The eca currently lacks the resources, staff, and leadership to foster the foreign exchange program
Download 172.36 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Foreign education exchange is key to improving U.S China relations.
- US-China relations are key to solve a litany of impacts—anything other than engagement risks conflict
- The United States federal government should expand the funding and regulation of student visas for students attending elementary and secondary schools in the United States
- Foreign Exchange Programs Solve Aff and promote peace, build relations, and allow the workforce to remain competitive, harms outweigh the costs
US China RelationsDeteriorating US-Sino relations from multiple hotspots cause a security dilemma that could lead to nuclear war – the possibility cannot be ruled out and would be catastrophicColby 16, Colby, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at CNAS, and Wu, Associate Professor in the School of International Studies at Renmin University in China, ‘16 (Elbridge A. and Riqiang, “Seeking Strategic Stability for U.S.-China Relations in the Nuclear Domain”, National Bureau of Asian Research, NBR Special Report #57, April, http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf, accessed 7/2/16, JCP – ZW) Nuclear weapons are a crucial element in Sino-U.S. relations for the simple reason that they could be brandished in a crisis or even used in a conflict between the two most important nations in the world. The fact is that there are significant sources of tension and disagreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and some of these disputes appear to be, if anything, worsening. These include the status and future of Taiwan, how to handle Pyongyang and the potential collapse of North Korea and reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and territorial disputes between China and U.S. ally Japan in the East China Sea and between China and several Southeast Asian states, including U.S. ally the Philippines, in the South China Sea.Beyond specific disputes and exacerbating factors, tensions between the United States and China are likely to persist because of the security consequences of a rising China. The study of international relations has long suggested that such power transitions are especially fraught with the danger of conflict for reasons having to do with concrete calculations of power and wealth, as well as more ineffable factors of honor and pride.1 A rising nation usually expects to be granted greater influence and respect in accordance with its growing stature, but nations that already possess that influence are generally reluctant to part with it, especially if they do not trust the rising state. Hence, tensions can grow. The ideological incompatibility between Beijing and Washington further intensifies the pressures generated by the basic structural problems of how China’s rise can be squared with both the United States’ established position and the existing regional order Washington has underwritten. At the same time, there is also a danger that the emerging structural dynamics between the United States and China could generate elements of a classic security dilemma, in which the actions one side takes to increase its defensive strength are interpreted as hostile or threatening by the other side, thus eliciting a defensive response that the first side views as hostile or threatening. Some argue that this dynamic already exists to an extent in the arena of conventional military competition—for instance, China’s conventional ballistic and cruise missile program, undertaken at least in part in response to improved U.S. conventional capabilities, is now leading to a countervailing U.S. response—but such a dynamic has thus far had a limited effect on U.S.-China nuclear dynamics.2 This is fortunate, as a security dilemma in the nuclear realm would be destabilizing, intensify suspicions, and potentially raise the danger of conflict escalation. Some observers contend, however, that the conditions do exist for such a dynamic to develop.3 Chinese voices already claim that the expansion of China’s nuclear missile force is designed to compensate for advances in U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD), conventional prompt global strike, and strategic strike capabilities.4 point to China’s expansion of its nuclear and missile forces as proof of hostile intent and the need for improved U.S. capabilities.5 These factors do not need to lead to conflict—conventional or nuclear—between the United States and China. In fact, several economic and security factors may mitigate the possibility of a general conflict. But, singly and especially together, these exacerbating tensions might lead to such a result. Any war between the United States and China would be incredibly dangerous and likely tremendously damaging, and nuclear war between the two would be even more so. Even though the day-to-day likelihood of major war between the two nations appears to be low—and the probability of nuclear war is even lower—its appallingly high costs, dangers, and risks demand that active steps be taken to make armed conflict more unlikely and less dangerous. For while the fact that China and the United States could come to blows does not mean that any conflict would result in the use of nuclear weapons, neither could nuclear use be confidently ruled out, especially given that even conflicts over apparently marginal issues can—in ways that are not entirely predictable—escalate into conflicts over core interests. A war between the two states would implicate broader considerations of prestige, alliance commitments, and broader interests, and thus would be subject to strong escalatory impetuses. Moreover, military-technological developments could further heighten the risk of escalation—for instance, due to the increasing interconnectedness of the full range of military forces with cyber, space, and unmanned systems. Foreign education exchange is key to improving U.S China relations.Peck 14[Kaitlin Peck, “The Impact of Academic Exchange between China and the U.S., 1979-2010,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2014, http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=psi_sigma_siren, 7.10.2017, DDI] Another benefit of education exchange is the opportunity to increase understanding between countries. This understanding is especially crucial for promoting peaceful diplomatic relations as a way of avoiding conflict and violence. The need to gain knowledge of other nations is especially important for the United States because, as social scientist Jacob Cantor wrote, “Whatever political differences we may have, a considerable number of informed people abroad have been helped to cut through the myths about the United States to the realities, and thus to create a climate in which honest communication and understanding can take place.”6 In other words, it is important for both China and the United States to be informed about other countries and one another, in order to achieve those necessary goals of communication and understanding. The most efficient way to achieve these goals is through education exchange, because those students who participate have the potential of becoming the future leaders and politicians of their home countries. This means that educational exchange should be a long-term investment because the knowledge Chinese and American students gain about one another today can help improve relations for future generations in both countries. Once these goals are achieved, it will be much easier to improve the diplomatic and cultural interaction between them, and many conflicts of mistrust and violence will be much easier to avoid. US-China relations are key to solve a litany of impacts—anything other than engagement risks conflictPaulson, Former US Treasury Secretary, 2015 (Henry, Dealing with China: An Insider Unmasks the new Economic Superpower, p. 378-379, JCP—DLingel) One crisp day in early March 2014, I found myself sitting in a sleek conference room high above Boston Harbor taking questions from a group of financial executives. These men and women worked for a range of institutions that managed well over $3 trillion of financial assets, including the personal savings and pension funds of millions of Americans. They were keen to learn as much as they could about the Chinese economy. Was it about to hit the wall? Was I worried about a real estate bubble? How fragile was the country's financial system? Was the government serious about dealing with China's environmental problems? One fellow had a more personal question for me. "Hank," he said. "You're a real patriot. Why are you helping China?" The question pulled me up short. Three years before, when I first 'c began planning to write this book, I don't think I would have been asked anything like that at a meeting of sophisticated financiers. They would J have accepted that helping China to reform its economy, open its markets, protect its environment, and improve the quality of life of its people-all things I have been working on-would bring economic and strategic benefits to the U.S. as well. But that viewpoint has been changing as China has emerged as our biggest, most formidable economic competitor since the end of World War II and has started flexing its newfound military muscle in unsettling ways. As a result, many Americans, from all walks of life, have begun to view China with growing apprehension and resentment. Some would now prefer confrontation to cooperation. I understand these sentiments. Partly they are a function of China's choices and actions, and partly they are born of frustration with the recent economic troubles of the United States. I've spent a fair number of pages explaining how China must carry out meaningful economic reforms if it expects to continue its amazing success story. These arguments make sense for China and its people. But why should an American care? Why should we root for China to succeed? Shouldn't we instead be hoping that this ungainly giant stumbles, if only to slow down its daunting economic and military growth? In coming years China's weight and influence in the world, already substantial, is likely to begin to rival our own. Why take the chance now of helping the Chinese deal with so many of their problems and challenges? Why aid a competitor? The answer is simple: we should do so because it is more than ever in America's own self-interest that we do. To begin with, just about every major global challenge we face-from economic and environmental issues to food and energy security to nuclear proliferation and terrorism-will be easier to solve if the world's two most important economic powers can act in complementary ways. But these challenges will be almost impossible to address if the U.S. and China work at cross-purposes. If we want to benefit from an expanding global economy, we need the most dynamic growth engines, like China's, to thrive. If we want to prevent the worst climate change outcomes and to preserve our fragile global ecosystems, we need China to solve its massive environmental problems at home and adopt better practices abroad. If we want to keep diseases from our shores, we need Chinaand other countries to use the very best methods to prevent and halt epidemics. If we want to stem the spread of dangerous weapons to those who might harm our citizens,we need nations, including China, to work together to end illicit trafficking. If we want all these things to happen, we must be proactive, frank, and at times forceful with the Chinese while seeking ways to cooperate, to develop complementary policies, and to work to more fully integrate them into a rules-based global order. If we attempt to exclude, ignore, or weaken China, we limit our ability to influence choices made by its leaders and risk turning the worst-case scenarios of China skeptics into a self-fulfilling reality. Plan TextThe United States federal government should expand the funding and regulation of student visas for students attending elementary and secondary schools in the United StatesSolvencyInternational Students will come to US schools, it serves as a way to get into American universitiesFarrugia 14 (Christine, Institute of International Education, Center for Academic Mobility Research, Senior Research Office, “Charting New Pathways to Higher Education: International Secondary Students in the United States”, Center for Academic Mobility Research Institute of International Education, July 2014 RB) Recommendations & Implications for U.S. Educational Mobility and Exchanges The increasing interest among international students in pursuing U.S. secondary education as a pathway to higher education has implications for several education stakeholders in the U.S.: U.S. higher education institutions Interest in enrolling international students is growing among U.S. higher education institutions, many of which are responding to increased interest among prospective international students by growing their existing international student enrollment or by seeking to enroll international students for the first time. Limits on the number of international students admitted to U.S. institutions, sometimes driven by legislative caps placed on out of state enrollment in public institutions, in combination with growing numbers of applicants from abroad, can make the application process more competitive for international applicants. Accordingly, prospective international students may perceive that they can gain an admissions advantage in applying to U.S. higher education institutions by engaging in an international educational experience during their secondary school years. • Prospective international students may be increasingly located in the U.S. at the time of recruitment into higher education, making it possible to recruit some international students locally, particularly from private schools. Given their prior exposure to U.S. classrooms and successful adjustment to U.S. life, these students may have academic, language, and cultural skills that can not only contribute to their success on campus, but can also serve as a potential resource to help ease the adjustment of their 26 Institute of International Education peer international students who might be entering the U.S. for the first time for their postsecondary studies. • While the market for international secondary students is growing, the pool of F-1 secondary students is still relatively small compared to the 339,993 international undergraduates enrolled in U.S. postsecondary education in 2012/13. For every F-1 secondary international student in the U.S. there are about 7 international undergraduate students, indicating that colleges and universities will continue to need a robust overseas recruitment plan in order to recruit substantial numbers of international students. U.S. public and private high schools • For U.S. high schools, increasing international student enrollment may serve to enhance schools’ internationalization efforts and provide a diversity of student viewpoints and experiences to develop the global perspectives of American students, some of whom may not have global exposure otherwise. The U.S. itself is a diverse society and operates within a global system in which our citizens must be prepared to address economic, social, environmental, and security concerns that cut across national boundaries. The U.S. Department of Education (2012) has stressed the importance of building the global competencies of U.S. students to make them internationally competitive and to strengthen the global position of the U.S. In order to achieve the goal of educating globally competent students, U.S. high schools can benefit from detailed information on the mobility of secondary students to the U.S. to inform their approaches to internationalizing their curriculam and to serve as a resource for recruitment and enrollment planning for secondary schools that currently administer or are looking to launch international student programs. Foreign Exchange Programs Solve Aff and promote peace, build relations, and allow the workforce to remain competitive, harms outweigh the costsSowa 02 (Sowa, Patience, “How valuable are student exchange programs?,” New Directions for Higher Education, 2002, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/he.49/asset/49_ftp.pdfv=1&t=j4yukzb4&s=1aa0b74fb40a7327365cfd855afccc026feec8f1, 7.10.2017, DDI HD) The various goals and missions of students and institutions of higher edu-cation determine the model variety and the scope of student exchange pro-grams. Goodwin and Nacht (1988) state that the goals of student exchange programs can range from being a grand tour to exploring one’s roots to improving international relations. Kraft, Ballantine, and Garvey (1994) note that although programs in both the United States and Europe (France,Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) have the goals of improved language skills and communication with foreigners, the U.S. programs also tend to focus on individual development and international understanding. Similarly, the Council on International Educational Exchange (2001) states that its goals are to promote peaceful cooperation between countries, to help individuals gain insight into their societies and those of other countries, and to enable students to learn new skills. The Fulbright/International Institute of Education (Fulbright/IIE), which offers a variety of programs for U.S. and foreign nationals, has the goal of “creating a better world community” through “investing in people” (p. 1).Institutions of higher education and state governments also see student exchange programs as a vital way of competing in the global market place and maintaining U.S. economic strength. Fugate and Jefferson (2001) state that the academic community has fallen behind in preparing students to be “global citizens” who can compete with other nations and work and live indifferent countries. To prepare students for the international workforce, the Fulbright/IIE created the Work Abroad Program, which authorizes current students and recent graduates to work in countries such as Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Great Britain, France, Ireland, and New Zealand(Meyers, 2001). In 1997, almost 5,700 American students participated in this program, which gives students the opportunity to experience total immersion through living and working in another country. The concept of student exchange goes far back in human history. Scholars, students, and institutions of higher education then and now realize the importance of forging links for learning, developing personally, global understanding, and peacemaking. Currently, people have also realized how interdependent nations have become and therefore how crucial it is to encourage and foster the internationalization of higher education through student exchange programs. As this chapter indicates, the value of these programs far outweighs any liabilities they might have. BonusForeign Exchange Programs foster engagement, promote democratic ideals, and boost competivenessState 15 [Department of State, “EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS,” Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, 2015, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123606.pdf, 7.11.2017, DDI HD] The Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECA) programs foster engagement and encourage dialogue with citizens around the world, particularly with key influencers, such as educators, clerics, journalists, women, artists, and youth. In supporting educational and professional exchange programs that promote mutual understanding between the people of the United States and other countries, the program advances the Department‘s mission of creating a more secure, democratic and prosperous world. ECA programs inform, educate, influence, and connect participants across strategic sectors of society, increasing the number of individuals who have first-hand experience with Americans, and the values of freedom, representative government, rule of law, economic choice, and individual dignity. ECA programs build capacity among Americans to be more competitive and engaged global citizens. Over 300 current and former heads of state and government are alumni of ECA programs – one reflection of the tremendous opportunity the Department has to reach the leaders of tomorrow and expose them to democratic values. ECA program evaluations confirm the power of exchanges to open minds and societies to democratic ideals. In FY 2010, ECA will expand its engagement with young people and other key influencers, using a combination of proven exchange models and innovative new programs. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 172.36 Kb. Share with your friends:
|