A slight break from policy, one of the latest topics relating to US – China relations actually came from a prom dress! When an American girl wore a traditional qipao to prom, twitter users quickly labeled it cultural misappropriation and scolded her for the lack of sensitivity. The Chinese population, however, loved it! They were excited to see her sharing the Chinese cultural and some even went so far as to suggest she visit China.

It was great to see this small, but still sense of unity from the who Chinese were willing to extend excitement to what many Americans were upset about. We have incredibly different cultures, but that does not mean we should hesitate in learning about them or adopting some elements of it. Chinese students are keenly aware of US celebrities, basketball players, social themes, and fashion trends. I think it is time we show some effort on our side too that amounts to more than just eating fortune cookies.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2144207/qipao-us-prom-wins-support-china-after-internet-backlash

I picture the international stage much like the NCAA March Madness Tournament. China is trying really hard to make it to the final four and compete with major Western powers. In order to do that, however, they need to win their region. China has almost always been a favorite in the Elite 8 round of the bracket, having a population and economy that trumps the small nations in East Asia, but they are looking to increase their record here. While historically, China went through periods of more isolation, it has consistently interacted with other countries as a means to growing their regional relations. We have seen them become more engaged in the North Korea problem, and now, this article shows them becoming involved with the Maldives, or at least that’s what the President of the Maldives thinks.

Recently, there has been much political turmoil in the country. President Nasheed launched an investigation on what he thinks was a coup attempt. He has asked India to get involved to help combat what he considers Chinese intervention. This is not necessarily active interference, rather it is activity, namely infrastructure building on 16 nearby inlets, that Nasheed is interpreting as an undermining land grabbing scheme. If this is in fact intentional on the part of the Chinese, it can certainly be interpreted as an effort to increase regional power that will push them further into a competitive international power slot.

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2144296/what-does-china-have-do-maldives-coup-ask-sri-lankan-tourists

I am very appreciative to have had the opportunity to listen to Ambassador Litt speak. Obviously, VMI is great at producing military officers. One of the greatest criticism I have of the school however, and particularly the ROTC program, is that there is a lack of diversity in this career preparation and education. We train for infantry, we prep for grad school.

That’s why I am so glad Ambassador Litt was so active on post this semester, he showed us a career path many of us would be successful or interested in but lacked awareness and education about. It was great to see how a lot of the political science and international relations topics we discussed were put into his work. When we all get bogged down and stuck in the routine of papers and assignments, it is nice to see the end goal, where all of this matters and is worth it. I’m grateful for his several visits and discussions, he is a great resource for us.

If my wildest dreams come true, maybe I will be in his shoes one day too! Fingers crossed!

What a semester! Like we talked about in class, it has been a crazy semester. Despite all that happened within the department, and all that I missed with traveling for basketball, I still learned a lot. My favorite topics to discuss this semester were political trust and education. These were two issues that I had not previously spent a lot of time researching, but I always found them interesting.

Through other class readings and interacting with Chinese students both domestic and abroad, I had always tried to get at the question of perceptions of the government without actually asking it directly. It was important to understand, but difficult to discuss directly. It is a great point of comparison to the US or other political systems. Is it the system that we trust or the people within it – and how distinct are these? Which would have long terms success, a political system that can remain standing like democracy in the US or a leader like Xi or Mao in China?  I am very appreciative that we could delve  into this topic during class. I also loved learning more about the education system, which I have always been interested in. As a briefly mentioned in class and in my blog post, I absolutely loved the documentary Vote for Me. It was fascinating and authentic. It answered questions I always had about what democracy looks or feels like to those unfamiliar with it. It was interesting to see that the democratic system can still be enacted or enforced with authoritarian principles or habits. This has motivated me to continue looking into the education system and to what extent or in what way they teach about other political systems, not just in China but also in the US. Other countries may ‘brainwash’ students against democracy, but do we not to the same thing against dictators or authoritarian regimes? The education system is incredibly powerful, and truly has the ability to influence future international relations.

If I could sum up my learning from this semester into one statement it would be: China is a quilt, not a duvet cover. What I mean by that is before, I viewed Communism as blanketing China. It was comprehensive in that it influenced practically everything and to the degree the government wished. What I see now, is that it is much more nuanced. Yes, the party still holds power, but there are several issues and portions of society that operate out of the bounds you would expect the Authoritarian government to set. China is dynamic. It is constantly growing and fluctuating and classes like this are important because it shows these shifts and progressions.

Thanks for  great class, Sir!

In my Digital Media in South Asia class with Dr. Heuer, I did my final presentation on the women’s movement in Burma. For that reason, I was really drawn to this article. Already knowing about the historical role of women in Chinese society, I wanted to see how much it had changed especially since international women’s campaigns have swept the globe. I was shocked at how little is effected the Chinese women!

This article discusses how women are still underrepresented in the workforce, in this example brokerage. Women are having difficulties getting hired because the employers fear the hassle of maturity leave, and the women being unable to adapt to the long hours and frequent work trips. In addition to the pay gap, this has lead to even an outright policy of discrimination when jobs are advertised as “suitable for men” or “men only apply”.

More attention has been brought to this issues, but the Chinese women have not seen considerable improvement. Maybe more international support and alliance with the global women’s right cause can help!

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2142915/sexist-adverts-and-fear-maternity-leave-how-gender-inequality

I was very surprised to see this headline! Next to a lot of articles about US-China relations and trade deals, this article talks about the repair of China-Japan relations. Tentatively set to follow the G20 summit, President Xi and Prime Minister Abe plan to sit down and formally discuss relations moving forward. I thought this was particularly interesting timing after North and South Korea met to discuss relations as well. Has someone put something in the water over there in Asia? Did all the leaders drink the kool-aid and jump on the bandwagon of repairing relations? What does this mean for the region? But I have also been thinking what does this mean for the US?

Currently, the US and China are approaching a critical point in the important trade relations and deals. Seeing that Asia is starting to become more unified now if these upcoming meetings go well, there could be serious regional consequences for the United States if China were to turn against them. This could be a significant block that could have serious implications on the US economy. The reparations going on in Asia are certainly something to pay attention to.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2144768/xi-jinping-likely-make-official-japan-visit-next-year

I loved the idea of filming “Vote for Me” and I was very impressed by the product of the movie itself. The film was very engaging and is a jumping off point for a lot of great analysis and discussion. The question that the film started with is one I always wanted to ask, “what does democracy mean?”

I am fascinated by the process of political education in China. Do they learn about democracy? In what context? At what age? How is it introduced? I would assume that is has at least somewhat of a negative connotation when presented in the classroom, but what sort of discussion is there around it? I always thought it interesting that the most democracy tendencies or practices come out of the countryside, and yet the most education on and interaction with democracy would come from the cities. This is such an interesting dynamic! If I had more time for research, I would love to devote my attention to education, particularly political education, in rural versus urban areas in China.

I loved how similar this article revealed that china and the United states are in terms of the issue with veterans and providing for them after they have served. Regardless of government structure or system, this is an issue several countries are facing and don’t quite have the answer either.

This article made me want to look deeper into the Chinese military system. Do they operate off a draft? An obligatory service system? Purely voluntary? What is their recruitment like? I wanted to learn more context about the precursory events to this issue, but I was very intrigued by the issue this article discusses specifically.

It aligns very well with my national security thesis in that I am looking at the role social media plays specifically in policy reform. In their attempts, the veterans used a variety of outlets including digital media, but ultimately relied heavily on physical actions and movements. Overall the veterans have had mixed results. Compare this to the work of NGOs who have been very successful in creating environmental reform stemming from their online activity. Why is there a difference? This is the cross road I have reached and am trying to do more research on.  Is it because there is the presence of a formal NGO rather than the individual? Or is it the threat online is greater than offline, as articles out of Burma suggest, and so the government attempts to appease them first? Hopefully I can come back with answers to these questions.

Watching Trump’s State of the Union Address, I couldn’t help but compare it to Xi Jinping’s address. It was interesting that they both took similar approaches in really highlighting personal or individual stories that showed the success of their policy implementation. I think Trump’s was more specific in that he used individual’s names and even had them present, but nonetheless, they used the same approach. Where they differed, was in the dynamics of the speech.

First, Trump was surrounded by Congress and other government representatives, whereas Xi was alone in his office. This creates an interesting difference when they call on their party to take action – Xi is ‘calling out’ his coworkers, Trump is doing the same, except to their faces. Trumps speech was filled with a lot of applause, much of it coming from himself, and was clearly a scripted, but live speech. Xi, speaking alone in his office, very well could have prerecorded the speech and aired it at later date. There was little theatrics as he kept his stoic expression throughout the address.

Why are their such differences in their approach to their speeches? Is it the preference of the individual? Is there any influence from the different political backgrounds they come from? Is one more effective than the other? Could they be as effective in the opposite political climate?

MacFarquhar’s article “The Once and Future Tragedy of the Cultural Revolution” stopped me in my tracks. It gave analysis to a question I had buzzing around in the back of my head. When I first started developing my national security thesis, I asked myself, how would China democratize? This was my train of thought: The closest they seemed to have gotten to a upheaval revolution was Tiananmen. Why didn’t it work? Many scholars say it was because they didn’t access a large enough percent of the population. How do you expand the reach of a movement? Could social media be the answer? We have different media now and more access, what if, (and this was crazy, I know), what if we could create another Tiananmen. What if we could plant, or influence, or suggest, or plan some sort of movement that would replicate what was going on in 1989, but just give it a little extra push? Would this even be possible?

Asking this was just like what MacFarquhar was asking. Can such a grave and historical event be replicated with a modern twist? He claims the primary and necessary components are a supreme leader, a perceived danger on the part of that leader, a sort of party support, and a clan of ‘four horseman’. It was fascinating and at the same time sort of startling that he was able to draw these parallels with the current administration. The implications are fascinating and ones I will continue to return to. This has been an incredibly influential article for me.