Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Hegemony Close to Home

Last Friday, September 9, I attended (Prof.) Philip Brenner and Ambassador Anthony Quainton's lecture on "Cuba and America:  Where Do We Go From Here."  There were many interesting points brought up:  the actions (or non-actions) of the Obama administration, Castro's comements on the current regime, and possible resolutions for the future. What really struck me was how Brenner said one of the chief concerns of U.S. "stupid" policy is how we are "prisoners" of our rhetoric/ideology.  To a certain extent, we hold a liberal theory of IR, in the sense of advocating democracy.  Yet, because of such pride, the nation cannot accept Cuba's differing view (complicated by history, etc.). 

It seemed that this presentation tied into our discussion on hegemony.  When the general audience questioned whether giving into Cuba would reduce our hegemony, I referred back to our discussion on power/realism/polarity.  Just because the U.S. has a "benevolent" hegemony over the rest of the world, why does it not have the power to take serious action in Cuba?  Or, is it a question of authority?  Sovereignty aside, I wondered what duties the U.S. has as a hegemony. . . .  As mentioned in class, our positive image to the world was shattered after many years in Iraq.  Still, are we not even taking responsibility in Cuba?

As mentoined in the lecture on Cuba, I agree that it is most difficult to separate the policy from the people.  Maybe that is why some mention our future tolernace of Cuba would be called "normalization" rather than "reconciliation."

No comments:

Post a Comment