According to the World Health
Organization, more than 3,000 people have died as a result of the current Ebola
outbreak in West Africa, and more than 6,500 cases have been reported (Wall
Street Journal). The Centers for Disease Control predicted than in a worst-case
scenario, cases could reach 1.4 million within the next four months (New York
Times). However, this story has been largely overlooked in the United States,
overshadowed by the conflict with ISIL, NFL turmoil, the disappearance of
Hannah Graham, and other stories. This is because the United States operates
under classic principles of realism and liberalism, and therefore, issues that
do not directly affect our physical or economic security do not receive much
attention. However, applying feminist theory to the Ebola crisis would
encourage American intervention in the crisis, gaining us respect and power,
and therefore protecting our own interests.
In relation to the Ebola crisis,
realists would argue that the United States has no stake in the situation,
since the disease does not at this time pose a threat to our physical survival.
The countries affected are not great states, and therefore do not impact our
actions. They would also claim that since gaining and maintaining military
power is our highest priority, intervening in the crisis would offer no payoff.
In fact, by intervening, we would be decreasing our power in relation to other
states that are not intervening. Liberal internationalists are often more
favorable toward intervention because it allows us to push liberal ideas
abroad. They would also say that intervening would benefit the United States if
it offers us any absolute gain in power. However they would also oppose this
action because they focus heavily on economic benefits. Intervening in this
crisis would drain our economic resources and offer no economic benefits. Since
liberalists also assume people and states to be rational actors, they would
suggest that the risks involved in intervention make the action irrational.
American realism and liberalism are also shaped by constructivist ideas. A constructivist
approach would highlight the fact that the people affected by the Ebola virus
are heavily “other.” They are located thousands of miles across the Atlantic
Ocean, they do not live like we do, and they have dark skin. Therefore, we do
not consider them to be like us, and think they are less deserving of our help.
However, IR feminism views security
not just as the physical and economic security of the state, but also as the
security of humans everywhere. Feminists would argue that Ebola is not an
African issue, but a human issue, and therefore affects the United States even
though it is not currently a direct threat to Americans. Tickner states, “to
suffer a lower life expectancy by virtue of one’s place of birth is a form of
violence that can be as devastating as war” (Tickner 21). Therefore, feminists
would argue that we are just as obligated to act on behalf of the less
fortunate people suffering from Ebola as we are to intervene on behalf of
innocent people suffering in war-torn countries. By doing so, we would demonstrate
both our “ability to tolerate cultural difference…and the potential for
building community in spite of those differences” (Tickner 19), as well as our
“appreciation of ‘the other’ as a subject whose views are as legitimate as our
own” (Tickner 23).
I believe successfully intervening
in this crisis would gain us respect in the international community. While
there would surely be many domestic opponents of intervening in this issue, I
think other states would admire our willingness to take proactive steps to
assure not only our survival but the survival of all people. This would improve
our reputation and increase our credibility and influence, increasing our soft
power as other states try to emulate our actions. This would be extremely
valuable to the United States as it interacts with other international parties.
Sources:
I like the way you consider feminism in dealing with the Ebola crisis. I'm wondering if you think that the fact an American has now been infected will change our response now that we have a person stake? If more Americans become infected, I would assume the "self" vs. "other" would shift from being Americans vs. Africans to those not infected vs. those infected.
ReplyDeleteI agree with William a lot in regards to your argument. At the beginning of the crisis, the situation was not directly affecting the U.S. (when the article was written). I believe that the feminism approach would fit well in this regard rather than the other arguments because of the human welfare. However, now that the U.S. has been effected, do you think another approach could fit better? I think that looking at the economic effects the crisis would have on the U.S. could be a compelling reason whether or not to get involved further.
ReplyDeleteI would say now that there has been a confirmed case of Ebola in the United States, the issue becomes more of an issue of ensuring our state's survival, although the case appears to be well contained and isolated at the moment. If the current Ebola patient is cured, or dies, and the virus has not spread to any other Americans, I believe feminist theory still applies. People tend to have short memories, and will not be as concerned with stopping the epidemic if it no longer poses an immediate threat to the U.S. Should the epidemic continue to worsen and spread to the United States, or if more cases appear as a result of the infected patient in Dallas, then realist principles could be applied to the crisis. Ebola must be wiped out in order to protect our state's survival. Then, it would be logical for a realist to suggest action in Africa. Liberals would also become more supportive of intervention because our intervention in Africa would now be a mutually beneficial exchange: we would be helping others to protect ourselves, instead of simply helping others for humanitarian purposes.
DeleteVery interesting take on the situation, and so nice to see a variety of different topics, especially in this group! I like thinking about this, and it makes me wonder - would other paradigms (other than feminism) reach similar conclusions? Is there any way you could make a legitimate realist argument for doing this? Also, good use of alternative forms of power.
ReplyDeleteI like the perspective you took on the Ebola crisis. It is interesting to see such a relevant and current issue related back to feminist theory. If Ebola is contained in the United States do you think the U.S. should still become involved? Would it be effective enough for the U.S. to take action on its own? It would be an expensive effort that without the support of other states, may not be effective. However, I agree with your point that from a feminist approach, everyone should intervene since this is a global issue.
ReplyDelete