|
|
||||
|
It was exactly 60 years ago that Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein gathered together with a group of leading intellectuals in London to draft and sign a manifesto in which they denounced the dangerous drive toward war between the world’s Communist and anti-Communist factions. The signers of this manifesto included leading Nobel Prize winners such as Hideki Yukawa and Linus Pauling.
They were blunt, equating the drive for war and reckless talk of the use of nuclear weapons sweeping the United States and the Soviet Union at the time, as endangering all of humanity. The manifesto argued that advancements in technology, specifically the invention of the atomic bomb, had set human history on a new and likely disastrous course.
The manifesto stated in harsh terms the choice confronting humanity:
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto forced a serious reconsideration of the dangerous strategic direction in which the United States was heading at that time and was the beginning of a recalibration of the concept of security that would lead to the signing of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968 and the arms control talks of the 1970s.
But we take little comfort in those accomplishments today. The United States has completely forgotten about its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty, and the words “arms control” have disappeared from the conversation on security. The last year has seen the United States confront Russia in Ukraine to such a degree that many have spoken about the risks of nuclear war.
As a result, on June 16 of this year Russia announced that it will add 40 new ICBMs in response to the investment of the United States over the last two years in upgrading its nuclear forces.
Similar tensions have emerged between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Isles and between the United States and China over the South China Sea. Discussions about the possibility of war with China are showing up in the Western media with increasing frequency, and a deeply disturbing push to militarize American relations with Asia is emerging.
But this time, the dangers of nuclear war are complemented by an equal, or greater, threat: climate change. Even the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, told the Boston Globe in 2013 that climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’
More recently, Pope Francis issued a detailed, and blunt, encyclical dedicated to the threat of climate change in which he charged:
It is remarkable how weak international political responses (to climate change) have been. Consequently the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented.
In view of the growing risk that in future wars weapons, nuclear and otherwise, will be employed that threaten the continued existence of humanity, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them. We also propose that all governments of the world begin to convert those resources previously allocated to preparations for destructive conflict to a new constructive purpose: the mitigation of climate change and the creation of a new sustainable civilization on a global scale.
This effort is endorsed by Foreign Policy in Focus, the Asia Institute, and World Beyond War, and is being launched on July 9, 2015.
You can sign, and ask everyone you know to sign, this declaration here:
http://diy.rootsaction.org/p/man
“Last January the famous Doomsday Clock was moved two minutes closer to midnight, the closest it has been since a major war scare 30 years ago. The accompanying declaration, which warned that the constant threat of nuclear war and “unchecked climate change” severely threaten human civilization, brings to mind the grim warning to the people of the world just 50 years ago by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, calling on them to face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” In all of human history, there has never been a choice like the one we face today.”
Noam Chomsky
Professor Emeritus
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
English
http://www.asia-institute.org/2015/07/08/2647/
Koreans perceive themselves to be stuck between the Bretton Woods financial system the United States created after the Second World War and an emerging new financial order centered on the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), led by China and joined by a host of major countries.
On the one hand, Korea has benefited greatly from the global trade system that developed thanks to the Bretton Woods system and a close alliance with the United States. Yong Kim, a Korean, is president of the World Bank. At the same time, China has become the dominant economic power in Asia and Korea’s most important trading partner.
The attraction of the AIIB, as a possible source for funding infrastructure projects of value to Korean companies, is simply irresistible.
But could it be that what Koreans see as a tragic choice between the U.S. and Chinese camps is really more a lack of imagination than a true dilemma? Could it be that Korea, rather than being a passive player in a geopolitical shakedown, can serve as a key nation in defining what exactly the AIIB will be and keep it on a positive track as it develops?
I have seen all sorts of arguments for new high tech solutions to the environmental problem. They are mostly ridiculous. We need specialized new technologies in the case of responding to Fukushima, but otherwise, actually we need primarily old technologies to respond to climate change.
Most every country in the world required someone purchasing any liquid in a bottle to pay a deposit and then return that glass bottle after the liquid had been used until the 1970s, or even 1980s. This system is very simple and it is not difficult.
I have taken a vow to never use disposal cups, but it is extremely difficult since people will bring me drinks before I say I have my own cup and even in cafes they will ignore the mug cup I have brought. They think I just came up to order coffee and put this plastic thing on the counter. It does not occur to people that I expect them to put the coffee in that mug cup.
I would go as far as to suggest that most Koreans have no idea why I carry a cup with me and no idea why I do not eat meat.
The 1st East Asia Youth Leadership Forum
December 20th –December 21th, 2014
Featuring:
Professor Marc Shell
Harvard University
Ambassador Kwon Byunghyon
Former Korean Ambassador to China
Emanuel Pastreich
Director of the Asia Institute (Kyung Hee University Professor)
The next generation is facing the challenges and opportunities born of a rapidly globalizing world, climate change and the rise of the Internet. It is in this context that Kyung Hee Cyber University and The Asia Institute will host a forum exclusively for teenagers from Korea, and throughout East Asia, in which they can gather to discuss in earnest the various issues that the world faces, and while interacting with renowned experts in related fields, come up with their own proposals for a better world for themselves and future generations. This unique event can serve as a critical moment in their lives, a stepping stone as they set forth to become global leaders.
Objectives of the Forum
To give thoughtful high school students first-hand experience participating in a world-class international forum, thereby allowing them to grasp the significance of international to a degree not possible in the classroom, and have an opportunity to express their opinions on important policy issues in a serious debate.
To listen to lectures by world-renowned experts both online and offline, thereby gaining new insights into possible solutions to current global challenges; to actively participate in debates concerning the most recent developments into a broad range of fields from politics and economics to technology and culture.
To establish an international network that includes committed students from other countries and schools throughout Asia for the purpose of building a brighter future of all.
Emanuel Pastreich
Forty years ago in Korea, a 22-year-old woman would, for the first time, put on makeup and try on expensive dresses as she prepared for marriage. But these days, young women spend an infinite amount of time and money dressing up for what seems like a life-altering event.
But it’s not for a wedding – in fact, many of them doubt they will ever marry and enjoy a family – rather it’s for an ineluctable rite of passage: the dreaded job interview.
That’s right. The stress and tension once associated with weddings now result from a short meeting with a complete stranger that is required for a potential job. And this ritual has only become more central in the lives of young people over the past three years as the economy grows worse. Cosmetic companies, plastic surgery clinics and clothiers make implicit reference to this rite in their advertisements. And the young and inexperienced latch on to this event as a promise of stability in an increasingly disorienting and uncertain world.
As a professor, I have watched the emergence of this cult with dismay. I see young men and women spending large amounts of money practicing for interviews, having professional photographs taken for their resumes and otherwise neglecting their classes and friends to prepare for a single moment, supposedly in which their futures will be determined by the most superficial of criteria. It seems as if the university can do nothing to help our graduates to thrive in the world other than to help them build up their experience with summer internships. A professor is not someone who can offer advice for a lifetime. Rather, we provide just a few required documents in the process.
Sadly, many students flood into graduate schools in the hope that continued studies will somehow afford them some certainty in their lives – even though graduate school cannot provide much in the way of benefits. Permanent positions for students with master’s and doctorate degrees are decreasing.
So the faculty sits by watching helplessly as our students are forced to remodel their lives to match the requirements of the dreaded interview. And yet, if we could think big for a change, if we could use our imagination, we could come up with a new approach to education and the future of our children.
Imagine if universities provided a job to students along with their diploma, rather than simply pushing them out into the cold world. Although at first glance such a proposal may seem unrealistic, if we rethink the nature of education, something similar may be possible.
The program could work something like this: Students entering university would be given a chance to create a venture company together with classmates who have similar or complementary interests in their first or second year of study. The university would help them create this company based upon their studies, their strengths and emerging business opportunities. The venture company started by the students would then permit the students, before graduation, to explore new concepts and consider new approaches to business, to manufacturing or to services.
Those interested in public service could form their own NGOs or other small organizations with their peers. Over the course of four years as an undergraduate, students would learn from their subjects, but also learn how to run the small venture company they created.
Come graduation, the students – whether in groups of three or 10 – would be launched into the world with both a diploma and a venture company to make their way and find their future. The venture company that they are a part of would be subject to strict demands from the university and from financing organizations, but those demands would be no more stressful than the demands made of graduates today, and more helpful to the students than ritual interviews.
There are two key shifts that must take place before such a plan is viable. The first is that Korea must have a policy to assess people’s careers on the basis of their skills and their experience. It is entirely logical that someone who has experience starting his or her own business should be highly evaluated for future employment regardless of the scale of the effort. We should not assume that the only road to success is through a big mainstream corporation.
The other change required is in financing itself. Many youth are deeply discouraged about their futures simply because they cannot find the means to realize their dreams. If banks were required to commit a significant part of their lending and financial assistance to people under the age of 30 (say, 30 or 40 percent), we could see a significant change in the mood among graduates. If they had an extremely good chance of receiving funding for their work and it was relatively easy to start a company for someone in his twenties, the entire nature of getting a job would change. You could essentially create your own job.
Such a move to create entrepreneurs on a massive scale among those under 30 is the best approach to revitalizing the Korean economy and bringing in new ideas and approaches on a massive scale. It is not the fault of professors that Korea is not producing the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in great numbers. That state is the result of the impossibility of youth realizing their ideas.
Moreover, I have heard many explanations for the factors behind the “Korean Miracle” of the 1970s and 1980s, but oddly the issue of age is rarely mentioned. When Park Chung Hee took office in 1961, he was 44; when Nam Duck-woo became finance minister in 1969, he was 45. They hired many far younger than themselves.
Shifting the entire process of developing business and financing opportunities down to those in their 20s and 30s would have a tremendous impact on Korea’s economy. It would also bring new hope to graduates, in which they could play a direct and significant role in society.
Many theories have been advanced concerning the growing conflict between the United States and Russia over the future status of Ukraine. The American media is hyping up the confrontation between the West and Russia as fast as it can. Many of those articles use the classic term “the West” in a most disingenuous manner. The media suggests that somehow the entirety of the enlightened world, all those who grew up in the tradition of Plato and Voltaire, are fed up with Russia and its undemocratic and expansionist moves. But there is plenty of evidence that the actual populations of European nations, regardless of what the bigwigs at NATO say, have little sympathy for this dangerous project of confrontation.
But among the many articles on the situation in Russia, or in Gaza, oddly the impact of climate change on policy related to Russia is completely overlooked. Although we cannot produce a “smoking gun,” there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggests that pushing Russia to the edge of war is inseparable from the life and death struggle within the security apparatus itself to avoid taking climate change seriously.
Forward to a Friend
