Blog #1
Zvobgo and Loken’s article, Why Race Matters in International Relations, tackles some questionable, yet engaging topics in the realm of international relations. The reason for the article, whether people agree or disagree, is to start the discussion of the lack of diversity within the international relations community and hope for change to occur to allow more perspectives in consequential decisions on the global scale. One of their arguments, however, is that of anti-Asian sentiment influencing the development and structure of NATO. At first, I completely disagreed with that statement, but discussing it in class, and reading deeper into it, I would agree.
To argue against Zvobgo and Loken’s statement that it was based on anti-Asian hate, there are two main reasons. The culture between the United States, Canada, and Europe are more similar than the U.S. and Japan or Japan and Europe. Yes, there are obviously cultural differences between the USA and Spain, or Spain and Germany, but in a more macro sense, they all come from a western thought that has been held together by close quarters and interconnecting treaties and conflicts over the past many years. One could say the U.S. is far away and should not be in the group, yet the states derive from England, which has lots of history within the European countries including their conflicts and even values. Even though there were conflicts between the European countries, as of the 100 years war, the two World Wars, and more, their connections and resources are bounded over many years, and Japan does not have that similar relationship to any of the countries in NATO. The other reason is the distance. The group is within the Atlantic (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and adding a country on the other side of the planet from Europe seems too grand of a distance to have good relations with.
These two arguments, and I’m sure there are others, are just facades for the racism within the agreement. It is a treaty organization that was created to preserve peace, yet they include the country that started two wars, Germany, two violent governments 3 years prior, Italy and Spain, and believe they can change and be within the treaty. Yet NATO does not want anything to do with the Japanese and the government of Japan, which America had control over after the war. General MacArthur and the US government ruled over Japan after they surrendered in 1945, and even with that presence and control, they did not want an Asian country in an agreement with a majority of white countries.
People can say Japan is too far to have an agreement with, Japan does not follow the same code of rules as Europe, Japan was still our enemy, but the fact is, the Christian white countries wished to be allied with one another, without considering other countries due to ethnicity. No Mexico, no African countries, and no Asian countries could be in this truce because why, race.
To argue against Zvobgo and Loken’s statement that it was based on anti-Asian hate, there are two main reasons. The culture between the United States, Canada, and Europe are more similar than the U.S. and Japan or Japan and Europe. Yes, there are obviously cultural differences between the USA and Spain, or Spain and Germany, but in a more macro sense, they all come from a western thought that has been held together by close quarters and interconnecting treaties and conflicts over the past many years. One could say the U.S. is far away and should not be in the group, yet the states derive from England, which has lots of history within the European countries including their conflicts and even values. Even though there were conflicts between the European countries, as of the 100 years war, the two World Wars, and more, their connections and resources are bounded over many years, and Japan does not have that similar relationship to any of the countries in NATO. The other reason is the distance. The group is within the Atlantic (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), and adding a country on the other side of the planet from Europe seems too grand of a distance to have good relations with.
These two arguments, and I’m sure there are others, are just facades for the racism within the agreement. It is a treaty organization that was created to preserve peace, yet they include the country that started two wars, Germany, two violent governments 3 years prior, Italy and Spain, and believe they can change and be within the treaty. Yet NATO does not want anything to do with the Japanese and the government of Japan, which America had control over after the war. General MacArthur and the US government ruled over Japan after they surrendered in 1945, and even with that presence and control, they did not want an Asian country in an agreement with a majority of white countries.
People can say Japan is too far to have an agreement with, Japan does not follow the same code of rules as Europe, Japan was still our enemy, but the fact is, the Christian white countries wished to be allied with one another, without considering other countries due to ethnicity. No Mexico, no African countries, and no Asian countries could be in this truce because why, race.
I think your two counter arguments against the racial claim are intriguing. Although they seem obvious, I think it is important to consider the cultural and locational factors that affect the assembly of NATO, before just assuming a racist motivation. I do concur that racism was a factor in the formulation of this organization, but an examination of these alternative factors paints a clearer picture of the actual motivation of the exclusion of the Asian countries from NATO.
ReplyDeleteCompletely. When I first read the article, I thought no way. I thought, due to location, Japan and Asia were just too far away. For an ideal treaty, you want people close and with similar views, yet I feel, at the time we had different views than the Germans, but were allowing them in it. You can also say that if we got Japan in it, then were are being racist to some African countries, or Asian countries, and somewhere the treaty had to have a limited number of participants, so I completely get the argument against. But once again, it just comes to whether or not we considered Japan to be part of this treaty, and I believe, due to our history and their race we said no, yet to Germany's history and white race, we said yes.
DeleteI really agree with both your conclusion and the way in which you reached said conclusion. I was also shocked/confused when the claim was first made, but its one of those things that after feel like it was very obvious. I think my biggest question is now how much of these decisions were sentient, and what was the extent of this sentience. I would assume Japan was purposefully not chosen, but was it to promote the Western block and that alone, to preserve white dominance in the geopolitical sphere, or something even more sinister? Of course, it will be hard to find evidence for these, but regardless it's an interesting question.
ReplyDelete