Understanding Chinese Culture

China has emerged as a strong force on the world stage and poses one of the largest threats to U.S. interests around the world. The conflict between the United States and China has so far remained in the economic and cyber realms, however, we must be prepared for the future. This includes understanding Chinese culture, its roots, and their society. Without this understanding, we are unprepared as naval officers and as a nation to handle the threat China poses to national and global security.

Over the past few decades, China has invested in the large-scale modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). While China is currently a regional military power, their goal is to become a world military superpower capable of competing with the United States. Wendell Minnick in an article detailing China’s growing military power referenced comments by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2017 how, “there were three developmental benchmarks for the PLA: becoming a mechanized force with increased informatized and strategic capabilities by 2020, a fully modernized force by 2035, and a worldwide first-class military be mid-century” (Minnick). China has a very competitive society that is strongly linked to meritocracy and other Confucian ideals. While China is currently controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, it is safe to assume those in power within the party are there because of their merit and are capable leaders. These leaders are currently making a strong push to challenge the U.S. on the world stage, and while they are still behind militarily, they will continue this push and catch us unless we continue to innovate and evolve as a military. We must prepare and strategize for China while also maintaining our other commitments around the world.

As naval officers we must also be aware of the geography, culture, and politics of China. We need to gain a better understanding of the way China does business. If we do not understand the dynamics of the theatre we may be operating in then we will not be nearly as effective. This includes understanding the Confucian values China has relied upon for centuries and also examining the hierarchical structure of their society. This can be done by examining the five relationships expressed by Confucianism. The structure of their society is very top to bottom and this can be seen in the ordering of the five relationships with ruler-subject being at the top and and friend-friend being at the bottom. This means the Chinese people will be greatly influenced by dynamic of these relationship and we must examine how this will affect how we operate in any conflict with China. Understanding the enemy based on their culture and how they behave will allow us to be much more efficient and effective.

As future naval officers we must understand how Chinese culture influences their decision making around the world. We must take the geography and political atmosphere of the region into consideration as well to understand their way of doing things. Understanding their values and societal structure is important to ensure nothing is overlooked and we are as prepared as we can possibly be for whatever the future may hold. While I believe armed conflict with China is unlikely, we are currently engaged in economic, cyber, and political conflict and we must continue to gain a better understanding of Chinese culture to gain an upper hand in these conflicts and prepare ourselves for the future.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 536

Works Cited:

FocusEconomics. “China Economy – GDP, Inflation, CPI and Interest Rate.” FocusEconomics | Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists, Focus Economics, http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/china.

Lockie, Alex. “How the World’s Largest Military Stacks up to the US Armed Forces.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 5 Aug. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/chinese-us-military-comparison-2016-8#chinas-ground-forces-9.

Minnick, Wendell. “How China’s Military Is Becoming More Dangerous By the Day.” The National Interest, The Center for the National Interest, 10 Apr. 2019, nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-chinas-military-becoming-more-dangerous-day-51847.

Rise of Empires

The Mongol Empire rose out of northern Asia and quickly took control a majority of Asia, Eastern Europe, and began to push into Western Europe before internal strife forced the Mongols to retreat and eventually brought an end to the empire. Genghis Khan conquered the Mongolian tribes and united them under his banner. They then marched throughout Asia conquering as they went, becoming known for their brutality. The Mongols nomadic lifestyle allowed their forces to mobile. Whatever the Mongols needed they brought with them. In The Perfect History, Ibn al-Athir stated, “…they needed no commissariat, nor the conveyance of supplies, for they have with them sheep, cows, horses and the like quadrupeds, the flesh of which they eat, and naught else.” This allowed them to be fast and not impeded by the need for supplies. They conquered swiftly and it was a surprise to many of their enemies. The Mongols built a vast empire, the largest the world had ever seen, in the blink of an eye.

Nazi Germany did something similar in the mid 20th century. At the end of World War I, Germany was decimated economically and left without a military by the Treaty of Versailles. Socially and politically, Germany was left in disarray and many Germans did not know what to do. This instability allowed Adolf Hitler to seize power and plunge the world back into war. Hitler re-established Germany as a military power and used his political power to unite Germany. He conquered the lands surrounding Germany to reunite the German speaking peoples of Europe and then began his conquest of Europe by invading Poland. However, Nazi Germany did so through a new method of warfare called the Blitzkrieg or lightning war. Blitzkrieg was intended to attack and subdue the enemy before they could organize and respond. This relied heavily on German tanks to punch through enemy lines and cause disorder. This can be compared to the Mongols who fought adeptly on horseback. The Mongols could strike fast by riding in on horseback and cause mass disarray, ending the battle swiftly and moving on with their conquests. Nazi Germany conquered and built an empire spanning most of the European mainland in the blink of an eye. However, the German strategy of Blitzkrieg eventually degraded as they got bogged down in Russia and their advance was stalled on both fronts. The fall of the German empire was as swift as its rise. However, it was not due to internal strife, but due to their inability to keep their supply lines intact and a general lack of resources as Germany began to crumble under the intense pressure placed on them by the allies.

The Mongols were able to conquer and hold territory because they used their nomadic lifestyle to their advantage. There had no supply lines their enemies could target so it was impossible to subdue them indirectly. To defeat the Mongols, one had to face them head on in combat and the Mongols were as much warriors as they were brutal. It seemed the only force capable of stopping the Mongols were themselves and they did just that when they were forced to stop their advance into Western Europe because of a crisis of succession. Empires before them had fallen due to internal crisis, and the Mongolian Empire was no different.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 524

Works Cited:Crisis of the Mongol Age, 13.1b:Ibn al-Athir Perfect History

The Threat of Religion

Religion is a powerful motivator in the lives of many. It guides people’s thoughts and beliefs, and has the overwhelming ability to bring together large swaths of people from different backgrounds. Religion has the ability to span across cultures and Christianity did this the best by preaching and being open to all peoples. These factors of unity and motivation are what the Roman empire feared the most. The Romans feared the “cult” of Christianity would unify all the dissatisfied subjects of their vast empire and lead to widespread revolt. If this occurred, the Roman Empire would have been faced with multiple wars, and if they lost against one of the revolts, it would only embolden the others. The Romans believed they were in danger of losing their power, wealth, and prestige throughout the world.

The Roman fear of Christianity was valid from the standpoint that the Romans did not understand the religion and they viewed it as a cult that was aligning the people of their empire against Roman values and the empire itself. Pliny in his letter to Trajan relays what he had discovered about the teachings of Christianity and states Christians, “… bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so” (Pliny).Upon hearing what Christians believed and their way of life, it is clear the Romans did not fully understand the religion. This was the source of their fear because as humans, we fear what we do not understand. This misunderstanding can be seen in the Christian practice of consuming the body and blood of Christ. Christians consumed bread and wine that through transubstantiation had become the body and blood of Christ. However, this practice made the Romans believe Christians were a cannibalistic cult because they did not understand it nor the meaning behind it. The main teachings of Christianity outlined by Pliny benefited society, but the Romans convinced themselves the values and lifestyle of Christianity were bad for the people of the Roman empire. However, it was the belief in one God and the renunciation of the divinity of the emperor that really divided the Romans and Christians.

Monotheism was a major factor that caused the Romans to fear Christians. The belief in one God went against the polytheistic Roman teachings on religion and the divinity of the emperor. It could be seen as an attack on the seat of the emperor itself. The monotheistic aspect of Christianity caused much fear among the leaders of the Roman empire.

Even though the Romans feared Christianity, it did not give them the right to try and stamp out the religion. Christianity was not threatening the empire through any form violence and even some of the Romans saw Christianity as more of a fad. Pliny states in his letter to Trajan, “…it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded” (Pliny). This viewpoint along with the fear of the Romans shows any action against Christians would be purely preemptive. The fear among Romans had nothing to do with what Christians were doing, but with what they might do. Rome had built a vast empire and had defeated armies and ideologies in order to do so. Rome was still in charge and they had the power to step in if Christianity took a turn to threaten the empire, however, until then Christianity was just a growing religion the Romans did not understand nor did they want to understand.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 547

Works Cited:

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97 from Apuleius, Apologia: Seminar, faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html.

(Pliny’s Letter to Trajan)

Transitions of Power

Successful transitions of governmental power are vital to the well-being of any empire or nation-state. How a nation proceeds from one regime to the next can greatly affect the ability of the incoming regime to govern and the standing of the state in the world. Alexander the Great built a vast empire spanning from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush mountains in eastern Asia. It was the greatest empire the world had ever seen, built through masterful conquest. However, conquest was all Alexander seemed concerned with because upon his death his empire was left with no king, no heir, and no system by which to govern his vast empire. Alexander’s generals divided up his empire amongst themselves in the aftermath of his death. This parallels to what happened after the fall of the Ottoman empire after World War I. When the Ottoman empire fell, there was a power vacuum because no there was no plan on how the territory would be governed. The French and British stepped in and, “divided the land that had been under Ottoman rule since the early 16th Century into new countries – and relegated these political entities to two spheres of influence…” (Osman). The events following the fall of the Ottoman empire are similar to the events following the fall of Alexander’s empire. However, while both empires were divided up into new countries following their demise, the major difference between the two is that while the people under the control of the Macedonians had no hope to regain their independence after Alexander’s death as his generals were certain to take control, the people of the Middle East had been promised independence by the British when the Ottoman empire fell during World War I (Osman). When the Ottomans fell and independence did not materialize, the people of the Middle East were not pleased with the British and French stepping into the role of governors. This set up for a very shaky transition of power and led to instability in the region that has continued to this day.

Smooth transitions of power are essential to stability. When Alexander died, his generals divided up the land of the empire evenly and the transition was smooth. They died not fight over who would take control of the entire empire; each general was satisfied with his lot. The Arab Spring is a more recent example of transitions of government, however, these transitions were not nearly as smooth and greatly destabilized many Middle Eastern and North African nations. In the Spring of 2011, many countries in this region of the world experienced protests and uprisings that brought about the end of many dictatorial governments. However, the hopes for a brighter future were quickly ended by the power struggles that ensued. Since these uprising, countries like Libya and Syria have fallen apart, with factions in Libya vying for control and a violent civil war erupting in Syria that continues to this day. Libya is a prime example of when there is no plan to transition governmental authority after the fall of government and Syria is an example of when a government refuses to cede their power to a new government. In 2011, a Damascus business women said on the state of Syria, “All that anybody wants is to be able to feed their families and that is getting harder and harder to do” (Shah). Without stability and smooth transitions of power, the people suffer and nations fall into chaos.

From the past and present, we have learned stability and smooth transitions of power are necessary to ensure a well functioning government. Without these, nations can quickly degenerate and fall into disarray, with no easy way to fix it. Even with these lessons from the past, we consistently relive the mistakes of poor government transitions in the present.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 583

Works Cited:

NPR Staff. “The Arab Spring: A Year Of Revolution.” NPR, NPR, 17 Dec. 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/12/17/143897126/the-arab-spring-a-year-of-revolution.

Osman, Tarek. “Why Border Lines Drawn with a Ruler in WW1 Still Rock the Middle East.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Dec. 2013, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553.

Shah, Dhruti. “Arab Spring: ‘It Was the First Time I Felt I Belonged’.” BBC News, BBC, 26 Dec. 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16275176.

The Evolution of Democracy

The main differences between Athenian Democracy and American democracy is the transition to representative democracy, separation of powers, and the diversity of the electorate. America adopted democracy from Athens because it was seen as the most effective form of government where the people were intricately involved and could have their voices heard. However, a direct democracy was impractical when the Constitution was being written because the fledgling United States covered a much larger area than Athens did in Greece, and the United States was a unity of separate states. The Founding Fathers had to develop a way to both fairly represent the people and the states themselves in the democracy of the United States. The Founding Fathers decided on a House of Representatives and a Senate to both represent the people and the states. However, the power of the government still rested in the hands of the people. When asked about the form of government the Founding Fathers had devised after the drafting of the Constitution, Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” While the implementation had changed from direct to representative, Athens was and America still is a democracy where the voice of the people has the strongest say in government.

The separation of powers was devised as a way to keep any one branch of the American government from consolidating power and becoming too powerful. While this is traditionally seen as a hallmark and improvement upon democracy by the United States, there was a form of the separation of powers in Athens. The Assembly in Athens was the legislative branch and the courts were the judicial, however, there was no clear established executive. Pericles attained the role of a pseudo-executive in Athens. Thucydides observed, “Pericles indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was enabled to exercise an independent control over the multitude—in short, to lead them instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power by improper means… In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands government by the first citizen (Thucydides 2.65.8-9). Pericles was the unelected leader of Athens and this became even more prevalent during the Peloponnesian War when Pericles exercised complete control over the Athenian strategy in the war. While the separation of powers was not explicitly stated in Athens, it is clear a well-functioning executive is necessary for democracy to work. Democracy can often get bogged down in the legislative branch when all that is accomplished is debate and no compromises nor conclusions are reached. This was seen in our class’s Athenian Assembly activity as well. Athens may not have had an “executive” power, but Pericles filled this role and helped Athenian democracy thrive. The explicit stating of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution greatly improved upon the idea that a legislative, executive, and judicial branch of government were all necessary for democracy, however, both Athens and the U.S. maintained the legislative was the most powerful because it was directly controlled by the people.

The area where Athens and the U.S. differ dramatically is in the diversity of the electorate. The electorate in Athens was comprised of only male Athenian citizens, and under Pericles only those who had two Athenian parents could be considered citizens. This made the electorate very homogenous and while ideological debate still occurred, this drastically narrowed the scope of debate. In the United States, the electorate is very diverse in background, character, and ideology; and is affected by a multitude of other factors. This diversity brings to the table many more issues, but there are also more ideas and debate on the best way to solve them. These differences make democracy stronger because everyone has the opportunity to have their voices heard. Through diversity, the United States has once again improved upon Athenian democracy.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 583

Works Cited:

Thucydides 2.65.8-9 (obtained from class powerpoint)

The Fall of Democracy into Tyranny

In Venezuela, President Maduro was an elected leader who was corrupted into a tyrant. While President Maduro was originally elected and just recently re-elected to another six year term, many are condemning his most recent election as a fraud and calling his government illegitimate. By both the pre-democratic and post-rise of democracy definitions of tyranny, President Maduro is undoubtedly a tyrant. In regards to pre-democracy tyranny, he is not a king nor does he have any divine right to be in power. He has seized power from the people and is no longer an elected leader. Now looking at the post-rise of democracy definition of tyranny, President Maduro is the exact image that supporters of democracy fear. He was an elected leader who used his power to consolidate more power to himself from the legislature of his country, and then used all the power he has gained to remain in power; he has not only watched his people suffer but has also contributed to their suffering as well. Inflation and poverty have been on the rise in Venezuela as a result of President Maduro’s nonexistent policies and basic services. According to Aaron Kliegman with the Washington Free Beacon, “It is all too common to find dying infants and helpless patients in hospitals… and most Venezuelans are struggling to buy enough food to feed themselves and their families… with countless Venezuelans starving” (Kliegman). President Maduro is also becoming more aggressive in his attempt to remain in power, often resorting to violence to silence his opponents and protesters who speak out against him. He has become exactly what the modern democratic world would call a tyrant and, without any justification or legal right to his power, he is a tyrant in the eyes of the pre-democratic world as well.

In addition to this, an NPR article written on January 23, 2019 stated that Juan Guaido, the Venezuelan opposition leader and the elected head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, has declared himself as Venezuela’s interim president amidst the growing unrest in the country, and this declaration was meet with cheers from the Venezuelan people. Many North and South American countries have declared that they do not recognize President Maduro’s government and have announced their support of Juan Guaido, leading President Maduro to announce that all diplomatic personnel had 72 hours to leave Venezuela (Cheslow). Protests are erupting across the country with Caracas local Carlos Gonzalez exclaiming, “This government, they destroy our democracy, and I want our democracy back… I want our rights back. It’s all I want” (Cheslow). In effect, there are now two tyrants vying for control of Venezuela: President Maduro representing the more sinister version modern democracy has come to know and Interim President Guaido representing the pre-democracy version that sought power through unconventional means in order to help his people. In ancient Greece, a tyrant almost needed the approval of the people in order for them to rise to power while today a tyrant rules in spite of his people. While the people of Venezuela demand change, President Maduro has refused to cede his power leading the people to support the naming of Juan Guaido, the elected leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela. It is a war of tyranny, modern versus ancient, one fighting for democracy and one fighting against it, and we must wait and see which one wins out as Venezuela continues to spiral into chaos.

Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 515

Works Cited:

Cheslow, Daniella, et al. “Venezuelan Opposition Leader Guaidó Declares Himself President, With U.S. Backing.” NPR, NPR, 23 Jan. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687643405/anti-maduro-protesters-march-in-cities-across-venezuela.

Kliegman, Aaron. “Venezuela’s Tyrant Gets Six More Years.” Washington Free Beacon, Washington Free Beacon, 10 Jan. 2019, freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/.