Violence and Sacrifice and the role they do or should play in liberation and/or freedom: [Focus is primarily on Essay #3 of “The Ethics of Ambiguity”, Parts 2 & 3; You may also consider some of the questions posed for theme #2 above]. Questions to consider (you should not try to answer all these questions, but instead use them to choose a thesis statement upon which to build your own argument and to also discuss some aspect of “Ethics of Ambiguity” that is related to the above stated theme: Those sets of questions below in boldface are most central to this theme, but feel free to also select from among the other questions, especially if they are relevant to what you want to discuss and argue.)
What, if anything, justifies violence and why or how and by whom? (What does Beauvoir say about this in Essay #3, Part 3, “The Antinomies of Action”?) Does violence already exist in a society where there is widespread oppression, even if there is not open conflict? In other words, does it take violence by oppressors to oppress other people? Does violence necessarily involve sacrifice (and sacrifice of those on one’s own side as well as the other side in a conflict) and introduce a failure into our undertakings, or do all actions already have the possibility of failure, according to Beauvoir? According to you? What exactly is sacrificed – is it only one’s physical life or does it include more than that? How might that sacrifice be characterized by those who suffer it or whose relatives or fellow members of a society suffer it? Would they be victims or heroes? Or martyrs? Or fools? Might it depend upon whether or not a battle ends in defeat or victory? Might some battles be “never-ending”? Does the exercise of authority or governing itself always presume a role for violence? How might sacrifice apply to both sides in a conflict? You should draw upon either Beauvoir’s own examples or examples from today’s society in your discussion and argument.
Chinese militarization in the Spratly Islands has proven much more contentious in recent years as they have seen both rapid island reclamation as well as the introduction of unprecedented military capabilities. Moreover, the Spratly Islands are contested by China, Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia, and all have established constructions on some of the islands. China has been by far the most active in the expanding and equipping its islands, including the construction of large anti-aircraft guns. Experts also suspect that close-in weapons systems (CIWS) have been introduced to some of the islands to protect against cruise missile strikes. The placement of these defences shows how China is willing to defend these islands and are prepared to respond in the case of an attack. Of the islands China has developed, Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi Reefs are the by far the most advanced (see Figure 3). Each has enough hangars to accommodate 24 combat aircraft and four larger transport planes, bunkers to house missile launchers, as well as radars that allow for the monitoring of the surrounding area (AMTI 2017). By March 2018, China had verifiably landed military transport aircraft on all three of its main islands in the Spratlys marking a major milestone in developing its military capabilities in the region. According to U.S. intelligence, China also deployed YJ-13B anti-ship cruise missiles and HQ-9B surface to air missiles on the 2nd May. Offensive capabilities such as air power, radars and missiles give China a sizable advantage in the region, causing concern for both the U.S. and other claimant countries. Overall, China’s military capabilities in the SCS are unparalleled, with Admiral Philip Davidson, Head of US Pacific Command stating that “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States” (CNN 2018). Figure 4 shows the observed, reported and expected capabilities China has or is likely to have from its four most equipped islands: Woody island in the Paracels and Firey Cross, Mischief and Subi Reef in the Spratlys. Once these capabilities are fully operational, China will have comprehensive control over the region. This military capacity gives China the upper hand in diplomacy and as of present, has granted it immunity from abiding to international arbitration. Further militarization has shown China’s commitment to its sovereignty claims and the lack of commitment it has to abiding by UNCLOS. The long-standing failure to comply with international l>GET ANSWER