This week, my Facing Global Challenges class had the unique opportunity to host a special guest: Professor Mietek Boduszynski, whose work in U.S. foreign policy and studies on the Middle East can be applied to what we are currently learning about in class. Professor Boduszynski teaches U.S. foreign policy at Pomona College, as well as courses on the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the Balkans, democracy promotion and democratization. From the moment Professor Boduszynski began speaking, the room was captivated by his depth of knowledge and engaging way that he shared it. The visit overall offered fresh perspectives that tie into what we've been studying about the Israel-Palestine conflict and other global affairs, leaving all of us with a renewed sense of curiosity and ambition.
During his lecture, I learned how allies differ from partners in foreign affairs: while allies commit to deep, often long-term relationships with binding responsibilities, partners engage in more flexible, goal-specific collaborations. Together, these relationships are essential for addressing global challenges and enhancing both security and economic growth. Moreover, having allies and partners are important for trade, travel, security, climate change, and public health. They facilitate the free flow of goods, services, and people, while also promoting international cooperation on critical issues like defense, technological advancements, and disaster response. These relationships create a framework for global stability and shared progress.
In a recent reading, we learned about strategies for handling ally disputes. The strategies consist of: persuasion, incentives, sanctions, looking the other way, regime change, and independent action. An example of persuasion is when the U.S. persuaded Taiwan not to declare independence to avoid provoking China, thus preserving peace and U.S. options for defense. Taiwan has operated independently since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, but China views the island as a breakaway province and has threatened military action if Taiwan declares independence.
The U.S. has consistently supported Taiwan’s defense but has also followed a policy of "strategic ambiguity"—recognizing the People's Republic of China (PRC) under the "One China" policy while maintaining informal relations with Taiwan. Successive U.S. administrations have used persuasion to convince Taiwan’s leaders that formal independence would likely provoke China into launching a military attack, putting Taiwan at risk of invasion or blockade. The U.S. has emphasized that such a declaration would force it into a difficult position—either to intervene militarily against China, which would escalate tensions globally, or to refrain from intervention, which could weaken U.S. credibility as an ally. This example resonates with me as someone who is "technically" half Taiwanese and half Chinese, but lives in the U.S. The way the U.S. tries to balance its strategic interests while maintaining peace between two places that are both part of my identity is interesting and puts me in a position where I am unsure if I can defend one side or the other. I understand the tension between the two perspectives and seeing how diplomacy works to navigate that reflects the complexities of my own heritage.
Comments