Realpolitik

Today marks the anniversary in which President Nixon announced that he would visit communist China. It was a landmark event in the history of US foreign policy and it embodied a foreign policy worldview, first coined by Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State at the time), as "realpolitik".

Realpolitik basically says (definition courtesy of The History Channel), that this is a policy of "politics that favored dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics". Take a minute to digest that.

This opened the way for the US to enter into economic relations with China and change the free-market as we know it, flooding it with a myriad of cheaper manufactured goods - despite the human rights' atrocities that occur daily (Tibet, or the most recent Uighur protests and violence). It also currently allows us to turn a blind eye on human rights' atrocities occurring in Russia (check out this article and remember the situation with Georgia last summer). Other examples of realpolitik? How about turning a blind eye on Rwanda (not a powerful enough nation to warrant our attention), or not mentioning anything when former General Musharraf gained power by virtue of a coup (and then becoming our "ally" when we invaded Afghanistan in 2002?). How about continuing to support Israel, even as it demolishes Palestinian neighborhoods and builds a literal wall around the West Bank? How about supporting Saudi Arabia as it promotes radical, fundamental Wahhabi Islam, denigrates its female population, and employs migrant Indian workers (who are no better than indentured servants) while the entire population lives off royalties from oil?

Realpolitik allows the US to turn a blind eye on many things, allowing practicality and logic to dictate foreign policy. But the question has got to be, is this a good thing?

I truly don't know. I don't know when a state on the scale of the United States should step into conflicts and try to help the situation. Do you try to help a failed state like Somalia and risk another Black Hawk Down occurring? Do you go against the political power and money of the Jewish lobby and say that no, we will not support Israel's tactics against Palestine? Do you try to stop genocide occurring in Sudan? Do you confront an economic and military powerhouse like China about it's human rights violations that it flaunts in front of us? Do you rescue North Koreans from an insane dictator that is hellbent on starving his people before he launches a nuclear missile? What dictates a state's foreign policy? Economics? Or ethics? Sell your soul or be guided by principles? Can it be both? Or should it be neither?

What do you think? What should the role of a state like the US be in the realm of world politics? Isolate itself so that we do not "meddle" in the affairs of other states and do nothing; help ethnic minorities throw off the restrictions of a dictatorship so that they might have a chance at the basic human right of freedom; rescue those suffering from gross human rights' injustices; or follow a combination of economic-ethical policies that allow us to turn a blind eye on some things, but not others?

It's not an easy answer.

Tongue-Tied

The thing that seems to be the hardest thing about blogging is that I don't have to much to say or write about. I seem to have a problem when it comes to things having to do with words, like talking or writing - I am so much more content to listen to other people or read what other people are thinking and/or doing in their lives. I know conversations are supposed to be two-way streets and I do that well at times. But at other times, I would just rather clam up and listen and think about what other people are saying.

The other thing that makes writing and/or carrying on a conversation difficult is coming up with a good question to ask. I generally just have random thoughts that come and go (and often make me laugh and leave other people thinking, "What a strange person..."). I wish I was one of those people that comes up with a good question to ask at a moment's notice. But unfortunately quick-thinking verbalization does not come easily to me. Even now, as I am typing this, I'm sitting here thinking, what in the world do I have to say and should I say it out on the world-wide web?

What is a remedy to help this? And what are ways to be sparked creatively?

So until the creativity is sparked, some random thoughts:

1. What a week in sports - from Tiger's heroic and dramatic US Open win to the Celtics completely annihilating the Lakers in the NBA Final Championship game, it has definitely been an awesome week for sports. The display of athleticisim, determination, and competitiveness was something I had not seen in a long time. (*Note - With all the controversy surrounding NBA officiating these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers are accused of throwing the game. On the one hand, it would make sense why they played so poorly. On the other, you would think they would have tried to make the game look more close than it did!)

2. Offshore drilling - Good idea or bad idea? Though I have strong environmental leanings these days, I tend to think that this actually wouldn't be a bad idea, especially after reading George Will's editorial column in the Post a couple of weeks ago which cited a fact that there are more foreign countries and oil companies drilling for oil in our offshore waters than US companies. And who gets those royalties? The foreign companies. Doesn't make much sense to me. On the other hand, I don't understand the reluctance to build nuclear power companies - if Americans really are serious about changing our energy habits, forget the corn and vegetable oil - that's not going to power your laptop, cell phone charger, flat-screen TV, HD-DVD player, lamps, surround-stereos, and hairdryers - we need a real energy solution, and France of all places has demonstrated that nuclear power is indeed a real solution for clean energy needs. I am looking very much forward to the release of Thomas Friedman's new book that talks about the need to change our energy consumption. His article in the New York Times is what convinced me that going green is a responsibility that we all must take, and that now is the time to take that definitive steps towards being environmental conservationists.

3. The platypus is one of the most venomous mammals in the world. Did you know that? I did and thanks to Wikipedia, that little fact let me prove to my family that I am indeed one of the smartest people that they know. Justification never feels so good than when you are proven right in the face of all the doubters and naysayers, especially when it is your family (or maybe, it's just my ultra-competitive family....And no, I don't remember why a platypus came up in our family dinner conversation) :) :)