-)dominance is not as easy as having the money and military to enforce

national agenda. No country could get away with an overtly aggressive foreign policy. Therefore, there needs to be subtle ways to indirectly use power to get the desired result. The best way to do so is through institutions. If a country has control over a respected organization or system, it can derive the benefits of power without the fallout of blame and jealousy. A prime example is America’s leading role in the WTO, World Bank, and IMF. America, and its western allies, use these organizations to implement a western economic agenda. Economic growth is closely monitored and regulated by the world’s elite. Countries that disobey economic or political norms can be punished with trade restrictions. Though underutilized, the United States exerts influence in the United Nations. As co-founder of the organization, America can make backroom deals to coax the right vote totals. To draw an unnecessary Harry Potter parallel, the United States has invested parts of it soul in many places around the world. Surpassing America’s economy and military is simply not enough. All of the “horcruxes” must be destroyed before China can officially claim victory.

When looking at where China can add institutional strength, the prospects look bleak. Some regional organizations, such as ASEAN may be helpful, but there simply are not that many global institutions that are not already controlled. The UN would be a viable option given China’s Security Council veto power, but the United States, France, and England provide a check on China. Unless China plans on growing so large and important that it can create a legitimate global organization that it can control, it will be nearly impossible to have institutional alliances. In the rare event that China can create a global group of significance, it would not matter. The sheer ability to do so would show sufficient power to be a global leader in the first place.

2. Regional, not global ambitions

This point requires a bit of applied knowledge and guesswork, but certainly is

valid. Historically, China has not aspired to be a global leader. Instead, it wants to have a pseudo-empire throughout Asia. China’s aggressive rhetoric is typically directed at fellow Asian powers, not the industrialized, western states. One of the reasons that the United States desired global dominance is because of a lack of history. Countries that have ruled before often want to return to the “glory days”. For the United States, there were no glory days, so it chased power to the greatest extent possible. In contrast, China’s glory days created a continental tribute system with China at the top.

A modernized tribute system is likely China’s goal. It would entail the same

geographic and political boundaries throughout the region. Any time that a smaller power wanted to enact a significant policy change, it would ask China for approval. Countries would have independence, but be subject to Chinese oversight. This idea does seem horribly antiquated and infeasible, but when Chinese leaders reference their golden ages, it is clear that they have a love affair with the past. Indeed, China may desire to make its past its future. Clearly, if China does not have global ambitions, America will remain at the top, regardless of China’s power possibilities.

3. Lacks a uniform foreign policy to set a global agenda

Certain bedrock principles are required to make a push for hegemony. The United

States has relied heavily on capitalist and democratic rhetoric. World Wars were justified to the people as a war against tyranny and despotism. The Cold War was a protracted struggle for basic human freedoms. America left the Gold Standard in order to preserve economic freedom for the masses. While there are some exceptions, the United States’ actions have been largely predictable. Countries that stand beside America know exactly what they are signing up for.

In contrast, China lacks those principles. One could argue that China is simply a

re-creation of the Soviet Union. They are both communist countries that reject American democracy. However, the similarities end there. China has employed free-market principles and loosened restrictions on democracy. The only common thread of China’s actions in the past few decades is a desire for power. While desiring strength is fine as an internal decision-calculus, it does not make for a foreign policy. A world led by China would be very inconsistent. Petrostates would be left unchecked, some democracies challenged, and other countries ignored. Power is not a guiding principle for global power distribution. Ruling the world would prove impossible, forcing the world to descend into international anarchy. Surely countries recognize the potential for ineptitude in leadership and wish to avoid such a fate. Therefore, few will consent to Chinese leadership, creating a global coalition against China surpassing the United States.

“China’s Peaceful Rise.” Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2005/chinaspeacefulrise.aspx>.

This book review references speeches by Zheng Bijian during the turn of the millenium. Zheng was the first Chinese official to coin the term “peaceful rise”. This philosophy holds that China can grow into a powerhouse without encroaching on the pre-existing order.

Ikenberry, G. John. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West.” Jan.-Feb. 2008. Foreign Affairs. <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87102/g-john-ikenberry/the-rise-of-china-and-the-future-of-the-west.html>.

This article starts off with a dangerous proposal: China is guaranteed to overthrow the United States. Working off of this starting point, Ikenberry explores what the world would look like. His solutions are extremely fascinating and provide myriad impacts, AGDs, and possibilities.

Naim, Moises. “Can the World Afford a Middle Class?” Los Angeles Times. 8 Feb. 2008. <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-naim8feb08,0,3322827.story>. Mr. Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, looks at the growth in the developing world and explores its ramifications. He notes there simply may not be enough resources globally to go around. Americans have long benefited from taking more than their alloted share of the world’s offerings. If the Chinese middle class become more powerful, they will inevitably be at loggerheads with the United States’ population.

Thornton, John L. “Long Time Coming.” Jan.-Feb. 2008. Foreign Affairs. <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87101/john-l-thornton/long-time-coming.html>.

Thornton contends that China is in fact democratizing. Even though it may in be at the rate or fashion that the United States desires, China is opening up. He certainly does not make a groundbreaking argument but combines fact with theory to create a narrative of a liberating China.

“U.S. Based Global Firms Oppose Trade Limits on China.” 7 Feb. 2008. MarketWatch. <http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-based-global-firms-oppose-trade/story.aspx?guid=%7BA8DA2B44-3619-462C-917E-0411F544D5AB%7D>.

During economic hard times, there is an impulse to stop international trade. This article investigates how American policymakers are grappling with seeing China as the cause and/or solution to America’s economic woes.

Topic Brief: China-Domestic

By

On February 1, 2008

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

At present, China is a fascinating country to study. The average extemper is hard-pressed to explain how an authoritarian, “communist” country is presiding over unprecedented economic growth. How a country that was left alone for decades has been thrust into the global economy in a matter of a few years requires a complicated back-story. The reconciliation of stability, growth, and political repression necessitates a herculean effort on behalf of the Chinese government. As the country undergoes major changes, it is crucial for international extempers to not lose sight of the Chinese perspective. This brief intends to offer deeper understanding by seeing China from the inside out.

This brief will:

–          Look at China’s internal political structure

o   Determine the extent to which China is communist

o   Focus on the role of the Communist party

o   Decipher Taiwan’s role for China and the United States

o   Examine regional autonomy and differences

§  Analyze the causes of the urban/rural & rich/poor gaps

§  Look for solutions to keep China stable and thriving

–          Look at China’s Economy history

o   Use WTO accession as a turning point

o   Describe China’s economic structure

o   Explore the possibility of economic sustainability

Politics

China is Communist?

When addressing China, extempers often hold on to the concept of communism for dear life. They feel that using the broad stroke of communism can be used to derive China’s domestic policies. Unfortunately, China is not communist in the same way that the Soviet Union was. In fact, the Soviet Union was not even communist in the way that Karl Marx would have wanted. The concept of communism is rather simple: all citizens work for the good of society, giving their labors to the state, which equally redistributes wealth. The key advantage of this system is that allows society to eliminate the problems of capitalism: inequality and poverty. No one would go hungry in a communist system, but no one would be fabulously wealthy. Economically, communism relies on a state-driven model, since producers and consumers cannot be trusted to create equality. The state collectivizes small business, taking advantage of economies of scale. With large production levels, costs can be kept low, production can be monitored, and distribution can be equitable.

In totality, modern China does not look like this dream state. The markets are opening up, allowing for competition on the open market both in China and abroad. Some smaller elections have been liberated, giving the people power. However, the state is also somewhat authoritarian. A revolution that was originally designed to serve the people, has repressed the people for decades. Political dissidents are jailed and/or executed. The internet is closely monitored to ensure citizens do not visit any pro-democracy websites. All in all, China is communist in name only. A more apt description would be an authoritarian state with an increasingly open economy.

Role of Party

The Chinese Communist Party originally arose as a Marxist movement. Led by Mao Zedong, the party sought to bring equality and prosperity to the disenfranchised masses. In the same way that the Soviet Union fell to corrupt leaders, China no longer represented the change it claimed to advocate. Communism became authoritarianism and “first among equal” leaders became despots. The party, under Zedong, inextricably linked a socialist political body with a state-owned economy. It argued that the “people” (read: government elite) need to be in control of the entire country, politics and economics included.

In the 1990s, the party changed its course under Deng Xioaping. Deng claimed that the state need not be socialist and eschew the free market. Indeed, the country can stick to socialist principles while simultaneously opening up the economy. He believed that China’s large population and relatively abysmal standard of living could be bettered through international trade. The country teased with this concept and found early success. Over the past two decades, China has found a direct correlation between economic freedom and growth. Decades of underutilization are being made up at a record pace. Oppressive politics no longer rule over China’s economic destiny.

Currently, the party still keeps strong control over the people. As the only real political party in the country, the communists pick national leaders. The General Secretary of the communist party, Hu Jintao, is also president of China. As a historical parallel, the Chinese communist party is a more violent version of Mexico’s PRI. The party brings the citizens under a common banner and is the beginning and end of national politics. By focusing on using leaders within a system, China has resisted dictatorships. Power is spread out over party leaders just enough to keep political consistency while making sure no single person is too powerful.

The most recent challenge to the party comes not from the people, but from within. As economic growth continues to define China’s 21st century, some local leaders are pursuing growth at any cost. Completely ignoring the national government’s stated objectives and limitations, local chapters of the party have gotten into hot water. This theme truly began last year and has been quietly bubbling just underneath the surface. To be sure, the communist party will inevitably fail, as political institutions do. What remains to be seen is if its demise will be internal or external in nature.

Taiwan

Nearly every “international hotspots” round has a question on Taiwan. As the middle ground between the United States and China, this small island is a lightning rod for analysis. Taiwan existed as a haven for Chinese nationalists who sought to overthrow Chairman Mao and his communist regime. The United States acknowledged the Taiwanese government as the actual representative of all of China for decades. It would become almost comical as Taiwanese delegates would sit at the United Nations supposedly speaking for a swath of land it did not control. At present, nearly all of the countries in the world reluctantly have acknowledged mainland China as the rightful government in China. The “One China” policy is the brilliant move that has provided the legitimacy. It holds that in order to engage with China (i.e. trade), the other party must acknowledge that there is only one China, and it is led by the communist party. Though little more than rhetorical lip service, the world has been forced to distance itself from Taiwan.

Taiwan currently is a democratic pseudo-state that is under Chinese supervision. There has been a cessation of hostilities, giving Taiwan increased independence. However, whenever Taiwanese leaders become too brazen and discuss national sovereignty, China will be sure to enforce order. The mainland also has this tendency to shoot missiles over Taiwan into the Pacific Ocean as part of “routine tests”. In truth, China wants Taiwan to know that it could destroy its nationalist neighbor in a matter of seconds if it so desired.

For whatever reason, question writers seem to periodically wonder how the United States figures into this equation. With all due respect, America simply does not have a place. It would be absolutely ridiculous for America to take the moral high ground and officially recognize Taiwan as a soverign state. Doing so would only inflame Sino-Taiwanese and Sino-American relations. If Taiwan accepted the American assertion, China could stage a full-scale invasion, claiming insubordination and an attempt at secession. I would love to get involved in a detailed manner of freeing Taiwan, but one just does not exist. The current détente works for all parties involved, and there is no reason to change it until the situation is altered.

Regional Problems

Rural/Urban gap

One of the most underreported problems in China is the plight of the rural poor. As China’s double-digit economic growth rate keeps it at the forefront of international affairs, most of its population is suffering. Given the population exceeds one billion people, the power of the suburban and urban should come as no surprise. Roughly one-third of Chinese citizens live in the high-growth, modernizing southeast portion of the country. Meanwhile, the overwhelming geographic majority of the country is left to subsistence farmers. The sparse population and inability to inhabit throughout the northwest creates two Chinas. The government currently faces growing problems from both parts of the country. The rising middle-class in modern China may soon grow wiser and start to demand political, as well as economic, freedoms. Additionally, if the rural poor become aware of what life in the cities is like, they may increase demand for government services and money. This demand will challenge the well-being, and superiority, of the urban population that has grown accustomed to the attention and funds that come with growth.

Causes

The main cause of this problem is rather obvious: economics. Cities are more likely to experience economic growth than small farm towns. With a large labor force to draw from, businesses arrive in the cities. As industry increases, it brings in more people and money, creating a cycle of wealth. In more democratic and benevolent governments, rural areas are offered lower tax rates and government services. In China, the government has continued to milk its cash cow, spurring increased growth in the region. While agrarian towns in China are not necessarily worse off now than they were decades before, they are being denied the gains realized in other parts of the country. Greed and a democracy deficit are the primary causes of this gap. If the government was directly responsible to the people, then the 70% of the population which is rural would vote for politicians that ensured equality. Without the authorization of the people, the government is free to pursue growth at any cost.

Solutions

Solving for the rich-poor gap in theory is rather easy. Having the national government offer tax cuts and increase services would go a long way. With all of the tax revenue that the southeastern part of the country is generating, it would be “fair” to siphon some off to less-fortunate citizens. Also, the farmers would surely appreciate greater access to education, healthcare, and other towns. Building infrastructure in all parts of the country would be costly, but improve the quality of life in the region.

While serving the people is a noble governmental goal, it is not necessarily high on the priority list of an authoritarian government. Hearkening back to the mantra of government, it is a government’s primary goal to stay in power. If the status quo, or a prolonged existence of it, can be deemed an existential threat, then the Communist Party will have to reevaluate the situation. The reason for inaction is that the government does not see the 700 million disenfranchised citizens as dangerous. Sparsely populated and seemingly accepting of their situation, the government does not see why it should be afraid. However, history suggests otherwise. As the country continues to grow, it will be impossible to keep the entire country in the dark. Knowledge and money, on some scale, will trickle out to everyone. With knowledge and money comes power and understanding. Discourse and analysis will ultimately make the poor realize how manipulated and ignored they have been. Surely the flowery prose of John Locke and/or brilliance of Adam Smith will make the Chinese government appear in a different light. Indeed, a revolution may start to brew among the people who feel taken advantage of for generations. As money, not guns, become the new currency of power, the Chinese government will soon face the existential threat that they have convinced themselves does not, and will not, exist.

Economy

WTO Accession

Prior to the 1990s, China was an economic disappointment. With such a large population, the economy could not get past subsistence farming and weak industries. The communist party’s strict control over the national economy restricted growth since it limited exports. With only enough goods to satiate domestic demand, the Chinese economy was little more than a super-sized commune. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization. The move was an attempt to improve the economy through expanded trade and to enter the international community as part of the “peaceful rise” program.

Significance

China joining the WTO is arguably the single greatest catalyst to China’s arrival on the international scene in earnest. There is no doubt that China derives its power from its great economy. Without access to global markets , China would struggle to compete internationally. The artificial (as opposed to natural) advantages of cheap labor and low environmental standards allowed China to undercut other producers and saturate the market. The love affair that countries have with cheap Chinese manufactured goods has spurred China’s rise.

What it symbolizes

Since China gains so much power from economics, it has set a precedent for other countries to follow. Granted, India is the only other country with so many underemployed, but the system works. Joining the WTO appears to be a prerequisite for global economic growth. Once the world accepts a country as a viable economic ally, suddenly political issues seem less relevant. For example, the United States famously ignores human rights abuses and alleged state-sponsored terrorism from its oil-exporting “allies”.  Indeed, the Chinese blueprint exists for other countries. Vietnam, for example has not compromised politics, but currently is trying to crack the global market and find a niche. Small and large countries alike can legitimize themselves through economics.

Structure

Role of Labor

Again, economic advantages can be natural or artificial. A natural advantage is one that exists without the benefits of society or infrastructure, like the prevalence of natural resources. An artificial advantage is the result of societal interaction. Transportation systems and access to larger markets are artificial means of dropping prices. Labor is an example of an artificial advantage. As globalization makes communications cheaper and faster, it is becoming more efficient to pay transactions costs and increase production in China. One of the primary reasons that Chinese goods are so attractive is that the labor required for production is significantly cheaper than that of the United States. Without hundreds of millions of potential workers, China would not experience double-digit growth annually.

Reliance on resources

An introduction economics course will constantly stress that all decisions are made at the margin. This means that each economic decision is made at each possible production level. The decision to create 3 widgets is not one decision, but three: the decision to make the first widget, the decision to make the second, and the decision to make the third. Producers seek to maximize profit by determining the perfect amount of production. Production is largely based on how much resources cost. If companies see the price of commodities fall, they will invariably create more goods to take advantage of the heightened profit margin.

Due to the delicate balance between resource prices and economic growth, China’s recent spike in resource consumption has caused a great disturbance. With so much production relocating to China, resources have been forced to follow. Precious metals, coal, and oil have been redirected to China in order to maximize profit. As China continues to undercut the market, it can afford to pay a higher price for prices since labor is relatively cheap. One of the most important parts of natural resources is that they are not creatable. There is a fixed amount of coal in the world and different companies and countries must bid for it. Once the supply runs out, there is no turning back. The increased demand for natural resources has caused a price surge, making production more expensive for the rest of the world. This reliance on resources poses two dangers to China. First, exporters of energy could raise the price to astronomical levels in order to hold the economy hostage. China lacks the strong ties and domestic production necessary to be secure economically. Also, China has been forced to look farther for resources than the industrialized states have. Therefore, alliances with unsavory characters have arose out of necessity.

Sustainability of growth

Necessary preconditions

Whether or not they are perceptible, there are certain factors and institutions that have made China’s dramatic economic rise possible. The most obvious example is a desire for Chinese goods abroad. Economic growth has been fueled by two concurrent factors: direct foreign investment and exports. Direct foreign investment is the economic term for people from different countries investing in a company in a foreign country. The influx of foreign currency has allowed for increased production. Creating more goods is only helpful if the goods can be sold to a consumer. China lacks the necessary strong middle class to consume as much as created, so it looks overseas. Much of what is produced is shipped out to other countries in exchange for more foreign currency. The dollars, Euros, and Yen can be then used to buy foreign products, improving the economy and the standard of living.

Given the recent economic collapse, foreign direct investment and China’s exporting ability have both come into question. Foreign direct investment is almost guaranteed to plummet because of a risk-aversion. One of the causes of America’s recent problems is that bad investments were made in other countries in hopes of getting a high growth rate. The general principle of risk outpacing reward is on the mind of international investors. When it comes time to find a safe place for an investment, few are likely to look at the economic newcomer with growth rates that may be too high to be true.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, exports may end up increasing in China. With the stock market struggling, western consumers have seen the value of their assets fall. Therefore, their perceived income and net worth have dropped. With less money, consumers need to be smarter and more efficient with their purchases. Chinese goods have the distinct advantage of being significantly cheaper than most domestic counterparts. Many consumers will likely overlook economic nationalism in favor of saving a few Euros or rubles. Many Chinese products are inferior goods, meaning that a drop in income does not correlate to a drop in consumption. Happy meal toys and t-shirts are hardly luxury items, shielding China from economic shocks.

With these divergent trends, China may face a currency shortage. Selling goods is not the problem, creating them is. Without a steady inflow of money, some Chinese ventures may go unfunded, hampering economic growth. In all likelihood, the economy is likely to slow down as the world struggles to work its way through a potential recession.

Ramifications of sustained growth

If China is somehow able to keep up high growth rates for the next few years, the world will be forced to react. In a matter of a few decades, the United States will no longer hold claim as the largest global economy. The political ramifications will be addressed elsewhere, but cannot be understated. The economic ramifications are closely linked to economic feasibility since the free market is hard to stop, whereas political theory is constantly subject to criticism and acceptance of the international community.

Is it even possible?

Given China’s current growth pattern given its size and duration of expansion, there really is no telling if it is sustainable. Surely it will be impossible to experience high growth rates for decades to come. Whether or not China has built an economic bubble that is going to burst soon is a hot question for policymakers. Advanced statistical analyses of the viability of increased production is a great asset for those with doctorate degrees in economics. For high school extemp, it would be sufficient to look holistically at the situation. The fact of the matter is that every year growing gets harder. Since growth rates are annual, the expectation is growth upon growth. In order to keep up the percentage, China must grow, in terms of yuan, by more annually. At some point, resources will be exhausted. When this maximization occurs, it likely will continue a slight contraction as investors and consumers blindly believe China can continue to grow. As capital floods the market, inflation is a likely result. All in all, China likely is headed for a wall because there simply will no longer be enough resources to go around.

“China Plans Rail Link to Central Asia for Oil.” 29 Jan. 2008. Times of India. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/India_Business/China_plans_rail_link_to_Central_Asia_for_oil/articleshow/2739036.cms>.

Though anecdotal, this article shows how desperate China really is for oil. Building a railroad into central Asia is China’s best chance at securing oil contracts with former Soviet satellite states. Again, with only so much oil to go around, China has put some fear into the United States.

“Chinese Official Gets Life for Bribery.” 6 Feb. 2008. Guardian. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7286757,00.html>.

This article focuses in on two important themes in Chinese governance. First, corruption has been on the rise as economic growth has increased opportunity for officials to steal. Also, the national government has been forced to crackdown on renegade leaders. The stiff punishment is proof that China is out to stop both corruption and insubordination.

“No Cooling China’s Economic Engine.” 8 Feb. 2008. Asia Times. <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JB08Cb01.html>.

This article suggests that China’s economy is strong enough to withstand a sluggish global economy. Recent snow storms are only temporary hurdles. SARS barely registered as an economic threat despite international concerns and domestic panic. Defeating mother nature and disease surely are more difficult tasks than a market correction due to too much risk, right?

“Whether At Home or Abroad, China is Silent on Matters of Democracy.” 7 Feb. 2008. International Herald Tribune. <http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/asia/letter.php>. The Olympics were left out of the topic brief because they simply are not terribly relevant. Any questions on them will simply be a reflection of pre-standing knowledge of the country’s problems and possibilities. This article addresses China’s inability to address democracy as a national shortcoming.

Topic Brief: Iran

By

On January 1, 2008

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

Many countries covered in extemporaneous speaking are decidedly one-dimensional. Either the economics, politics, or foreign policy of a country stands out as a defining trait. Iran is unique in that it has multiple areas of analysis. Round topics from Middle East to International Economics to U.S. Foreign Policy all are likely to include questions on Iran. As one of the most important countries in a troubled region of the world, Iran certainly merits deeper analysis.

Read More

Topic Brief: International Organizations and Perspectives

By

On January 1, 2008

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

As an extemper, it is easy to see the world as consisting of varied chains of facts and events. Chavez’s rise in Venezuela, Ahmadinejad’s anti-Americanism, and China’s economic rise all are separate issues and need to be treated differently. While this belief is to an extent true, there are philosophies that seek to unite all of these events under a banner of ideology. Explaining the world by setting out a list of priorities and Truths, political ideologies are attractive to thinkers and extempers alike. Consolidating the world makes policy and speech-writing exceedingly easy. Yet, each new trend seems to have a logical or empirical flaw, dooming it to only mild popularity. This brief hopes to look beyond slanted histories and views of international relations and see the world in 2008 as it is.

It is not the New York Times’ headlines on January 1st that define the world on that day. It is the articles in Foreign Affairs and the debates on C-Span that define the world on every day. As the world turns the calendar on yet another year, it seems appropriate to look at where everyone stands. The themes and trends that seem to govern nearly everything need to be explored. Hopefully, this brief will stand apart as a supplement to other briefs and facilitate a greater understanding of the Whys and Hows, not Whats and Whos, of Earth’s present.

This brief will:

–          Examine the United Nations as a possible entity to preserve international peace

o   Critique its ability to be a global arbiter

o   Seek out solutions to improve the Security Council’s effectiveness

–          Explore globalization as a term and as a theme in international relations

o   Tease out the political, economic, and social ramifications of globalization

–          Use Bhutto’s assassination as a case study to understand contrasting ideologies

–          Determine the extent of America’s power

o   Attempt to solve for anti-Americanism

United Nations

Creation/Purpose

Most students learned in history that the United Nations was the brainchild of FDR and Churchill. These men sought to form an international organization that would preserve international peace and security. The organization came to being in 1945 after World War II. The UN has “succeeded” in preventing another major World War, though few will argue it stopped the Cold War from becoming a full-scale conflict. The UN is the primary intergovernmental organization, and is the unofficial microphone for states to express concern over any issue.

Inherent Problem of International Law

The main problem of the United Nations is the main problem of international law: implementation. The concept behind the UN is that countries can self-police themselves. The “good” countries can punish the “bad” countries.  Yet, there is no fixed definition or separation between good and bad. Westerners perceived the Iraqi practice of killing Kurds as wrong and worthy of condemnation. Yet, Saudis perceive the American practice of letting scantily clad women drive and women as blasphemous. The only reason the UN condemned Iraq and not America is because the UN is a western institution and the world is controlled by the industrialized world. The world powers control the Security Council and can afford to buy or coerce votes from smaller countries in the General Assembly.

The reason there are multiple states in the world is to separate those of different religions, ethnicities, cultures, and belief systems. If the world could unite under a singular ideal of government, there would be no need for different countries, other than to limit the population and geography of a governmental unit.  Thus, the push to unite the different countries for common ideals is inherently asinine. The United Nations is an endeavor that is at best, futile and at worst, completely ignorant (be slightly more diplomatic in your extemp speeches, please).

Security Council v. General Assembly

The two most significant bodies within the UN are the Security Council and the General Assembly. The General Assembly is a place where all states can vote on budgetary matters and official recommendations. Each state gets exactly one vote, equalizing the United States to Equatorial Guinea. Many times entire regions vote in blocs for resolutions in the General Assembly. Since Lesotho rarely has a vested interest in a particular issue, it often trades votes with other countries for support on the issues it does care about. Additionally, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, so countries can simply not follow unfavorable recommendations. A fair way to see the General Assembly is that it allows the world to take an internal, corrupt straw poll.

The Security Council is a special organization charged with the responsibility of solving for issues of peace and stability. It has 15 members, 5 of which are permanent members with veto power. The United States, France, England, Russia, and China all have the right to block any resolution. Not surprisingly, all were allies during World War II, and were chosen by FDR and Churchill to have a permanent veto seat. The other 10 seats are doled out to countries and specified by region, to ensure geographic diversity. The UN General Assembly ensures that there is a fair rotation of seats and no non-veto country is on the council more times than appropriate. In order to pass a resolution, all 5 veto-members must vote yes or abstain and there must be at least 9 yeses. Therefore, at least 4 of the 10 non-veto countries must vote yes to pass a bill. Being on the Security Council is a great privilege for lesser countries that rarely get the opportunity to wield such power. Therefore, they often sell their votes for money or policy from the superpowers. The United States may mysteriously pass a bilateral trade deal with the Dominican Republic right before the Dominican Republic goes onto the council to vote on authorizing force in a particular region.

The existence of veto power severely complicates Security Council politics and international issues. As proven during the Cold War, any controversy involving at least one of the veto nations will go nowhere. Therefore, Chinese relations with African dictators or Russian arms sales to Iraq cannot and will not be solved the Security Council. The body has become far more political than expected and politics almost universally and unconditionally are prioritized over policies.

Both bodies suffer from corruption and deal with very different spheres of international relations. The General Assembly is largely irrelevant in most cases since its issues are of generally low significance and the resolutions are non-binding. However, the Security Council’s area of peace and conflict, combined with the power to make binding resolutions makes it far more powerful.

Fixing the Security Council

While acknowledging problems is both easy and fun, finding solutions is slightly more difficult. If feasibility is irrelevant, then it makes the most sense to eliminate veto power. The ability to block resolutions and sounds policies unilaterally gives disproportionate power to five countries. Perhaps a resolution would be rejected if two of the permanent countries voted no. In any event, the threat of a veto inherently limits what the Security Council can do. If the body is supposed to truly work towards preserving international security, it cannot possibly be expected to be successful if some issues are off-limits.

If the security council informally acknowledges that is completely impotent to fix problems involving permanent members, then it can use the body to be more open and balanced. The easiest way to improve perceived fairness is through expansion. Multiple plans exist for expansion and this brief does not intend to go through all of them. However, it is worth noting the arguments for and against the likely suspects. Before doing so, it is important to remember that UN Security Council expansion is unlikely because it limits the powers of the veto nations. More seats yields more votes, which dilutes the relative power of one vote. Additionally, it will be nearly impossible for these new members to have veto power. The UN Security Council’s only real power is derived from the ability of the veto states to cherry-pick particular issues. Adding veto seats would only further limit the power of the body. Without further ado:

Brazil

One of the most logical choices for permanent membership is Brazil. The country brings a lot to the table in varied areas. Its economy is strong, but is largely agricultural. It has a stable democracy with a popular, relatively transparent ruler in Lula. Brazil would also represent Latin America, providing important cultural and geographic balance.

Egypt

Egypt would make for a very controversial addition to the council. As a secular Muslim democracy, the country would give the council a lot of credibility, particularly in the Middle East. However, after Mubarak leaves office, the country’s future is unknown. The last thing the council wants is a militant, fundamentalist Islamic state with a permanent seat. Additionally, there are humanitarian concerns. Mubarak is by most accounts a dictator. Preferring stability over democracy, though prevalent in Russia and China, is a dangerous criterion for the council to convey.

India

As a rising economic and political power, India would be a strong addition. The existence of democracy despite such fragmented and developing political and economic infrastructures is quite impressive. However, high-profile conflicts will likely keep India out. China has famously icy relations with India and enjoys using the security council as a vehicle to express discontent. Also, India and Pakistan’s battle over Kashmir would be worsened if India was given a security council seat. The UN presence in the area would be compromised by India’s persistent attempts to use the troops as a political and military weapon.

Japan

With the world’s second largest economy, Japan seems to be the most obvious addition. Decades have passed since World War II, and Japan is on good terms with all of the veto members, except China. Indeed, China will stop at nothing to keep its sworn enemy off the council. Also, Japan is a culturally insular and xenophobic country. Laws limit immigration and the internal emphasis on the Japanese way would make discussion in the council difficult. Worse, Japan’s constitution prevents pro-active military interventions, creating an isolationist foreign policy. Prospective members need to express a willingness and desire to help those countries and populations that are most in need of peace.

South Africa

Despite a history of racial segregation, South Africa has made great strides to democratize. As a leader of Sub-saharan Africa, South Africa has a relatively strong and stable economy. Additionally, it is attempting to build political capital and emerge as the microphone for the continent. Putting South Africa on the council permanently would provide tremendous cultural, racial, and geographic diversity. However, it would be naïve to portray South Africa as a typical African country. With a developed infrastructure and large European influence, South Africa’s problems are different from those of its neighbors.

If the council wanted to improve the quality, not quantity, of issues and crises solved, then it should improve its military process. The United Nations lacks a standing army primarily because it lacks a standing population (no people = no soldiers). While its headquarters officially rest on “international soil”, the organization is essentially a phantom. This ghost country only receives power from the fear and respect given to it by actual states. Its soldiers are primarily citizens from poor countries looking for a paycheck. Membership in the UN’s military is entirely optional, but soldiers are paid more than workers in many developing countries. The leaders and commanders in the UN’s military come from different countries, creating a fractionalized fighting unit and conflicting battle plans. Problems as simple as speaking different languages hamper UN peacekeeping operations.

Another important fact to remember is that the UN has peacekeepers, not peacemakers. Its soldiers are only allowed to fire if they are directly fired upon. So if rebel groups are launching an assault on a government building, soldiers are not allowed to fire upon the rebels unless and until the rebels fire on the UN soldiers. Bureaucracy and complex rules of engagement keep peacekeepers from being effective.

Globalization

What it is

Novice extempers trying to impress a judge wax poetic about the virtues or perils of globalization. Globalization is declared the savior of human civilization in one speech and vilified as the lone obstacle to peace in the next. However, few are those who do not leave globalization’s definition up to the judge. At the risk of using Public Forum’s strategies, an arbitrary definition should suffice. Explaining globalization as a phenomenon of increasing interactions between people, businesses, and governments around the world would be fine for most judges. It is extremely important that extempers NOT GIVE LOADED DEFINITIONS. The point of extemp is to take facts and trends and show how the preponderance of evidence weighs more heavily on one side. Those who intentionally distort definitions and facts are doing themselves, the judges, the category, and discourse as a whole, a great disservice.

What it is not

–          Globalization is not new. Throughout history there have been periods of increased international relations. Granted, modern times as the highest amount of interaction, but the concept is not new.

–          It is not necessarily a vehicle used by wealthy countries to exploit the poor.

–          It is not the singular cause of any conflict involving multiple cultures

–          It does not explain current events. As a trend, it can describe a series of events. As a concept, it can be used to show how an event happened. “The American economy has stalled because of globalization” is neither an argument nor is it actually true. “The American economy has stalled because the United States has lost control of its own currency” is an argument. Later on in the speech would be appropriate to contextualize currency outflows as an outgrowth of increased unregulated trade, a common occurrence during periods of globalization.

Economic ramifications

  1. Increased Trade

Though debatable, globalization is largely an economic outgrowth from a social phenomenon. From the Asian spice trade to buying a Chilean orange, economic interactions can only exist if the two cultures know each other and are willing to trade. With an increased variety of trading partners and products, there is a virtual guarantee of benefits from trade. Assuming the exchanges occur at market value, then both sides can improve their standard of living from globalization.

  1. Specialization

As explained in the economics topic brief, it makes the most sense for each country to specialize in the good that they are the best at making. To repeat, even if a country is less efficient than another country in everything, both parties still gain if they each specialize in the object they are most efficient at. An additional wrinkle in specialization is that some countries are the only producers of a given good, especially natural resources. No matter what happens, the United States cannot produce an appreciable amount of oil (arbitrarily defining “appreciable” as enough to satisfy domestic demand). Morocco simply cannot produce ice. More aggregate goods are produced and consumed in the world, thanks to the economics of globalization. Also, specialization has created new products and allowed for greater advancements, particularly in technology.

  1. Trade Imbalances

Without having to look inward for all of a country’s economic needs, there is a loss of economic sovereignty. Domestic consumption and production are dictated by the wants and needs of other countries. The Great Depression showed how the economy of a few countries can greatly affect the global economy. A Chilean drought greatly affects Floridian citrus producers. Trade imbalances result from countries importing significantly more or less than they export. Generally, as income increases, there is a greater desire for imported luxury goods. Thus, an increase in income likely leads to a net exportation of currency and a net importation of goods.

A net-importing country would theoretically watch its currency devalue, making importation more expensive. Therefore, after a period of austerity, net imports and currency value will return to normal. Net-exporting countries would have more expensive currencies. A free market will decrease exports and normalize currency and imports. This entire system of equilibrium is of course predicated on a free-market and countries that are willing to go along with the ups and downs of capitalism.

Political ramifications

  1. Increased international relations

As international trade improves, countries are forced to interact more. Countries that both gain from their relationship are likely to find more common ground on non-economic issues.  They work together to remove roadblocks to their mutual welfare. If there is a problem in the perceived fairness of the economic-side of a relationship, it will appear politically. Greedy countries will attempt to bully smaller powers. Economic benefits can be withheld in exchange for political acquiescence or political power can be used as a bargaining cheap in procuring an unfair trade agreement. For better or worse, countries that trade together are drawn to each other politically.

  1. Support or opposition to fluctuating power in light of economic changes

If we are to link political to economic power, which is not always fair, then the world’s power structure changes with globalization. Either through internal development or bullying, some countries will gain more than others. Those with the best goods at the lowest price will become extremely popular and can start to exert influence on the economic and political systems.

However, some countries will start to lose power. Many despots that seek complete control over a given economy will become undermined by the market. Those politicians who fear that globalization will result in a net loss of jobs need to stop the trend to save their political lives. Workers who cannot compete with imports blame their government and/or the country from which the imports hail.

  1. Alliances among the disenchanted with the result of free trade both within and between countries

Industrialized powers gain greatly from globalization, especially in the short-term. The influx of imported luxury items and the ability to gain cheap imported goods greatly benefit those can afford them. However, watching jobs, natural resources, and prestige leave can be equally important to the losers of globalization. Despots and nationalists can find common ground over their anger at the industrialized countries that they blame for globalization. These ad hoc friendships can be seen today when looking at Venezuela, Iran,  Cuba, and a host of African dictatorships. The world has become divided between the haves and the have-nots, creating increased tension.

Social ramifications

  1. Social homogenization as a result of international trade

Each good comes with some from of the culture form which it was created. Plaintains bring an element of Hispanic culture. A Britney Spears CD introduces western ideals to the listener. A McDonald’s offers a reminder of the American drive for efficiency and speed along with Big Macs and Happy Meals. Globalization’s social effects may in fact be its most significant. As people around the world share the same purchases, products, and interests, cultures become less unique. National dishes, music, traditions, and products give way to the cheapest, most efficient, or most popular.

  1. A loss of unique, cultural identity

As the global population becomes increasingly similar, cultural identity disintegrates. An Eminem concert in Munich represents a sacrifice on behalf of Germany. At the same time, a German restaurant in Spokane, Washington is also a cultural imposition on the United States. While globalization is made out to be an American creation, it truly creates a globally fusing culture.

  1. A potential backlash against the factors that limit cultural identity

Aside from suffering through Hillary Duff’s new CD, many people are extremely concerned with globalization’s social effects. Some see the replacement of national identity with a global identity as a direct cultural attack. The western net exporters of culture have launched a war against the rest of the world and have invaded from the inside-out. The only way to push back the invading forces of capitalism and globalization is to strike back. Only through violence will the west understand that it is not welcome.

Thought experiment: Through globalization, Saudis see McDonald’s and Starbucks on their way to work. They hear Kanye’s new song as they shop, passing by western clothing outlets. Aside from the climate and some clothing changes, this scenario could be a day in the life of an American. If the United States had indeed invaded and conquered Saudi Arabia, this scenario would exist. In this sense, one could argue that the industrialized powers have conquered Saudi Arabia without firing a single shot. It is through this lens that 15 Saudi nationals justified bringing box-cutters onto planes and bringing the world’s superpower to its knees.

Case Study: Pakistan, Democracy, and Bhutto

While this brief was being prepared, the world was rocked by the news of the assassination of democratic opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto was elected twice to lead Pakistan, but was removed by the President months after entering office on both occasions. She returned from her self-imposed exile to attempt to save Pakistan from Musharraf’s militant rule. She promised democracy and wanted to bring freedom to the people. Unfortunately,  she was assassinated by a  suicide bomber. This act certainly forces the original brief regarding Pakistan to be viewed more critically, Bhutto’s assassination offers a chance to look at how different political ideologies see the situation.

Realists see the killing as yet another example of the dangerous and volatile nature of Southwest Asian politics. Terrorists have a lot of power in Pakistan, but cannot be allowed to overrule the government. Pakistan needs Musharraf to keep it stable, even if that sacrifices democracy. Support for Musharraf’s less-than-democratic rule may be redoubled, as Rudy Giuliani suggested the day of the tkilling.

Neoconservatives who believe that democracy is an inherent part of the human-political condition, see yet another external obstacle to freedom. World powers have an obligation to the Pakistani people to make the country safe for democracy. The solutions for Pakistan’s democracy deficit could range from military involvement to increased financial and political support for democratic groups. Ultimately, the terrorist networks must be completely destroyed within the country, as they are a threat to Pakistani political growth.

Isolationists will see the tumult that Pakistan is in and choose to not get involved. If Pakistani militants are willing to kill because a woman advocates democracy, there is no telling what they would do to the United States for mandating democracy. To respect national sovereignty, the ethical thing for the United States to do would be to not get involved in Pakistani, or any other country’s, politics.

I think the wise extemper would choose policy over ideology. Well-read extempers, politicos, and people in the know likely identify, at least in part, with a particular political and philosophical worldview. Subscribing to neoconservative thought is perfectly fine in a generic sense, but extemp speeches must be tailored so specifically and critically that using stock arguments will not work. It would be prudent to choose which solution or policy makes the most sense and incorporate the underlying philosophy where appropriate.

Hegemony and Unipolarity

Can the US do whatever it wants?

In the aftermath of the American-led invasion of Iraq, many policy-makers, extempers, and question writers have been forced to seriously ponder the extent of American power. As the sole superpower left after the Cold War, there has never been a question that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Yet, the distance between America and the rest of the pack has been up for debate. To be sure, the United States literally can do whatever it wants to the extent that all sovereign countries can do anything. The real question of American power is not one of capability, but of consequence.

The classic examples of unipolarity are the ancient civilizations that had complete carte blanche. The Romans could make any laws they wanted because there was no one to answer to. Any one or entity that defied Roman rule was dominated and subjugated. With the modern institutions of statehood and a general preference for peace over increased territory, true hegemony cannot possibly exist. Even Nazi Germany did not have the ability to do whatever it wanted anywhere in the world, though it certainly did get closer than any other 20th century example.

Since traditional unipolarity clearly does not exist, it is worth investigating what the United States could do with minimal to no ramifications. Domestically, everything and anything goes along unchecked. Sure, the American people may have caught some heat from re-electing President Bush, but no country would boycott the US because of a presidential election. It is America’s foreign policy that has been so often criticized and is the main source of anti-Americanism.

Member of the prestigious Hoover Institute and overall great thinker, Dinesh D’Souza separates anti-Americanism into two parts, with two opposing causes. Europe and the industrialized world dislike America because of its cowboy foreign policy. Running roughshod over the United Nations’ wishes, President Bush showed that the United States does not care about the international community and will stop nothing to democratize the world. In short, Europe will be occasionally cold to the United States because of the Republicans and the neoconservatives. Islamic terrorists despise America because it lacks traditional values. A country where women, gays (almost), and non-Muslims have the same rights as other citizens clearly is disturbed. Without following a fundamentalist view of the Qu’ran, the United States is a liberal hellhole that must be stopped before it spreads as a cultural virus. In short, it is America’s liberal traditions that draw the ire of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, two opposing forces of American culture and government are both breeding resentment.

Extent of unipolarity

It would be unfathomably presumptive of this brief to delineate what is and is not acceptable to the international community. Timing and circumstance have as much to do with acceptability as the act itself. As a domestic example, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed because it was brought up almost immediately after 9/11. Had the Act been debated in the middle of 1994, it would have been unanimously defeated. It would be fair to conclude that the United States can do whatever it wants within a certain range of international consensus. Since nearly all countries do not want to anger the superpower, the United States will be given significantly more leeway than other states. Yet, America’s power is closely tied to the prevailing wisdom of the international community. As another example, the War in Iraq stretched what was thought to be tolerable. No industrialized states invaded the United States, but most were unhappy. The only reason the war was even thought to be permissible was because of the tenuous link to September 11th and the belief that Saddam had WMDs. Again, circumstance and timing dictated the extent of American capability.

Threats to unipolarity

By knowing the roots of anti-Americanism, extempers would be better equipped to suggest how to fight it. Silencing European critics might be as easy as electing a less-interventionist president in 2008. Pulling out from Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and the assorted international military bases would be a sign that the United States is not comfortable as a global policeman. Seeing these moves as good policy would be debatable, but they would likely stop the depiction of America as a blind and deaf juggernaut. Working with other countries on issues such as global climate change, international trade, and military issues would show America as first among equals, not just first.

However, the threats from terrorists are far different. Signing Kyoto will hardly be enough to convince Osama to stop his jihad. Scholars often are divided on whether or not fundamentalism can be marginalized or not. Some will contend that a few extremists can exist without posing a significant risk to the rest of the world since fundamentalists of all religions and cultures are present at the fringe of society. The challenge to the United States is to find a way to convince young, Arab men that violence is not the answer. The liberal solution is that these terrorists are clearly not part of the global community and not benefitting from globalization. Working closer with all countries to ensure sustainable economic development would eliminate poverty. Even if it means slightly less imports and paying more for goods, universal labor standards and income levels would keep people from leaving the system. If the status quo is regarded as acceptable, then the call to jihad will fall on deaf, satisfied ears.

Yet, the very underlying cause of terrorism is globalization. It is universalizing that has caused the clash of civilizations. Simply accelerating the driver of the discontent is a prescription for disaster, according to others. Terrorism is either a product of extreme resentment of globalization or a result of a fundamentally flawed religion that has not yet matured past the point where it is no longer taken to be completely literal. In either case, the solution is simple: kill before being killed. Jihadists will stop at nothing to destroy us, so we should not give them the opportunity. Having the Europeans angry at our behavior is a low price for survival. American foreign policy must continue to be pro-active and preventive, not reactive and pre-emptive. High oil prices, casualties, and a draft may be the costs for freedom and American endurance

Overview

Unlike other topics, this brief has focused on the ideological and thematic underpinnings of international relations. Hopefully extempers have come to realize that no event occurs in a vacuum. There are recognizable causes and effects with all significant activities in international politics. The preceding analysis points out that not just do causes and effects exist, but also trends. As summaries of past actions, ideologies offer greater understanding and better predictions for the future. Yet, there are multiple ideologies and worldviews. Determining which one seems the most accurate is no easy task. While political and philosophical affiliations are helpful at a dinner table debate or as a facebook identifier, they do not necessarily have a place in extemp. Declaring oneself a neoconservative prior to answering a question on democratizing Pakistan will do far more harm than good. High-quality extemp breaks through intellectual boundaries and strikes at the heart of an issue, gleaning the least imperfect answer, and declaring it to be True (notice the capital “t”). The world is highly complex and beyond complete comprehension. However, if an extemper is likely, he/she will see past partisan rhetoric, look at fact patterns and find the most persuasive argument.

Barber, Benjamin. Jihad Vs. McWorld. Corgi Adult. 2003.

In light of 9/11, Barber chooses to divide the world into two camps: Jihad and McWorld. While the McWorlders are the globalizers that homogenize the world, Jihadists are not as clearly painted. Depicted not as terrorists, but as cultural nationalists, Jihadists engage in terror and anti-globalization activities in order to preserve their way of life.

Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.

The United Nations’ charter is a document, much like the US Constitution, that should be in every extemper’s box. Referencing the stated goals of the organization will assist in greater understanding, explanation, and application of how the UN can and should exist within a global framework.

Coicaud, Jean-Marc. “The Future of Peacekeeping.” Foreign Policy in Focus. 28 Dec. 2007. http:///www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4855.

With one of the most important roles of the United Nations being peacekeeping, it is important to look at how the body may act in the future. By analyzing current trends in peacekeeping, Coicaud draws intriguing and informative conclusions.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations. The Free Press, 2002.

Huntington’s description of the post-Cold War world has created one of the most popular books among extempers. Though his writing style can be painful to get past, Huntington is clearly a brilliant man with deep insights into how international relations truly works in a globalizing world.

Nye, Joseph S. The Paradox of Power: Why the World’s Only Superpowr Can’t Go It Alone. Oxford University Press, 2002.

One of the most 21st century political scientists, Joseph Nye’s book famously delineates between hard power and soft power. Hard power is derived from tangible sources, such as the military or economics. Soft power is the ability to work with other countries for mutual welfare. Nye’s belief that the United States has abandoned soft power in favor of hard power is extremely popular among extempers and political scientists alike.

Prestowitz, Clyde. Rogue Nation. Perseus Books, 2004.

Though not in the traditional extemper’s literary canon, Rogue Nation provides a deep analysis of how the United States has removed itself from the international community. Prestowitz investigates the Hows and Whys of American exceptionalism, offering substantive backing for his arguments.

Topic Brief: New Hampshire Primary

By

On December 1, 2007

In Topic Brief, U.S. Extemp

By Logan Scisco

The presidential primary season is fast approaching and by the time next month’s briefs are released the chances are that the Iowa caucuses will have been completed and we will be mere days from the New Hampshire primary.  These two contests highlight the beginning of the presidential nomination calendar and despite the movements of primaries in Florida and California, both states have managed to retain their position as being first in the nation when it comes to presidential politics.

The New Hampshire primary is the first presidential primary conducted in the presidential nomination system.  Some extempers may say “I thought Iowa was,” but it is important to remember that Iowa operates under a caucus system and not a primary election system.  If extempers remain unclear on this issue or wish to explore these differences in more depth I would encourage them to check out the Iowa caucuses brief I wrote for the September edition of Extemp Question Central Extemp Topic Briefs.

This year’s New Hampshire primary date has been set for January 8th, a mere five days after the Iowa caucuses which will occur on January 3rd.  This means that the population of both Iowa and New Hampshire will have to endure presidential campaigning during the holiday season.  It also means that the losers in Iowa will not have the typical recovery time of several weeks before New Hampshire voters go to the polls.  These two contests have been put in such close proximity to each other due to states trying to become a more important part of the presidential nominating calendar.  Earlier this year, Florida moved its primary into January and California moved theirs to February despite threats by both major parties that they would lose delegates to their nominating conventions next summer.  Due to states moving their primary calendars forward, it has threatened the traditional positioning of Iowa and New Hampshire as the first presidential contests.  Therefore, instead of having the Iowa caucuses in late January and the New Hampshire primary in early February, the system has been tweaked to make these contests even earlier.

This brief will follow much of the same format as the Iowa caucuses brief in September.  I will discuss the history of the New Hampshire primary, how it works, and where the race for the presidency for each party stands at the current time.

Read More

Topic Brief: Latin America

By

On December 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

Extempers can famously wax poetic about the problems in the Middle East or the rising Asian powers. Good extempers learn a moderate amount about sub-Saharan Africa to round-out their knowledge. Unfortunately, Latin America is trapped between being heavily reported and known for not being heavily reported. This gap usually results in extempers of all knowledge levels misunderstanding this pivotal area. While there are no nuclear threats and no rising global superpowers, the region does have a lot of mid-level powers that alter international relations.  Currently trapped in a seemingly endless struggle, the direction of politics and liberalism hangs in the balance. Since Latin America often gets its own round at major national tournaments, or shares one with Africa, it is vital that extempers learn as much as they can. Since prevailing themes are extremely significant in good speeches and question-writing, this brief hopes to provide the backdrop for Latin America’s current headlines.

The heavily thematic and causal nature of Latin America makes its history especially important. While this brief is certainly not meant to read like a history, it will highlight important historical figures and events. It is the job of every extemper to stay abreast of current events. Speeches that let these events on their own or speeches that heavily distort the historic significance of current events fall short analytically. Those who can explain why one particular view of the present is more accurate will be best able to succeed in extemporaneous speaking, and in critical analysis. For this reason, key themes and the philosophical highlights will be bolded and italicized.

Read More

Topic Brief: Nuclear Armament

By

On November 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

Common political theory suggests that countries only act to enhance national power. Economic revitalization, political mobilization, and diplomatic posturing all move towards improving a state, domestically and internationally. However, the advent of the nuclear weapon has completely changed the concept of power. Power was distributed among cavemen based on strength and aggression. During early civilization, power was distributed based purely on numbers of men in an army. The past few centuries evolved power to encompass economics, politics, technology, and knowledge. Though different, all of these systems are egalitarian in nature. They all offer equal footing. However, nuclear weapons allow disproportionate amounts of power. Economic powerhouses like Germany or Japan would not stand a chance against Israel or Pakistan in a full-scale military exchange. The ability to accelerate one’s place in the global pecking order has proven extremely attractive. It is because of the immense power of nuclear weapons to obliterate life as we know it AND to change the distribution of global power, nuclear armament certainly has deserved its own brief.

Read More

Topic Brief: Myanmar

By

On November 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Logan Scisco

Over the last two months the nation of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has been in the news as its people fight for democratic representation from a military junta known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) who have ruled the country for the last forty-five years.  In their forty-five year governance of the country the SPDC, which has gone through a large litany of name changes since it took power in 1962, has weakened the country’s economy to the point where the heroin trade thrives along the Thai and Chinese borders and the black market is one of the only ways people can secure commercial items.  To add to these problems, the SPDC still has tensions with the various ethnic groups in Myanmar such as the Karen and the Wa which have led to human rights violations and military conflicts in the country’s frontier areas.

The SPDC maintains its position in the country through an intricate network of repression and fear.  This network of military intelligence has been strengthened since 1990 when the military’s party received a drubbing by the National League for Democracy (NLD) in parliamentary elections, the first held in Myanmar since 1960.  After losing this election, the military annulled the results and jailed opposition leaders.

However, there have been times when the international community has hoped to see change in Myanmar.  One such incident occurred two months ago in September when protests emerged in the country after petrol prices were increased.  The military junta quickly put down these protests but in the course of doing so several Buddhist monks, arguably the most influential people in Myanmar aside from the SPDC, were beaten.  In response, the monks refused to accept alms from members of the SPDC thereby damaging their prospects of being reborn in a good position in the next life according to Buddhist doctrine.  As the international community watched on CNN and other media outlets, the SPDC quickly struck back at protesters, killing and injuring media journalists, students, regular civilians, and Buddhist monks effectively crippling the movement for change.  During their crippling of this movement the junta prevented people from having access to the Internet and silenced telecommunications throughout the country showing the variety of tools at the junta’s disposal to silence opposition movements in the country.

This topic brief will provide extempers with a brief overview of the history of Myanmar, an overview of the human rights abuses said to be occurring in the country, Myanmar’s relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the mechanisms utilized by the junta to hold on to power.

Read More

Topic Brief: International Economics

By

On November 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

At most major national tournaments, there is an international economics round that challenge the knowledge and economic understanding of extempers. These rounds often are placed in earlier outrounds as a means of sifting out those who rely solely on delivery. Equally dangerous is smaller tournaments that sprinkle in economics-related questions throughout all rounds. Fear of “complex” economic theory has caused otherwise easy questions to be immediately thrust back into the envelope. An understanding of economics helps not just economics questions, but also creates an opportunity for increased depth in nearly all questions. Money is one of the powerful forces in the world, and people of all faiths, races, and nationalities worship the almighty dollar/yuan/yen/euro etc.

Read More

Topic Brief: High Oil Prices

By

On October 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief, U.S. Extemp

By Logan Scisco

Extempers receiving questions on the price of oil and its relationship to the United States economy just keep coming.  In fact, I can hardly remember a tournament that I attended in high school that didn’t have a single question on the price of oil, OPEC, and/or what the United States could do to reduce its dependency on foreign oil.  Why do extempers get asked these questions a lot?  The answer boils down to a combination of question writers needing to think of questions that most people can answer and most judges will have some knowledge about and also the fact that high oil prices (which lead to higher gas prices) affect the vast majority of Americans in some way, shape, or form.

High oil prices are one of those unique issues that tends not to divide along partisan lines.  Sure, the GOP accused the Clinton administration of never having a real energy policy for the country, but the same was said of George W. Bush’s administration until this year when an energy policy was finally crafted.  Americans may differ in their views about abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. but when more and more of their income is going to gasoline then they become quite angry.

However, in light of how high oil prices tend not to be a partisan issue they due spark controversy over energy policy.  Conflicts emerge between the poor, who are most affected by a price increase of gasoline, and the rich, who for the most part can still afford to drive their cars or fly their fancy jets although they may have to cut back on it.  Conflicts also emerge between environmentalists who want cleaner, renewable sources of energy that will benefit America in the future and businessmen who want more supplies of oil on the market that will benefit America in the present.

This brief is an attempt to briefly show why the price of oil has risen, the economic impact of high prices, what can be done to combat the influence of OPEC (a topic that never seems to want to go away), and a brief explanation of some types of renewable energy sources.

Read More

Topic Brief: Iraq

By

On October 1, 2007

In International Extemp, Topic Brief

By Michael Garson

To provide a description of why understanding Iraq is important in extemp would be highly unnecessary.  Yet, the issue is so massively popular that it has oversaturated the intellectual market. Since Iraq is the international topic that is the most significant to average American’s lives, there has been a call to simplify the issue such that it is easily digestible. While Katie Couric and the Associated Press admirably cater to the needs of John Smith and Jane Doe, they fall short in providing “extemp-worthy” analysis. Hopefully, this brief will supply a crash course in the necessary facts and logical links of Iraq. I will not pretend to have the answers on how to fix Iraq, or if it even needs fixing. This brief is filled with sufficient information to allow the critical thinker to draw his/her own conclusions to understand the ramifications of America and the world’s actions, past, present, and future.

Read More

Page 15 of 16

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén