In Foreign Affairs (April 5, 2017) Snapshot, Dr. Daniel Bessner and Dr. Stephen Wertheim published a paper, "Democratizing the U.S. Foreign Policy: Bring Experts and the Public back to Foreign Policy". The title of this paper not only caught my attention but also stroke a chord that resonated in my mind ever since I started writing the Column of Mainstream and Organic Views. Although Bessner and Wertheim are young (comparing to Kissinger and Brzezinski) in their career as emerging 'expert' in foreign policy (FP), security and international affairs, they must have felt the frustration in watching the current events and the uncertainties of the U.S foreign policies to write the above paper. 
 
Bessner earned his PhD from Duke and completed two post-doc studies at Dartmouth (International Security and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding) and earlier as a Foreign Policy, Security Studies, and Diplomatic History Postdoctoral Fellow at Cornell University’s Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies. He is currently an Assistant Professor at University of Washington (Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies). Wertheim earned his PhD from Columbia University and completed a post-doc study at Princeton University (University Center for Human Values and Niehaus Center of Globalization and Governance of the Wilson School). He is currently a Junior Research Fellow at King's College and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. Wertheim has published a book, "Tomorrow: The World", a book about the Birth of US Global Supremacy in WW II. Their credentials would suggest that they could emerge into real experts in international affairs and foreign policies should they persist in their academic pursue and/or land some foreign affairs job experiences (government or government supported think tanks).  
 
Bessner and Wertheim's essay is well intentioned. They did offer some prudent and penetrating observations on how elite FP experts had lost the confidence of American public and suggested five points to restore public trust by democratizing US Foreign policy. Their article deserves to be analyzed for readers in the public domain beyond experts of Foreign Affairs audience and their paper also deserves to be augmented with common citizens' opinions and comments as we will do in what follows.
 
Bessner and Wertheim cited the 50 Republican national security officials' public letter opposing Trump to be the 2016 Presidential Candidate and how the public ignored the letter and Fox News denounced them as people of "no trust". The authors further quoted Tom Nichols' article, "How America Lost Faith in Expertise", Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2017) and then presented their own view how that happened. The first reason they gave was that the experts supported the Iraq War had caused FP expertise facing discredit. The authors claimed that Trump in his campaign further discredited the experts. This is certainly valid concerning pro-war FP experts but Trump's action was really induced by his reading the 'non-vocal' public's opinion correctly – It was the experts who initiated the long and fruitless war. The authors then suggested that the experts had isolated themselves from the public. This phenomenon is certainly true but the culprit as well as an accomplice is the American mass media which have violated the principles of journalism. Journalism supposes to offer unbiased reporting and multiple choices rather than take sides creating polarized media camps. Polarized media polarizes the public by not presenting multiple options in the same presentation. 
 
The two authors presented a credible historical account of elitist versus democratic FP formation process back from the 1920's through the two world wars, represented by Walter Lippmann (ordinary public is too ignorant), John Dewey (public can assist the experts) and public political institutions (Foreign Policy Association, FPA, the like). Lippmann might be right in 1920’s but certainly wrong today as knowledge gap on FP has been shrunk by the availability of clicks in the Internet search engines. Dewey advocated that democracy needs demo but today physical demonstration is hardly necessary as citizens are empowered by the Internet to demo with words. It is the mainstream media, often bought or controlled by money that has denied the public the right to opine. 
 
Bessner and Wertheim credited Cold War for making Lippmann’s view to triumph. The fight against communism and its success helped establish elitists' faith and get their view institutionalized (NSC, CIA, IDA, RAND, and etc.). Even Vietnam War was managed to be legitimized and the two authors concluded that, at the end of Cold War, the experts and the public lost a shared rationale for the U.S. FP. In reality, communism has changed significantly even has been transformed to converge with democracy supported capitalism in some countries. The elitist approach to FP inherited from legacy is definitely outdated and the public has begun to realize that.
 
The authors credited today's think tanks for their concerted effort to engage the public by offering online public dialogues, etc. But they pointed out that the American FP has become structurally undemocratic, by merely asking the public to receive and assent instead of empowering them to choose and direct. We agree with their assertion but we blame the media being the accomplice. The media has not been open to common citizens as half or one century ago. A 91 year-old veteran friend of mine proudly showed me his comments published in NY Times post Korean and during Vietnam War but complained that his opinions had never been accepted for media publication for the past four decades – a telling story of today’s media.
 
Bessner and Wertheim were concerned with the new elites that Trump had hired into his National Security and FP team thus calling for ‘democratizing FP’. They laid out five points for doing that: 1 facilitate democratic deliberation, 2. Interact with citizens, 3. Frequent the non-traditional media outside of CNN, NYTimes, WSJ, the like, 4 empower stronger role for Congress on FP, and 5. FP experts to build a culture that individual expert is accountable for contributing to any disastrous FP. These points are positive, but one missing point they missed is a trustable media!
 
The American public must demand the mass media to be unbiased, open and fair in soliciting public opinions not just presenting the elitists’ views and to present multiple choices of FP instead of prejudiced on a single thesis. Today, citizens live a busier and faster-paced life than half or one century ago. Today, the world has become more complicated by globalization and multinational interactions. Certainly, having expertise (and experts) in FP is still a necessity, but more importantly we must shrink the gap of FP knowledge and provide easy means of dissenting on FP to the public. The Internet offers technological tools but the experts and citizens must learn how to use them collaboratively to formulate FP. Trump's habit of twitting to communicate with citizens worried experts, but on a deeper thought, this might be just one of the effective tools to democratize FP. When the public, the experts, the think tanks, the media, the State Department, the Congress and the White House can work together to exchange opinions and to debate issues in plain language, then we will have succeeded in democratizing FP!
 


​

Dr. Wordman

​Diaoyu Islands are located about 120 miles northeast of Taiwan island, historically part of China, seized by Japan after the 1894 Sino-Japanese war and supposedly to be returned to China after WW II. No people can reside on them since the islands are rocks with no fresh water. Then why Diaoyu Islands are news again with President Trump reiterating: the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty is applicable to the tiny islands (2-10-2017, Abe Shinzo visiting Washington DC)? President Obama made the same reiteration (4-24-2014, visiting Japan). In the press conference following, a reporter asked President Obama, will he engage in war for Diaoyu Islands, his reply was that the treaty was signed before he was born, kicking the responsibility bucket back at least six decades. I wonder WHY? And you may wonder too! 
 
By examining into the history deeper, the truth is uncovered; some of which have been objectively presented by a documentary video: "Diaoyu Island: The Truth" produced by Charles D Nebe. In this article I wish to sort out the WHY questions with more facts taking advantages of many good research work (Walter Ko, Kaichin Chu, Don Tow and others). I hope the following analysis would make all Americans understand the Diaoyu Islands issue and correct an injustice produced by a legacy American foreign policy that may harm our future.
 
Very little doubt by historical and legal evidence, the Diaoyu Islands just like Taiwan have been part of China's sovereignty since 15th century (I. 1403, Ming Dynasty, book, Sail with the Wind (順風相送), currently kept in the library of Oxford University; II. 17-18th century, Qing Dynasty, book, Journal of Traveling to the South (指南正法); and III. Book by Japanese author (Linzipin, 1738-1793), Map Illustration of Three Nations, 三國通覽圖說, kept in Tokyo University). Also no doubt, Japan was an aggressor towards China from 19th century up to WW II. Japan's motive of claiming Diaoyu Islands was obvious and persistent since Japan seized the islands in 1895 by claiming Diaoyu Islands as no-man's islands. This idea was proposed by Charles Le Gendre (1872), an American Consul to Xiamen, China. On the way returning to the U.S. passing Tokyo, he was hired by the Japanese Foreign Affairs Department as a consultant. As a consultant, he suggested the 'Squatting' scheme. This was obviously an unethical behavior by a retiring American diplomat. It is ironic that today, President Trump is proposing legislation to forbid government officials to take on consultant jobs for foreign nations within 5 years after leaving their official posts.
 
During WW II, the U.S. and China were allies; the Chinese fought a bitter land war against Japanese aggression and the U.S. fought a brutal sea-island war against the Japanese Imperial Navy and Army. In 1943, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Chairman Chiang attended the Cairo Conference; Roosevelt brought up the issue of Okinawa and Roosevelt and Chiang agreed to jointly manage it. In 1945 Potsdam Conference (7/17-8/2), attended by Stalin, Truman and Churchill (7/17-26) and Attlee (7/26-8/2), a declaration was made that Japan was to return all occupied Chinese territories to China. Later in 1951 San Francisco Conference where peace treaty was developed but Republic of China was not invited (China was having internal battles). This deprived China's right to place appropriate languages in the San Francisco Treaty as an ally victor who had defeated Japan and had right to recover and  protect her sovereignty. The article 3 of San Francisco treaty gave the U.S. administrative rights to deal with recovered war territories from Japan. 
 
On December 25, 1953, like a Christmas present, the U.S. gave the administrative right of Amami island (part of Okinawa islands) to Japan. The U.S. action is prompted by local residents' unrest and Japan's eager coercion of getting Okinawa back (Okinawa, an independent country, historically a protégé of China, was captured by Japan by aggression and Japan was forced to give up Okinawa at the end of WW II). The why questions on this and Diaoyu Islands are similar which should be examined from the perspectives of Japan, China and the U.S. separately.
 
Japan's perspective is the easiest to understand but neither honorable nor justifiable. Japan to this day refuses to accept her defeat in WW II by denying it, misinterpreting the war crimes and trying to restore the glory of the past Imperial Japan. What makes Japan's position unacceptable to many Asian countries, especially China, is that Japan is still trying to recover the territories she captured by aggression prior to and during WW II. Japan would deny earlier history and focus on the period of her occupation to argue in disputes. China, on the other hand, would always present ample early historical evidence to support her sovereignty claims. During the 19 and 20th century, China was a victim to many aggressors including Japan hence her control or governance of many territories during that period was violated by unfair treaties. Post WW II, China further suffered injustice by being excluded from post-war negotiations in the San Francisco Treaty and being taken advantage of by her allies and even the defeated Japan.
 
Both Japan and the U.S. exploited the fact that ROC and PRC are opposing each other while claiming sovereignty over entire China. Why the U.S. adopts a pro-Japan position regarding any China-Japan territory dispute is not so obvious to Americans. The U.S. always maintained one China policy from recognizing ROC (1911-1979) to switching to PRC (1979-present). The actions that the U.S. took regarding Chinese territory issues seem to be based on two principles; first is her long-term (legacy) foreign policy of selecting partners to fight communism and to maintain her supremacy in the world and the second is her short-term practical diplomacy serving her immediate interests. Post WW II, the U.S. perceived that Japan could be used and controlled as a faithful partner to fight communism and practice a democratic system. Japan shrewdly negotiated a guarantee from the U.S. (General MacArthur) to protect Japan’s Imperial emperor and many war criminals from prosecution (Even US WW II veterans were forbidden to bring charges against Japan). Many war criminals eventually became elites of the new ‘democratic’ government. Japan has since been ruled with one dominant party (Liberal Democratic Party) with heritage from the Imperial past.
 
The US Japan policy condoned Japan's persistent 'recovery' effort to return to its Imperial glory. Japan denies war crimes and continues to worship war crimals. The textbooks are whitewashed to mislead her youth about WW II. Japan shamelessly interprets her sex slavery program during the war as volunteer program and devises phony purchase scheme trying to capture Diaoyu Islands permanently. When Abe Shinzo visited Pearl Harbor (12-27-2016), he made no apologies to American soldiers killed by the vicious Pearl Harbor attack. Japan is revising her peace constitution to permit attack and her military industry is manufacturing 'F-35 like' fighter jets. Japan's jets will more likely to become competitors than partners to US fighter jets.
 
The validity of the U.S. legacy foreign policy cited above is now questionable. First, targeting progressively reforming China based on fighting communism seems to be out-of-date. Second, favoring Japan over China as partner is also illogical.  China would provide the U.S. a long-term market place. China could be a more beneficial economic partner than Japan could. Japan with her limited size, aging population and export-driven economy could only be a competitor not a collaborative partner to the U.S. Why should the U.S. soldiers fight for Japan for Diaoyu Islands, what for? If there ware energy resources under those rocks, let them negotiate out a way to develop it! 
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D. Producer/Host, Community Education - Scrammble Game Show, Weekly TV Columnist, www.us-chinaforum.org . Trustee, Somers Central School District
 


​

We have discussed American Dream and Chinese Dream before, generally from a historical perspective. After witnessing a couple of unusual elections last year that brought in a new administration in the United States and that of Taiwan government, we witnessed some policy changes impacting Americans and Chinese people. Amazingly, in a short period of time, these changes have shaken the core beliefs of the people, especially the value system of immigrants. This prompts me to talk about the 'Dream' topic again. People's dream is an important concept defining a nation's destiny and people's life goals; it is a topic deserving our attention.
 
People take for granted that the United States is a country of immigrants. Surely, since the arrival of May Flower from England, North America has become the land of immigrants, though mostly from Europe. The blacks from Africa were imported in as slaves and the Asians, mostly the Chinese, were admitted as coolies. To Americans’ credit, the US revolution gained total independence and established a constitution-based government system. This political system gradually, over two centuries, abolished the discriminative laws against the blacks, the Asians, the Mexicans and the South Americans. In 20th century, the U.S. benefitted from a systematic immigration policy achieving the world’s no. 1 economy and a superpower status leading the world. Up to the end of 20th century, the U.S. is considered a dream country of immigrants. All Americans, including old and new generations of immigrants, cherish the American Dream - in the land of opportunities, Americans can do anything and fulfill everyone's dream, from having a happy life to becoming the US President.
 
Entering 21st century, the world has changed, many nations rise economically. The globe has become more integrated in commerce, communication and culture (3C) and yet more competitive (4th C), pursuing multiple dreams - Chinese Dreams, Indian Dream, Brazilian Dream, European Dream, African Dream, etc..... In contrast, the American Dream has visibly lost some luster as her internal problems of decaying infrastructure, shrinking industrial base, mounting national debts and budget deficit for decades. This stress and pain created a movement and phenomenon resulting in the victory of Trump's presidential campaign, characterized by the slogan, "make America great again". Trump's new Administration, considering their campaign slogan as their mandate, proceeded to define a new American Dream - a dream where new immigrants are discriminated and future immigrants are shut out.
 
Since Trump's inauguration, he has issued a number of executive orders. His order banning Muslims entering the U.S. from seven Muslim countries (affecting foreign workers and international students entering the U.S.) and his plan to overhaul the immigration law: i). restrictions on H1-B visa (which allow US corporations to hire foreign talents), ii). new rules on issuing green card (permanent resident status) and iii). limiting immigrants receiving welfare benefits, are destroying the traditional American Dream.  Based on the above actions and Trump Administration's philosophy of making America great again at the expense of immigrants and other nations, there is no rosy picture for the new American Dream, at least from immigrants' perspective. We seriously doubt that this new American Dream can make America great again.
 
Another election in 2016 produced a overwhelming victory for Ms Tsai Yin Wen, leader of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan. Her victory did not produce any mandate because she got elected by pledging to stay the course regarding cross straight relation but reneged her promise by leaning towards promoting separation from Mainland China and more dependence on Japan and the U.S. The people in Taiwan can also be considered as immigrants in the same sense as Americans in the U.S. The Taiwan aborigines were nearly wiped out by the Dutch and Japanese during their intermittent occupation in 17-18th and 19-20th centuries respectively. Chinese immigration to the island originated long before 15th century (Ming Dynasty). These Chinese immigrants are the old generation of immigrants in Taiwan (majority, like the white immigrants in the U.S.). The Japanese immigrants to Taiwan during the 50 years of Japanese occupation (1895-1945) and their descendants are a minority even less than the new Chinese immigrants from Mainland after WW II (post 1945) and their descendants. 
 
The Chinese Dream was quite modest because the Chinese suffered nearly two centuries of atrocities from foreign aggression and invasions; they simply desire to have a stable government without foreign power interference permitting them to pursue a peaceful modest life. The Chinese Dream is shared by the Chinese people in Mainland and Taiwan; they separately pursued economic development despite of their different governments being ally of Russia and the U.S. respectively. Fortunately, the two sides never waged war or any serious battle hence allowing them to fulfill their Chinese Dream. Taiwan developed faster and brought prosperity to the islanders sooner than Mainland did owing to a big task of lifting a huge population from poverty. However, with diligence, the Chinese mainlanders persistently pursued their Chinese Dream. Today, the Mainland China has raised her economy on par with that of the U.S. and has made Taiwan's economy dependent on the Mainland.
 
The Chinese Dream like American Dream are more economically oriented, however, there is a political element. The political element in the American Dream is the American Exceptionalism applied to foreign affairs and international relations. This aspect of American Dream may also change because of Trump's redefinition of American Exceptionalism,  a new NATO policy (EU and Russia) and Asia policy (China and Japan). The political element in the Chinese Dream is Unity applied to sovereignty and foreign diplomacy. China has relentlessly pledged that she will rise peacefully and rigorously defend the One China policy. Therefore, the Chinese Dream including both the economic and political element (Unity) will be pursued by the Chinese people.
 
Any challenge to the Chinese Dream from other big nations or China's competitive neighbors is carefully handled diplomatically by China by repudiating the 'China Threat' theory and by proposing Win-Win international development programs such as the One Belt and One Route (OBOR). However, Tsai's election victory in Taiwan and her policies since her inauguration on 5-20-2016, surprised many Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan strait and posted a challenge to Chinese Dream. Her continued effort in 'distancing China' through textbook revision, manipulating media, unfriendly to Mainland tourists, shifting away economic  dependence on China and pro-Japan  diplomatic actions (allowing nuclear radiation contaminated food import from Japan) have awakened some of the majority immigrants in Taiwan and the mainlanders. More Chinese in Taiwan are participating in anti-Tsai protests and many mainlanders are becoming vocal and urging the government to use military force to unite with Taiwan. It seems that the division between the long-generations immigrants and recent-generations immigrants from Mainland are uniting and the division between the pro-Japan immigrants (affiliated with Japanese occupation) and the rest of immigrants are widening. China seems to be quite secure and Tsai’s plots seem to be backfiring. Therefore, we may predict that the Chinese Dream shared by Chinese not only in Mainland, Taiwan but also worldwide has a rosy picture ahead.