CLINTON ON CHINA

i also couldn't believe it when clinton stated that human rights issues will not affect US and China relations. sacrificing common humanity for economic expediency seems like a wrong way to go. this is a case where realists would exclaim "see? i told you..US will only act out of national interest...the hell with humanitarian issues, if they have no stakes in it, then they have no business in it".

to ignore the issues of humanitarian abuses ensured clinton's bad reputation among human rights activists. humanitarian cried foul to such narrow minded and self-interested outlook on international relations. what the secretary of state should have done was to assure China that US will continue to be its ally and an economic partner but at the same time gave China a stern warning that if they ever choose to jump over the fence towards humanitarian abuse, then US will do everything in its power to deter it. this seems to be a fair warning bereft of arrogance and condescension.

i still think that henry kissinger is the best secretary of state in the history of america. clinton should take a page from kissinger's book. kissinger strikes a balance between coercion and consensus, employing the former only during desperate times. if things could be remedied using soft diplomacy, why not? but if worse comes to worst, kissinger was not afraid to jolt down the other party from negotiations with an implied threat that seem to say " you will regret this". this has worked well for the former secretary of state and clinton should emulate this.

i do not disagree on clinton's new approach to diplomacy, soft power. however, she must be cautious on not being too soft as other state might misinterpret this as a sign of weakness. clinton should be given credit in capitalizing her celebrity status all around the world to garner a favoral opinion on US. the past 8 years have left american reputation scarred and tarnished. it is up to clinton and obama to heal america. the human rights gaffe was not a good supplement.

UNIPOLAR WORLD: THE CHALLENGE OF THE CENTURY

With the ascension of American power consequently after the grueling cold war, the world have experienced a phenomenon that most people would dub as Pax Americana, or the American Peace. With the crushing political defeat of U.S.S.R led by Gorbachev’s reformist policies, the U.S.S.R would never again rise to superpower status it once wielded approximately 20 years ago. But the implications of American domination are subject to much debate in the academic world. The “evil empire” that Reagan once accused the Soviets of is now long gone and America is left to itself as the lone nuclear superpower remaining, giving it implied authority over international affairs. Washington has been riding on its status enjoying much latitude in their foreign policies. Foreign policies were discretionary without much regard for other states. Oftentimes, America has exhibited its flamboyant arrogance by ignoring several treaties and international agreements when it does not suit its interest. More often than not, they adopt a unilateralist approach to assuage their goals in foreign policies. The Iraqi war spurred much debate about the legitimacy and justification of American advances towards Iraq. This lopsided battle sparked various protests and indignation worldwide. The United Nations expressed their disapproval over the war but American resolve remained intact ignoring resentment from the rest of the world and continued to march through Baghdad with a full arsenal of weapons and tanks.

The Bush Doctrine or the “pre-emptive strike” seems to be the justification of the Americans to attack Iraq. This principle stems from the logic to attack first before being attacked. The alleged WMD that Iraq was purported to have possessed were one of the main if not the sole reason for American aggression. Clearly and subsequently, after the war subdued no WMD were found. The Americans have committed grave intelligence error and this gaffe caused the Bush administration the seats in Congress coupled by the increasing Bush unpopularity. With the miscalculation America committed nobody seem strong enough to stand up to them to enforce sanctions, not even U.N had the guts to do that. France have been critical but its opposition is only limited to that. Clearly, nobody is standing in the way of U.S dominance. With the prevalence of this daunting colossal economic crisis, America faces a challenge like never before. The crisis has taken a toll on American soil and conditions have worsened since last year. Wall Street is crumbling down and jobs unemployment rate is skyrocketing. This abstract foe is putting the Americans down on their knees.

It is interesting how America will respond to such dilemma. Although the crisis has affected the entire world, American leadership is expected as has always been the case. The new administration has taken measure to remedy the ailing economy. Internationally, Americans have not yet reached out to the other states seriously. All America has been doing is immersing itself in petty conflicts in Washington arguing whose proposal is better. It is obvious that even in itself; America is divided on how to address the problem. This is bad news for the rest of us. With no clear direction headed, and with the increasing dependence on American leadership, the fate of the world rests on the hands of a country divided by politics and ideological differences that have persisted over the years.