Crimea

It seems that the only thing preventing the media from talking 24/7 about the missing Malaysia Airlines flight is the situation in Crimea.  If you’re reading this blog right now, then that means you have access to modern channels of communication, and thus, you’re probably somewhat familiar with the recent string of events. 

Over the past couple of weeks, the Russian Federation has seized de facto control over the Crimea.  The new pro-Russian Crimean government held a referendum in which a supposed 97% of the electorate voted for Crimea to join Russia.  The West quickly denounced the election as illegitimate and has promised to punish Moscow for its act of aggression.

President Putin has tried to spin Russia’s intervention in Ukraine as an effort to “protect ethnic Russians.”  One has to seriously doubt this claim given that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Ukrainian government is or was discriminating against ethnic Russians.

And if there are any countries in the world that act on behalf of idealist, altruistic principles rather than calculated self-interest, Russia is certainly not among of them.  The Kremlin is not fooling anyone here!  Russia’s actions over the past few weeks are clearly part of their design to reclaim its former glory.  (After all, Putin once remarked that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical calamity of the 20^th century.)

No matter how selfish, aggressive, or power-hungry nations may be, they often will exert surprising amounts of time and effort attempting to frame their blatantly reprehensible actions as altruistic.  The Crimean referendum was held under crisis conditions, there was no option on the ballot to maintain the status quo, and many ethnic Tatars chose not to even come out to vote out of protest.  Putin has also been claiming (confusingly) that many of the armed, uniformed men who took over airports and government buildings in the Crimea are simply not Russian.

If President Putin was really feeling altruistic--and felt compassion for all minority groups that want to determine the status of their own borders independently--then he should also be okay with holding a secession referendum in Chechnya!  And Dagestan!  Somehow, I think he might just not be okay with that...

This phenomenon is not unique to Russia.  Some might argue that President Obama’s “Asia Pivot” strategy is not an attempt to maintain stability in the Asia-Pacific and promote free trade and human rights, but rather, a design to contain China’s rise and to cling to regional hegemony.  To those who believe that power politics are the only factor behind the behavior of nations, all principles—including human rights—are just facades.

In essence, President Putin is making use of the principle that we inherently would prefer that others behave altruistically than out of self-interest.  The problem is, no one’s buying Putin’s definition of altruism. It's just an effort to save face or to whip up domestic support.  Well played.

TPP and AGOA

Free trade agreements are designed to be a win-win, or else no party would sign them in the first place.  But who are the actual winners and losers?  And how are they presented to the American public?  The TPP and AGOA are two examples of current free trade agreements.  Arguments surrounding the former tend to be more self-interested whereas arguments surrounding the latter tend to package the agreement as an act of altruism.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has gotten a lot of news coverage recently, both in the United States and around the globe.  If agreed to, it would further link the economies of the United States and some dozen Pacific nations.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, albeit a left-leaning think tank, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have an adverse effect on income equality in the United States.  This chart shows that if the Trans-Pacific Partnership were to be ratified, the top 10% wage-earners would see their wages rise, while everyone else's wages would decline.

If wealthier Americans began making the argument that the TPP ought not to be ratified because it would create further income inequality, or voted based on that principle, it would certainly be an act of altruism. 

But government is about creating an environment in which all people can satisfy their wants and needs.  And in a democracy, there are tons of competing voices, all shouting for their own interests.  To an extent, every self-interested individual, or group of individuals, tries to get what they want, and hopefully, a democratic government will be able to work out a solution that addresses these wants.

The debate over the TPP is no exception.  Take, for instance, the variety of domestic interest groups that oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  There are labor unions, which want to make sure that outsourcing doesn’t become even more prevalent.  You have farmers, which want to keep subsidies and other economic protections in place, just to name a couple.

But free trade is sometimes painted in a more altruistic light, and its self-serving properties are mentioned as an afterthought, particularly when it comes to Africa.  As part of a political internship I did over the summer, I attended the Rainbow/PUSHCoalition’s annual international conference in Chicago.  I sat in on a panel discussion about U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, and the rhetoric was very different from that of the TPP.

The academic panelists were much less political.  They focused on what the U.S. can do to help African countries than they did on how to help American jobs.  Many members of the panel called on Congress to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), set to expire in 2015. Signed into law by  President Clinton in May 2000, this legislation is intended to “expand U.S. trade and investment with sub-Saharan Africa, to stimulate economic growth, to encourage economic integration, and to facilitate sub-Saharan Africa’s integration into the global economy. The Act establishes the annual U.S.-sub-Saharan Africa Economic Cooperation Forum (known as the AGOA Forum) to promote a high-level dialogue on trade and investment-related issues.”

But I also got to hear a more political perspective.  Governor Pat Quinn also attended the event, and he noted that among the 50 states Illinois is the leading exporter to Africa. He named Illinois companies Caterpillar and John Deere, which now sell high-tech agricultural equipment (such as combines with sophisticated information technology) to African farmers.  Governor Quinn did a much better job, I thought, of explaining how this trade is not simply charity, but rather, beneficial for the American economy, as well.

Now of course, Singapore and Nigeria are not in the same economic situation, and thus AGOA and the TPP are designed for somewhat different purposes.  But how we balance our own interests and the interests of others, domestically and internationally, is a dilemma that will never go away when it comes to trade agreements.

The Tragedy of Hamlet

According to Harold Bloom, all characters in fiction can be divided among two classes: Hamlet and Don Quixote.  One literature blogger describes Hamlet as the “egoist (focused on self), pessimist, thinker, slow to act (very), above the law,” and Don Quixote as the “altruist (focused on others), optimist, doer, quick to act.” Of course, not all characters in literature fit perfectly as a Hamlet or a Don Quixote; some possess elements of both, but the two can be thought of as opposite ends of a spectrum.

Most of the plotline in Hamlet is driven by self-centeredness.  Claudius, lusting for power, poisons King Hamlet and then attempts to secure his throne.  Hamlet desires revenge against Claudius.  Although Hamlet takes a long time—the duration of the play—to summon up the will to avenge his father’s death, his ambivalence stems from his own conscience and desire to not allow Claudius to go to heaven.

Hamlet’s behavior is incredibly self-centered throughout the play.  Now, this may not be a bad thing.  Perhaps his actions can be justified, but that is another question altogether.   In fact, there hardly seems to be any significant act of altruism in the entire play.  From the moment we are told in Act I that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” the monarchy of Elsinore devolves into a downward spiral, fueled by selfish desires. 

The Marxist literary critics, unsurprisingly, seize this as an opportunity to critique monarchy as a self-centered, insidious form of government.  Psychoanalytic critics characterize Hamlet as an id-dominant person, seeking to primarily satisfy his selfish, subconscious desires, even his Oedipal Complex.

Other literary critics have attempted to diagnose Hamlet with a psychological illness.  If Hamlet is, in fact, mentally ill, does that explain his egoistic behavior?  Or does that view simply stigmatize the mentally ill?

If there is a Quixotic character to be found in Hamlet, it has not yet occurred to me.  In essence, that is the tragedy.