This first little bit was written before class began. I get to school quite early, and since there are no other classes scheduled in my polisci room I just sit and do whatever in there. As time gets closer to when class starts students trickle in and the Zionists are always the first, and instead of staying quiet like tee rest of us they just have the loudest conversations about whatever. Anyway here is when I started to write about what theey were saying (is it rude? Maybe):
The two Zionists in my class aren’t very bright. Yes, obviously because they’re zionists and re anti-communists, but I’m talking about separate from that. They’re complaining about my professor and the course content, they don’t understand the online portions when is on the site. They also don’t seem to utilize office hours which would help answer their questions better than sending an email. I guess I’m a bit protective of my professor, he’s good at his job and even if I get frustrated with the course content or some comments but I do feel safe discussing things with him.
One of the zionists wants to be a lawyer, like his dad, but the way he speaks and how he is going through this course tells me he wont be good at his job, my god. I hope I don’t see him in future political science classes or I might off myself (not seriously but it’s going to be a nightmare). They’re talking about the recent court decision regarding Trudeau’s utilization of the Emergency Act when the convoy happened (bank accounts frozen and whatnot). Does anyone here have opinions about that whole situation? Anyway, I really wish they wouldn’t speak, I get here early because the room is empty and it makes for a good study/work room. But then they come in here talking so loudly and annoyingly it’s hard to get shit done. Do they not see how no one else is speaking? Conscientiousness who? They don’t know her!
Anyway class finally started and, just full disclosure, the lecture was only around half an hour long (this class is an hour twenty minutes) the rest of the class time was spent on the seminar (yes, this day was my seminar). The lecture itself was about the Cold War. Post-WWII the world was bipolar and had sustained conflict between theUS and the USSR which of course culminated in the Cold War.
You probably already know everything about the Cold War (you probably know about everything I’m being taught) but i think its important to talk about so then you can see how its being taught. The Cold War was defined by multiple factors: arms race, space race, espionage, proxy wars (the Korean War, Vietnam war, Afghanistan, South Africa and Angola were brought up as examples), Olympics boycotts (due to invasion of Afghanistan), Arab-Israel conflict, and many others. Some other things that were said was that emigration of Jews to Israel was opposed by the USSR, there was a limit on cultural and trade links, and that the Cold War would consume our attention for decades after.
We then talked about the Post-45 time period: there was thee Berlin blockage/airlift, Cuban missile crisis, Hungarian revolution and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, martial plan, iron curtain speech from Churchill, and ended with how the Cold War informed thee relationship between both sides, east and west. It defined who was on whose side, essentially. Then we learned about this thing called détente: rapprochement; period of cooperation; the real sources of this is in Europe and the first to push for it was Willy Brandt. He came up with the term Ostpolitik, pushed for non-aggression pacts, came up with SALT and exchanged ambassadors with east Germany. Just a bunch of stuff. Then attention was turned to Gorbachev: He was the only university educated Soviet leader since Lenin, he had his perestroika and glasnost (I spelt these so wrong in my notes) things, apparently his glasnost went well but his perestroika was a disaster, because of all that he was eventually usurped by Yeltsin and then Putin. My professor made it a point to say Putin has been in power for forever and due to changing some stuff around (term limits) he will probably stay in office till he dies.
With this Cold War stuff my professor asked, not really looking for an answer, if the US was going to do everything again but this time towards China. That was to segue into our seminars since mine deals with Cold War China stuff (sort of) and another talks about China too. First I will explain what these seminars are: each student in class was randomly assigned an article from a book of “debates” and I was assigned “China’s Unpeaceful Rise” by John J. Mearsheimer, we then had to create slides of the article to go along with our talk; the talk is around 5 minutes of summarizing thee article and then 5 minutes of our critique (strengths and weaknesses) of the article and taking questions from the audience. I was dreading this since I am terrified of public speaking and I just don’t do well socializing in general (unless we’re friends). I made a post on here asking for help with my project and you all came through. I was the third person to present; the first person talked about realism in general, the second person talked about maybe the US declining as a superpower against China (jabs were thrown China’s way), then I went, then thee last person’s seminar was about technology/the internet and how it interacts under a democracy and authoritarian regime (China caught strays here as well).
The summary of the article I posted on here was a first draft and I edited it quite a bit for my speech. My professor told me before that I should go into detail about Mearsheimer himself in the beginning and then dive into the article itself. I’ll share my script here:
(Meer-Shy-mer) (this was to remind me of the pronunciation)
John J. Mearsheimer is an American Political Scientist who has been teaching at the university of Chicago since 1982. He is a realist, specifically an offensive realist, and in his own words this means that he “believe(s) that the great powers dominate the international system and they constantly engage in security competition with each other, which sometimes leads to war.” Also apparently he opposed the 2003 Iraq War before it even happened. He wrote this specific article back in 2006 and opens it by answering his own question “Will China rise peacefully?” And the answer is absolutely not. He goes one to say that his theory of international politics is the best way to explain why that is. It’s because the “mightiest states” will inevitably establish a regional hegemony and attempt to prevent others from doing the same.
THE CONTEST FOR POWER
According to him the international system has three characteristics: one is that states operate in anarchy; another is that all the great powers must have destructive military capabilities; and lastly you cannot trust one another because you never know what their true intentions are. Under a system like this states are constantly uncertain of each other and therefore fearful which leads to the conclusion that to survive one must become as powerful as possible, hopefully that means the most powerful. To do this you must become a hegemon, much like how the United States has regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. When one state dominates a region they will seek to prevent others from duplicating their results. No friends, only enemies.
THE AMERICAN HEGEMON
He goes on to explain America’s journey over the course of 115 years: from its independence in 1783, Manifest destiny, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, and how by 1898 the US finally succeeded in becoming a regional hegemon. Many battles were fought to make this happen and no other nation would be allowed to do the same. Some other “formidable foes” cropped up in which the United States worked very hard to dismantle: Imperial Germany - the Americans aided in their defeat; Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany - the US was a part of the Allies who defeated the Axis, also post-1945 American Policy makers ensured Germany and Japan would stay militarily weak; he did not go into detail about the Soviet Union but of course there was the Cold War and in 1992 the “Defence Guidance” was leaked that emphasized the US as the most powerful nation in the world and it would remain that way. In 2002 the “National Security Strategy” would say the same thing but also reference “preemptive war” which garnered some criticism at the time. Mearsheimer then goes on to say that America is likely to behave toward China much the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
PREDICTING CHINA’S FUTURE
He believes that China will attempt to establish its own hegemony unchallenged like the United States has done in the Western hemisphere, mainly going head to head with both Russia and Japan. But unlike the US, China will most likely not go on military rampages, but it’s not an impossible scenario. He also says that China will dictate how its neighbours behave and will only get Taiwan back through regional hegemony. Similar to how the US pushed European Powers out way back when in the 19th century, China will push the US out of Asia. It will also come up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, like Japan did in the 1930s. Because the US appreciates a militarily weak Canada and Mexico, China will want the same for Russia and Japan. Since no self-respecting superpower will ever allow others to exist in its vicinity. American policy makers become enraged when foreign militaries are sent into the western hemisphere, so why would China give the US any amount of grace? It wont, US military presence in Asia will not be tolerated. He goes on to say “In the archaic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi.” In the end, China will just imitate the US.
TROUBLE AHEAD
Based on America’s track record it is obvious what the reaction will be towards China if it tries to establish a hegemony in Asia: No “peer competitors” will be tolerated. The only hegemony that is allowed to exist is the United States, and therefore China must be contained and weakened. He reiterates that China will be treated the same way the Soviet Union was. Neighbouring nations will also join the US in preventing China’s regional rise, this includes: India, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. Taiwan will also be used as a pawn to better control China and gain the upper hand, which of course will cause further security issues between Beijing and Washington.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
He ends his article with this: “The picture I have painted of what is likely to happen if China continues its rise is not a pretty one. I actually find it categorically depressing and wish that I could tell a more optimistic story about the future. But the fact is that international politics is a nasty and dangerous business, and no amount of goodwill can ameliorate the intense security competition that sets in when an aspiring hegemon appears in Eurasia. That is the tragedy of great power politics.” Which just reinforces his realism.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Main criticism: The title is a bit misleading. This article is very America-centric. Which makes sense since he’s an American political scientist but that also gives a very restrictive view of the situation he is trying to analyze. He goes into detail about America’s history and how that contextualizes its modern behaviours but doesn’t do the same for China, the titled character. China itself plays a secondary role here. It comes across as projection more than proper analysis. China is a very old country so there’s a lot to work with, its history is also very different from America’s.
His analysis makes no room for the internal contradictions in a state that would play a part in its behaviour.
The relationship between Russia and China is not how he describes it would be as trade between the two is very high. If China wanted a militarily weak Russia it’s doing a bad job at it.
With him being a realist and this being written in 2006, poor guy could’ve never predicted BRICS. Russia, India, and China are literally founding members. They’re the RIC. (BRICS had its first formal summit in 2009 but it’s been in development since 2001)…
With regard to Vietnam, Xi Jinping recently went to a summit there where both leaders agreed to bolster their strategic relationship and cooperation. I also find it hard to believe that Vietnam would follow in the US’s footsteps in subjugating China after the Vietnam war.
Cold War 2 and escalations with Taiwan in the form of military ships.
John Mearsheimer also seems, personally, very enthusiastic about “dealing” with China.
When I walked up to the podium I was terrified. My anxiety was at an all time high, the whole time waiting for my turn my stomach was making weird noises (not loud enough for anyone else to hear) and I felt sick. I tried to calm myself down, I swear, but it was just not working. As I stood at the podium my professor introduced me as “Professor (NAME) from (random university)” I think he chose Toronto or something, I don’t remember, he did this for everyone. I stumbled hard with my words right at the beginning, I literally could not get them out. I had to take a few breaths before I was able to get the words out. I was also on the verge of tears the whole time, you know that voice people have when they’re about to cry? That was literally what I sounded like. As I kept talking I got a little better but I didn’t hit my stride until the criticism section where I could finally rip into him a little. I guess having the chance to defend China even a tiny bit soothed my nerves a tiny bit. By the end of it thankfully no one asked me questions (I think they could tell how fucked up I was), the only one who did was my professor. He asked me something about continued aggression towards China, I can’t remember exactly what he asked, but I just straight up said “I don’t know what you want from me” because I really didn’t. My seminar was very explicit and I tried to explain Mearsheimer’s thought process as much as possible including his predictions, I even said at the end that the utilization of Taiwan was true, so technically I answered his question in my seminar. After I was done someone else went and then the seminars were complete. In general there were four seminars total, three mentioned China to some extent, to were anti-China in their conclusions, and I was the only one who didn’t talk shit about China.
He then told us all to stand in front of the class (I guess it’s related to people getting PhDs, I don’t know…) and asked us more questions: the first was what the main point of our articles were, and the second was what our articles said about the conception of power. At this point I was annoyed because I thought I was finished with the humiliation but apparently I needed to be tortured a bit more. Instead of being a cry baby like I was during my seminar, my voice changed to a monotone robot voice, I clearly sounded exasperated with my answers: my article was about how China will not be allowed to gain strides because the US is determined to remain the world’s only hegemon, my article states that true power is obtained when you become a hegemon and stop any others from doing the same. Then we were applauded and class was dismissed.
As I was packing my bag to go home, a girl came up to me and told me she really appreciated my criticism of Mearsheimer and she thought I did a good job. I was not expecting that at all. I was the last to leave since, to be honest, I really wanted to hear what he had to say about my seminar since he knew how much I was freaking the fuck out about it. Before I could talk he just straight up said I did really well, I pushed back (because of course I did) that I almost cried. Of course he noticed I stumbled but I guess that didn’t matter to him since I gained my stride after I got going, he was really happy with the criticisms I had which was nice to hear. I have to give credit to all of you since you helped me a lot with it. I really couldn’t have done it without you!
Anyway, that was it. I just went home after and my seminar is done, I wont have to do this again until maybe next semester (fall, not spring). I sound terrible and resentful, and I can’t deny that I am, the whole ordeal made me want to die and I’m low key still shaken up about it, but I know this is just the first step into becoming a professor. I need to get used to public speaking and shit if I ever want to do well in my masters and PhD. He did this to help us, give us an early start so we’re not taken off guard in graduate school, and although I appreciate it I’m also dying inside. One day I’ll get over it, but for now I’ll wallow in my shame.
That’s all that happened, you’ll be hearing from me again in a few days.