CONNECTING THE DOTS: INTERSECTIONALITY AND WAR

On a slow burn as I write this. A Teach In on Intersectionality in Trump's America had seven speakers, all of whom, with one notable exception,  kept the topic of their talk firmly within American boundaries. This is American Exceptionalism from the left.  It's as if the Vietnam War is still raging but the taxpayers don't know it.  Hey guys, there is a big world out there so it's Trump's World (and Obama's etc).  There US wars going on Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, with women casualties. Some quick thoughts from the perspective of feminist international relations..
FAKE NEWS. Fake news means omission, obfuscation as well as downright lies.  Selective intelligence about WMDsin Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin attack, the Lusitania.. The US in 2016 alone, went on 26,000 bombing missions over the Middle East.  9/11 Commission chiefs complained that not all the facts were provided about the strikes against Americans in New York.
ALT RIGHT  Anti war views were more widely disseminated in the Alt Right blogs than in Clinton's campaign. Presidential Candidate Trump made it a cornerstone of his campaign, coming out publicly as did Sanders, against the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
DIVERSITY Check out the US military for numbers of non whites and poor writes promised an education as a recruitment incident. Resource war against Native Americans over the Dakota Pipeline. Uranium mining on native lands used in depleted uranium weapons and nuclear weapons.
TRAVEL BAN. European countries have closed borders to refugee influx that was triggered by European/US wars in the Middle East and N Africa.  How many women refugees?
FALSE BINARY: Trump the irrational one vs Obama the rational one. The US media treats Trump like a woman: emotional, defensive, spontaneous, under someone else's influence (Putin), shows weakness (by wanting to 'talk' to Putin, ally with him to defeat ISIS). Needs a palace coup to overthrow him.

One of the reasons Trump was elected, was to head off nuclear war with Russia!! - See more at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46478.htm#sthash.UNvC9ykz.dpuf

BODY COUNT OF CIVILIAN WOMEN,  CHILDREN AND MEN  IN THE MENA REGION? Nobody knows because nobody is counting.

the liberal/progressive/left is allied with the deep state against democracy. The liberal/progressive/left are lobbying for the impeachment of a president who has committed no impeachable offense. The neoconservatives have stated their preference for a deep state coup against democracy. The media obliges with a constant barrage of lies, innuendos and disinformation. The insouciant American public sits there sucking its thumb. - See more at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46481.htm#sthash.0Lk7zGJ8.dpuf

MY KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN TO RAISE $2000 FOR HISTORICAL FICTION 'COMRADES IN LOVE'

It was on for a month only and didn't reach its goal.

I'm not worried. I'm enjoying writing the book and my lovely Writers' Group give great feedback. Thank you, Linda, Mark and Daniel!

Thinking about blogging the book 250 words at a time?

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE

Joel in 300 level U25 "American Foreign Policy"  wrote: " I liked the Idea of liberalism and I particularly enjoyed Immanuel Kant’s attachment to peace. I believe it is somewhat in our nature to want peace. However, peace requires the level of cooperation that has not been seen in the South China Sea. Do you think that the South China Sea dispute is a precursor to the troubles the United States is going to face when China becomes stronger and wants more influence?"

I replied:

In international relations policy making, it's always beneficial to see both sides of the equation.  The assumption from the US perspective is that the US has every right to be the main hegemonic presence in the Western Pacific.  The authors this week don't question the assumption. But one has to ask, who has given the US this right? Well to begin with, US allies in the region have. Japan, Vietnam  and the Philippines in particular are receiving military protection from the US. This in realist theory, is called 'bandwaggoning' of weaker nations under the main 'wagon' of the greater power.  Clearly, Japan especially wants protection against China, even though it was Japan which invaded China in WW2 .  In realist international relations, bandwagonning is accepted state behavior. But the hegemonic presence in Western Pacific, through the build up of US naval power under Obama, is threatening to China.  Under realist theory,  China wants to project its power in the China Sea, which is in the Western Pacific,  because in China's view, this is its 'backyard ' which it believes is threatened by the US.  So let's reverse the situation. Imagine if   the island of Grenada in the Caribbean, believes that it needs to join a bandwaggon under the protection of China, because it was invaded (in real life) by the US  in 1982.  China builds up its naval power in and around the Caribbean to protect Grenada. In this scenario, the US would feel threatened by China, all the more so because it regards the Caribbean seas, where Grenada is located,  as its 'backyard.'    

So in the liberalism theory of international relations, the China Sea dispute would be settled bilaterally or  taken to an international tribunal under the auspices of the UN . The  Philippines did the latter (with consent of the US). The difficulty then arose that China didn't accept the ruling against China in the international dispute mechanism in 2016, arguing that the conflict should be settled bilaterally. This is a recognized method by which most international  non-military conflicts such as a territorial claim, are settled today.  

So let's cut to the chase.  Liberalism has failed to find a solution. Realism will prevail and that is where we look at the wider balance of power in the Pacific. For example, let's look at Australia, probably the major  power in the region. Does Australia want the US to go to war with China over a few islands?  Australia has stated firmly it has not going to be  a party in territorial disputes. The South China Sea sits about 5,000 kilometres from Australia. That puts us in the firing line of a war between the United States and China.   The US is Australia's greatest ally and strategic partner while China is its biggest trading partner.In realism, Australia is now the balancing power and it's in the crossfire. Does Trump really want to risk a war in which Australia is in the crossfire?  So to answer your question, no I don't think this flashpoint will escalate UNLESS there is an accident or a deliberate provocation by a rogue element on either side.