Egyptian Revolution, Emergence of Nationalist Populism, and My Career in International Relations Revisited
After 18 days of street protests involving millions of common people, the secular authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak has been abruptly brought down in Egypt. The fact that Egypt of Mubarak, as one of the only major Arab powers to recognize Israeli existence and American power in the region, can be so suddenly brought down with street protest can only be taken a chilling sign of how much doubts the common people have assigned regional stability based on American political controls.
Washington has to be feeling uneasy even as it "chose the people over Mubarak." The disappearance of pro-American political control creates a power vacuum open for irrational Egyptian nationalists and even worse, anti-American, anti-Israeli "Islamic fundamentalists" of the Muslim Brotherhood to fill. America, while preparing further aid to help keep the newly born Egyptian democracy stable, must at the same time be fully aware of the possibility for "undesired elements" to hijack the "democratic revolution."
The most worrisome aspect for America, as well as any foreign power seeking political influences in foreign lands, is that soft power, in the form of cultural imports into other countries, can no longer add any sort of stability into bilateral and multilateral relations. Just as values of emotions need to considered in international relations, the importance of having mutual respect for local cultures can no longer be ignored for the sake of stability.
To be specific, people in most countries, unlikely the politically indifferent citizens of Japan, have strong nationalistic agenda based on strong desire to preserve their local cultures. They, thus, are unwilling to knowingly live with American influence over their own countries and American choke-hold over their nationalist destinies. For America to continue exercising global influence, it needs to stop adhering to loyalty of its own cultural values abroad and thereby remove its own cultural bias in international relations.
This lack of cultural loyalty is needed to calm international relations in the 21st century.
As the ideological and militaristic groupings of the Cold War gave way to dominance of American soft power and economic conflicts among different national interests, the people, seeking more security in their livelihoods, is becoming the primary influence in instigating foreign aggressions.
Even in Rakuten, the IT conglomerate I work for in Tokyo, tensions exist within its microcosm of different nationalities. Foreigners blame inflexibility of Japanese culture for a bureaucracy that rejects all new ideas, while the Japanese suspect motives of foreigners’ desires to “globalize” the company.
And with the media making inflammatory comments regarding other countries, most people with little experience outside their own cultures become more biased against - less willing to learn about - their “enemies.”
However, people and their governments everywhere strive for the same goals: economic security, preservation of sovereignty and established values, and freedom from overt interventions. Discussions of those interests can be facilitated without the distracting “noises” of deliberately inflammatory diversions.
My goal is to become that facilitator.
By inserting a fluid cultural element into standard international diplomatic procedures, I seek to create new methods of diplomacy in which the common people are not sacrificed by international conflicts instigated by misunderstandings and jingoism.
Rather, my career objective, like that of Rakuten, is to empower the common people. We aim to enable individuals to seek economic self-betterment and greater control of their own destinies through entrepreneurship. Yet, because of its for-profit nature, Rakuten must exclude those who need empowerment the most.
They, the poor across the world’s underdeveloped hinterlands, can only be helped by international diplomacy. By helping governments to provide better environments for economic growth and equal opportunities, I can help advance the welfare of the neediest.
Using my enthusiasm for foreign cultures and through research into new methods of international diplomacy, I would like to eventually work for the UN and other non-profit international organizations. I can then live in underdeveloped countries to assist local governments and people with help from the international community and without nationalistic biases.
Washington has to be feeling uneasy even as it "chose the people over Mubarak." The disappearance of pro-American political control creates a power vacuum open for irrational Egyptian nationalists and even worse, anti-American, anti-Israeli "Islamic fundamentalists" of the Muslim Brotherhood to fill. America, while preparing further aid to help keep the newly born Egyptian democracy stable, must at the same time be fully aware of the possibility for "undesired elements" to hijack the "democratic revolution."
The most worrisome aspect for America, as well as any foreign power seeking political influences in foreign lands, is that soft power, in the form of cultural imports into other countries, can no longer add any sort of stability into bilateral and multilateral relations. Just as values of emotions need to considered in international relations, the importance of having mutual respect for local cultures can no longer be ignored for the sake of stability.
To be specific, people in most countries, unlikely the politically indifferent citizens of Japan, have strong nationalistic agenda based on strong desire to preserve their local cultures. They, thus, are unwilling to knowingly live with American influence over their own countries and American choke-hold over their nationalist destinies. For America to continue exercising global influence, it needs to stop adhering to loyalty of its own cultural values abroad and thereby remove its own cultural bias in international relations.
This lack of cultural loyalty is needed to calm international relations in the 21st century.
As the ideological and militaristic groupings of the Cold War gave way to dominance of American soft power and economic conflicts among different national interests, the people, seeking more security in their livelihoods, is becoming the primary influence in instigating foreign aggressions.
Even in Rakuten, the IT conglomerate I work for in Tokyo, tensions exist within its microcosm of different nationalities. Foreigners blame inflexibility of Japanese culture for a bureaucracy that rejects all new ideas, while the Japanese suspect motives of foreigners’ desires to “globalize” the company.
And with the media making inflammatory comments regarding other countries, most people with little experience outside their own cultures become more biased against - less willing to learn about - their “enemies.”
However, people and their governments everywhere strive for the same goals: economic security, preservation of sovereignty and established values, and freedom from overt interventions. Discussions of those interests can be facilitated without the distracting “noises” of deliberately inflammatory diversions.
My goal is to become that facilitator.
By inserting a fluid cultural element into standard international diplomatic procedures, I seek to create new methods of diplomacy in which the common people are not sacrificed by international conflicts instigated by misunderstandings and jingoism.
Rather, my career objective, like that of Rakuten, is to empower the common people. We aim to enable individuals to seek economic self-betterment and greater control of their own destinies through entrepreneurship. Yet, because of its for-profit nature, Rakuten must exclude those who need empowerment the most.
They, the poor across the world’s underdeveloped hinterlands, can only be helped by international diplomacy. By helping governments to provide better environments for economic growth and equal opportunities, I can help advance the welfare of the neediest.
Using my enthusiasm for foreign cultures and through research into new methods of international diplomacy, I would like to eventually work for the UN and other non-profit international organizations. I can then live in underdeveloped countries to assist local governments and people with help from the international community and without nationalistic biases.
Do you want to become a facilitator or a revolutionary?
ReplyDeletea revolutionary, no doubt about that
ReplyDelete