Month: August 2023

To Kill a Mockingbird

Earlier this week, Ito and I attended a performance at the Kennedy Center of the play version of this moving and powerful novel by Harper Lee. It was a well-staged production, faithful to the movie as best I can remember it from 50 years ago. Beyond its laudable, powerful attack on racism, it champions a moral position I have trouble with.

The play centers on the story’s hero attorney, Atticus Finch, who defends a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. The alleged rape victim, Mayella Ewell, was actually beaten by her father, Bob Ewell, because she had kissed the accused black man, Tom Robinson. Despite the valent efforts of Atticus to defend Tom, who could not have beaten the white girl on both sides of her head because of his unusable left arm from an earlier accident, the all while jury convicts him anyway.

The play opens with Atticus’s daughter, Scout, addressing the audience about the local newspaper’s report of the death of Bob Ewell by falling on his knife. No one can fall on their own knife, says Scout. What is going on here?

Near the end of the play the mysterious, reclusive neighbor, Boo Radley, who Scout and her older brother Jen have never actually seen before, carries an unconscious Jen to his home for treatment. Jen and Scout had been attacked in the night by their white trash neighbor Bob Ewell. When the sheriff finds the dead body of Bob Ewell, Atticus fears that his daughter has killed him during his attack on her and Jen. But the sheriff concludes it was Boo Radley who plunged the knife into Bob Ewell to protect the children.

In a private conversation between Atticus and the sheriff, it is decided that the Sheriff will claim that Bob Ewell fell on his knife rather than risk the verdict of a bigoted jury. Atticus does not want his children to hear the discussion of the lie. Bob Ewell was a bad guy and no one is very sorry that he is dead. The plan ends with Scout facing the audience and saying, “I guess he fell on his sword.”

The play has many instances in which Scout and Jen defy inappropriate customs and views. I applaud those attacks on bigotry and outmoded customs. We recently watched the British series “Cranford”, which masterfully depicts the power of customs (which fork to use and how to dress), the disruption of progress (the building of the railroad into this quant English town) and the ultimate adjustment to positive changes. I highly recommend it.

The moral dilemma for me is the following. Atticus correctly and bravely defended Tom against the clearly false charges. Both the Judge and the Sheriff were strongly on the side of the truth and the law, but bigotry won out. Thus, the judge and Sheriff set aside the law and lied to protect a good man and his good deed against a bad man. Good wins out but only because in this instance the Sheriff and Judge are on the side of ultimate justice.

Many Filipinos also accepted former President Rodrigo Duterte’s green light to kill drug dealers on the streets of Manila without trail. It may well have been that most of those killed were indeed drug dealers. But if we rely on ignoring the truth and the law to achieve good ends, we open a dangerous door. We can’t always rely on the Sheriff and the Judge to be good people. We need strong and trusted institutions as well.

Corruption and the American Empire

I truly believe that the vast majority of American’s who worked in Afghanistan after the U.S. toppled the Taliban government in December 2001 where genuinely motivated by the desire to help Afghanistan (and thus the U.S.)—myself included. “Warren’s Travels”  But as Ms. Chayes makes clear, we are just bad at it. “Afghanistan’s corruption was made in America”

Pursuing Empire is not what we are about. It is not “The beacon on the hill” that has rightly attracted the best and brightest to our shores. Of late even that beacon is threatening to go out. We should stay home and rebuild the capacity to cooperate where needed to enable us each to flourish in our own ways.

More on constructive competition

In contrasting our treatment of others as competitors or enemies in my blog on “What to do About China”  I am reminded of the 120 days I spent in Baghdad as an advisor to the Central Bank of Iraq paid for by the USAID and supervised by the US Treasury. Our occupation of Iraq included staff from the US Treasury, USAID, Commerce Dept, State Department, and, of course, the Dept. of Defense. Competition by each of them to do a better job than the others would clearly be win-win making our overall occupation more successful. But too often one agency treated the others as enemies diminishing and undermining their efforts rather than supporting them. My biggest fear with my dual association with USAID and Treasury was that each would see me as on the other side, which would have undermined my effectiveness. Luckily the each saw me as on their own side.  “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”

What to do about China?

“China’s much anticipated post-pandemic recovery appears to have flopped, with signs of a significant slowdown after decades of supercharged growth and data flashing warning signs.” Bloomberg “China’s failing recovery”

“Signs of deflation are becoming more prevalent across China, heaping extra pressure on Beijing to reignite growth or risk falling into an economic trap it could find hard to escape.”

What, if anything, should the U.S. response be? That depends on whether we see China as a competitor or an enemy. That should depend on our assessment of China’s objectives. Does China want to expand its territory one way or another, or to expand its influence in the global order? China’s behavior might support either assessment.

China claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly islands, which are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. In 1947 China asserted its claims with a map depicting a U-shaped line covering almost 70 percent of the South China Sea, known as the nine-dash line. In 2016, an Arbitration Tribunal rejected many of China’s maritime claims as lacking a basis in international law.

The UK returned Hong Kong to China July 1, 1997, with the understanding that it would be self-governed independently of the Peoples Republic of China for fifty years. China violated this agreement with its full takeover in 2020.

In 1972 President Richard Nixon confirmed that Taiwan was part of the People’s Republic of China but would continue to govern itself independently until it agreed to merge its government with the mainland’s. In the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the U.S. committed to providing defensive weapons to Taiwan to defend itself from invasion (as opposed to the volunteer absorption into the Peoples Republic envisioned in the One China Act). What we provided instead were heavy weapons irrelevant to Taiwan’s defense but prized by America’s defense industries. “Taiwan-China policy assurances military” The U.S. has more recently seemed to even question its commitment to the One China agreement.

These aggressive moves by China are better seen as solidifying its borders (much in the same way the US worries about its borders with Cuba) than military expansions. On the other hand, China joining the World Trade Organization, pressing for representation in the IMF and World Bank that is more reflective of its economic size, and its Belt and Road, Asian Infrastructure Bank and BRICS initiatives reflect China’s desire to gain status in the global system comparable to that of the U.S. In short, they reflect the behavior of a rising economic competitor.

We seem to be treating China as an enemy rather than the trade and economic competitor they see themselves as. Among sportsmen, competition takes the form of doing your best—of being the best you are capable of. Within our economy we rightly see competition as good and healthy. With fair competition, both sides benefit. The world is made wealthier. Kneecapping our competition is the approach of bad guys. I explored this more fully in my blog “Competing with China”

But China is not competing fairly either. We would be wiser to use the mechanisms of the global system of rules to push and pull them into compliance. We should end our own tariff—industrial policy violation of these rules as well. We might start by restoring the dispute resolution body of the WTO. While there will be genuine security justifications for trade restrictions, they should be very limited.  They should not include taxing steel purchased from Canada. Trade is win, win.

A recent G-7 statement clarified that: “We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed this message during her recent visit to China. We should facilitate and encourage China’s economic rise as it contributes to our own. The opposite direction—treating China as an enemy—ends in war.

America’s Unipolar period has corrupted us. We demand that others follow rules that we violate ourselves when we don’t find them convenient. We have become a bully. My hope is that we adjust to the fact that we are no longer the world’s sole superpower by strengthening the rules we helped develop and competing fairly under them: “Goodbye unipolar world and good riddance”