Someone Must Capitalize

Following North Korea’s decision in April to leave the six-party negotiations, tensions immediately mounted in the Pacific.  In May, North Korea defiantely conducted a second nuclear test (as well as testing long range missiles over Japan).  Yet after a couple months of uncertainty, the Korean peninsula seemed to begin the long process of dissolving tensions.

There have been significant steps in the right direction.  Following the death of South Korea’s former prime minister, leaders and families from both countries joined together in mourning.  Familial connections have continued to occur since then between “long-lost” siblings from the Korean war.  On top of this, North Korea and Kim Jong Il have been increasingly less provocatory over the past few months.

These slight relaxations have been attributed to various things: Kim Jong Il’s age and the question of succession, the influence of Bill Clinton’s humanitarian visit to free the American journalists, a more open, yet still rigid policy of relations with the Obama administration, increasing pressure from regional superpowers China and Russia, etc.  The more important issue is how the world will react to these relaxations.  Make no mistake – there will soon be (or perhaps already is) a grand opportunity for the world to take a step towards global de-nuclearization by removing the most unstable (developed) nuclear program in the world.  Someone, or many nations, must step up and capitalize.

In an honest assessment, the U.S. is not the most apt to undertake this task.  President Obama has far too much already on his plate (including attempting to remove another possible nuclear threat), and the possibilty of another failure would put too much of his legitimacy on the line.  Far more able to navigate this opportunity is China or possibly Russia.  China, North Korea’s largest economic (and emotional) ally, has an enormous amount of influence to exert over their small neighbour.  With either the compliance or assistance of Russia, the two could easily convince North Korea it is in their best interest to de-nuclearize.

How?  Follow through on previous promises.  It is here that the U.S. could play a significant role and claim a part in the success.  An agreement with North Korea could be reached if each side commits to two things.  North Korea must: 1) Disband their nuclear program.  This is non-negotiable. 2) Reduce the size of their standing military.  The Korean peninsula will not reach a stable point until there is a successful reduction of the number of troops lining the demilitarized zone.

China and the U.S. also must follow through by 1) guaranteeing the political succession of Kim Jong Il’s family and reducing (if not removing) the number of U.S. troops in South Korea.  Not only would this increase the number of American resources for Afghanistan but it would help reduce Il’s concerns about a U.S. attack.  2) Another pledge to help North Korea build a light-water reactor could only help the situation.  After failing to follow through on this idea in previous negotiations, realizing that the world has accepted North Korea as a (nuclear-free) state that is worthy of assistance would greatly affect Kim Jong Il’s mentality and aggression.

Obviously this is no simple task, but the time is at hand to begin acting.  If the cards are played correctly, North Korea could be nuclear free within the next couple years.  China would have yet another economic partner, Obama would be able to claim a very substantive victory, and the world would have taken a large step towards becoming a much safer place.

Locke

Why Has Africa Been Left Behind?

On September 28, armed military personnel fired rounds of live ammunition into a group of protestors in Guinea.  157 people were reported dead, eyewitnesses reported rape, and now the leader of the country fears for his own life.  These are the kinds of events that, had they occurred in various other places in the world, would be publicly denounced by all other nations, and result in threats like sanctions or military intervention.

Why has this massacre not received the type of public attention it should?  Because it occurred in Africa, a continent that the rest of the world has almost entirely forgotten.

An event like this in the Middle East or Latin America or Eastern Europe would elicit concerns over “the stability of the region” and the effect it would have on the rest of the world.  Africa, with the exceptions of Egypt and South Africa, has been generally ignored by other nations since World War II.  It is international interest groups and the African Union that play the biggest role in Darfur.  In the 90s, a horrific war engulfed Rwanda, yet serious international intervention never occurred.  Africa has been left to fend for itself, and the consequences could be severe.

Obviously the issues are complex (perhaps even more so than in the Middle East).  There are feuds between religions, but also between tribes.  When European colonialism began drawing lines, they often split land that was previously unified or gave certain areas to other rivals.  There can be no easy solution to these types of issues, but the international community has systematically ignored them.

Now the issues could grow worse.  There is the threat of a military coup and rule in Guinea.  Two Islamist groups are battling for control of Somalia, an already unstable country.  Sudan will likely erupt into war again in 2011 when the south holds a vote on secession from the north.

It was instability that allowed al-Qaeda and the Taliban to thrive in the Middle East.  Fortunately, firm governments limited their growth to only a few countries.  Africa is quite different.  The African Union has not been able to hold certain countries to their pledge of troops to help in Darfur.  Many African governments struggle to provide the means of survival for their citizens.  Africa is resource rich in certain areas, but desperately poor in others – a trait that makes many places prime targets for the relocation and bribes of terrorist groups.

Despite al-Qadhafi’s insistence on African solutions to African problems, this is simply not the best course of action.  Guinea itself is a difficult case.  France has threatened to freeze aid to the country, but Guinea has a variety of other pools of revenue from other organizations not tied to specific states. 

Still, the struggle can start here.  It has to start somewhere.  Unfortunately, with all Obama seems to have on his plate, the U.S. doesn’t seem to be a prime candidate for leading the way.  Russia, back on the scene of world power, would be a leading candidate to undertake this task along with several other European countries.  But something needs to be done before things get worse.  Whether or not democracy is contagious, stability certainly is.

Demosthenes

Success in Afghanistan Not About More U.S. Troops

The leading U.S. General in Afghanistan has asked for a supplement of another 40,000 troops to help fight the war.  To date, this request has not been granted, and the Obama administration seems to be a bit hesitant about the next course of action.

Obviously the situation is difficult.  The Taliban are well supplied and have a firm hold over a large percentage of the country.  President Karzai’s validity has been questioned following multiple accusations of fraud in the recent election.  U.S. public support for the war has been declining, and the request for more troops comes while America is attempting a slow withdrawal from Iraq.  The pieces simply aren’t fitting together.

How can the United States (and hopefully a few allies) turn this war around?  One, and the most common, route is the introduction of a larger fighting force.  While potentially successful, it also increases the probability of the Taliban increasing the size of their own force and weaponry.

A better path would be to involve the people of Afghanistan directly.  One Afghan official has already been openly critical of the United States’ failure to communicate not just with the Afghan people but with most levels of the government.  The goal in Afghanistan, as it is in Iraq and Pakistan, is to eventually develop a local fighting force that is fully capable of handling the war on their own.  Iraq and Pakistan have both made significant progress in this area, but Afghanistan is lagging desperately behind.

A number of factors contribute to this difference.  In Iraq, there were many more trained soldiers to begin with – ones that had fought in the Iran-Iraq war, for example.  In Afghanistan, the most knowledgeable soldiers are those who fought the Soviet Union decades ago – men far past their prime.  Furthermore, there is a lack of an established hierarchy in Afghanistan which has led to corruption and desertion at all levels.  If the in Afghanistan training takes longer and troops continue to go AWOL, how can they hope to develop a self-sufficient fighting force?

The answer is communication.  Unfortunately, estimates have speculated that less than a third of Afghanistan’s population is literate.  Nevertheless, an attempt to communicate with the people would be a large step in the right direction.  It would show them that while the Taliban continues to burn and destroy, this new fighting force is better and preparing to step up.  Obviously this is a laborious process, and it would clearly need to start with better communication between (trustworthy) government officials.  But the long term consequences of involving the general population would be enormous.

A prime example is the enthusiasm of the American public during WWII.  If Afghanistan sees that America is committed to creating a self-sufficient Afghan force to replace the tyranny of the Taliban, slowly but surely interest and troop levels will rise.  A changing of the guard is possible in Afghanistan, but it must start with the will of the Afghan people to make it happen.  And the U.S. needs to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that they do want it to happen.

Demosthenes

An Inevitable “Clash of Civilizations”?

In the past week, Iran has announced their development of a second, and previously “secret”, uranium enrichment complex, tested a short range missile, and tested one of their Shabab long range range missiles.  These events have led many to the conclusion that Iran seems to be preparing for an imminent war or perhaps organizing an attack of their own.

Leaders from around the world have denounced these actions.  The U.S., France, and Britian have all threatened tougher sanctions, and Russia has also expressed their grave concern over Iran’s preparations and intentions.  Undoubtedly, Israel is also concerned over the threat of attack from Iran.  While Western experts believe Iran’s Shabab missiles can only fly about 1,300 km, Iran has boasted its range at 2,000 km – putting Israel well within range of an attack.  Other countries within range of this missile include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even (depending on the estimate) New Delhi, India.

In short, fear among the international community of Iran’s capabilities and intentions has become rampant.  Government leaders, however, must not succumb to fear as a basis for decision making.  The outcomes of this would be catastrophic:

1. Perhaps the quickest to act out of fear would be Israel.  It is no secret that Israel would act on its own behalf to ensure prevention of a future attack.  Not long ago they were persuaded against attacking one of Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, but if they fear an attack on them is imminent, there is little to stop them from attacking first.  An attack from either side could plunge the region into a war that would have hundreds of thousands of casualties within weeks.

2.  Discussions concerning Iran’s nuclear program are set to begin on Thursday.  Any preemptive moves over the next three days could jeopardize the integrity of these discussions or cause an end to them altogether.

3.  There are much larger issues at stake than the military integrity of one nation.  If Iran were to start a war with Israel, much of the Western world (at least the U.S., Britain, and France with the possibility of Russia) would immediately back Israel, if for no other reason than they fear Iran’s continual development of a military or nuclear program.  Iran would label this move the Western, or perhaps “Christian” world, fighting, bullying, and suppressing a Muslim country.

The consequences of this would be severe.  Russia may hesitate to become involved if issues of religion become involved.  China, given their economic and religious situations, would have the capability to be indifferent towards any Western countries asking for aid, and might even provide help to Iran.  Other Muslim countries where there is already American presence (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) would be caught in the middle, though would likely side (eventually) with their fellow religious followers.

But the crisis could extend beyond the Middle East.  Sudan, currently in an official North-South ceasefire, is likely to erupt back into civil war in 2011 if the predominantly Christian south elects to secede from the Muslim north.  If one Muslim-Christian conflict starts, others are sure to follow.

I’ve included a link here to Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”.  It isn’t particularly long, nor entirely correct.  He does, however, raise a point that our world is slowly coming to realize: the most probable line of conflict in the future is between Western and Islamic civilizations.  Many of Huntington’s points are slowly unravelling, but, at least for now, this one seems to be right on target.

Fortunately, this conflict doesn’t need to happen.  The policy negotiations on October 1st should help dispel rumors and normalize relations.  If Israel can be prevented from launching a strike on Iran and the leaders holding discussions with Iran can put aside their emotions, this storm should pass.  If it doesn’t, we could be witness to a vast reshaping of the global power spectrum.

Locke

Time to “Draw a Line in the Sand”

Western leaders, particularly U.S. President Barak Obama, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have been clear that now is the time to “draw a line in the sand” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. 

Discussions between Iran, these three countries, Russia, China, and Germany are less than a week away, but the news of Iran’s second, and secret, uranium enrichment plant has stirred the pot.  The surface reason for this second plant is obvious: Iran wanted a backup plant in case Israel carried out its threat to bomb Natanz.  Iran also maintains that this plant, despite being secret until earlier this week, has followed all IAEA guidelines thus far and that there is no cause for alarm.

The last part of this statement is simply not true.  There are many reasons the rest of the world should be alarmed.  The first stems directly from Iran’s reason to have another “secret” plant.  If they were attacked they would have a backup plant; they would have had the capability to create weapons and retaliate before anyone else would have known.  A deadly war may have been much closer than anyone realized.

Beyond this, the secret plant was built underground, making it much more difficult to find, not to mention harder to destroy.  This enrichment plant was designed to be a longterm development that relatively few people would ever lay eyes on.

Iran has clearly made the correct decision in revealing the existence of this new plant.  Had they undertaken negotiations and this development discovered later, it would have had even greater and more catastrophic consequences.  Still, this Iranian confession does not absolve them of the fact that they constructed a second, secret plant that could very easily have been for developing nuclear weapons.

Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy have taken the correct path.  If the world is intending to pursue a future without nuclear weapons, cracking down on this secret development is the first step.  Russia, considerably more favorable to American diplomacy following the removal of plans for a missile system in Eastern Europe, has also stated they are “seriously concerned” about this secret plant.  China (who has previously been and is currently against sanctioning Iran) has stated that Iran needs to deal with this conflict and their program directly from now on as well.

There can be no misinterpretation here – had the development of this plant continued the Middle East would have been in grave danger of a full scale war.  Now is the time for the leaders in the world to be firm, make sure Iran has no opportunities to develop weapons, and send a statement to the rest of the world that nuclear proliferation is no longer acceptable in today’s world.

Demosthenes

America’s Immigration Paradox

Since its beginning, America has been a land of opportunity, a land of freedom, and a nation of immigrants.  As of the 2007 census, American Indians and Alaskan Natives make up 1.5 percent of the total United States population.  The other 98.5 percent are, or are descendants of, immigrants.  And it is this image of America that continues to encourage people all over the world to continue immigrating to the United States.

What is the paradox?  On the one hand, many Americans are crying out for a stop to high levels of immigration.  Some are proud that America has been deemed a “melting pot”.  They love the image of America as the “land of the free and the home of the brave”, but others are concerned that millions of illegal immigrants, and some legal ones, are changing the country.

On the other hand, it is this steady immigration that is keeping America solidified as a world power.  Emerging from the Cold War era, the United States was the clear choice for immigrants.  Now, however, China’s economy is soaring, Russia is reemerging as a power, and European powers like Germany are beginning to play a bigger role in the world economic scheme.

Still, America remains the main country of choice for immigrants.  Nearly any person in the world would be able to move here and find a community that shares their interests and views, not to mention a government that is tolerant of their beliefs.  It is this steady flow that is keeping America afloat.

China’s system of Communism and Confucianism is not encouraging to the development of diverse societies.  Russia’s overwhelming sense of national pride also makes them slightly less than accommodating.  European countries simply aren’t large enough to house as many diverse communities as the United States.

In the long run, it will be these large, unified countries like China and Russia that will politically dominate the globe.  But over the next half-century (even though the divisions within America weaken its image on the global scale), America’s adherence to democratic ideals will allow it to remain a world power, at least until it figures out some new course of action.

And it will need a new plan; democracy cannot hope to hold out on its own against governments with the complete support of and authority over millions (it not billions) of people.  Illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but beyond that, Americans should thank the flow of new immigrants.

Locke

China Gets There First…Again

Half a century ago, power and control over a country was exerted through military force and strength of arms.  Now, the threats of withholding resources or shutting down another country’s economy are more powerful than any threat of military intervention (except, of course, nuclear warfare).

It is clear, then, why China has made such long strides within the world community.  Their economy has soared while nearly every other country  has struggled.  And when a country’s economy is stable, its people remain positive and energetic.  Thus, it seems China is the perfect country to lead a global charge on energy and efficiency.  When told they can solidify their position as a the world superpower, their people will be more than obliged to do what they can to reach this goal.

The United States had the opportunity to lead this charge.  The Clinton, Bush, or Obama presidencies could have been the first to declare the need to change our disastrous patterns.  But in either their failure to take a bold step against some major corporations of America or their sheer lack of ability to accept reality, all have failed to keep the U.S. ahead of the rest of the world.  The American public has become complacent and we have allowed our leaders to do the same.  As a result, many other countries (especially China and Russia) are catching up and leaping the United States in many categories.

President Obama’s campaign revolved around the idea of change.  It is time the public realize that change is a must if America plans on remaining a world power.  More importantly, this change shouldn’t be framed as Democrat or Republican (because invariably the other party will challenge and prevent it).  It is about America retaining their status in the world, not about the group of people who cause it to happen.

Luckily, there are doubts about China’s actual commitment to their decision.  While their lack of resolve will last no more that a few years (until the world realizes energy reform is completely necessary), it leaves a window of opportunity.  Energy reform is easily possible within our country, especially given that we have the highest consumption of any country in the world, despite having a population that is 1/4 the size of India’s and almost 1/5 the size of China’s.  Motivation, however, will be difficult.  Hopefully it won’t take the United States dropping to second tier status within the world hierarchy for the American public to realize they missed their opportunity.

Demosthenes

Connecting Databases: The Next Wave of Information Communication?

Nearly every major news agency has linked into Twitter.  Employers are conducting background checks on Facebook.  People are connecting with old friends and making new ones.  Most importantly, information is traveling faster than ever.

There are, of course, some drawbacks.  This communication revolution makes it increasingly difficult to guard information or prevent the spread of certain stories.  It also means that rumors can travel remarkably fast regardless of their validity.  It means that national secrecy (not to mention personal privacy) will become difficult to obtain.  In turn, this will make governments guard their ambitions and acts to a whole new extent, even from the people who need to be the most informed.

Nevertheless, Twitter and Facebook are revolutionizing the world.  Students and friends in Europe can instantly “chat” with relatives in the United States.  Old friends (that were once thought to be scattered about the country) are now only a click away.  Breaking news feeds are instantly accessible.  And, while not “new” compared to Twitter, blogs are able to connect people of similar interests and groups around the globe.  Globalization has arrived.

Does this make Facebook and Twitter the new wave of technology?  Is it possible that in the not so distant future a person will have to have a Facebook in order to be hired for a certain job?  Are politicians going to have to constantly twitter their locations, ideas, and voting decisions?

Probably not.  While it is a phenomenal connecting device, Facebook has its drawbacks.  It allows the user to keep certain things secret, but doing so somewhat defeats its purpose.  And while “regular citizens” are using it to connect with higher level employers or famous athletes and actors, the growth of Facebook is limited.  Realistically, there are some places on the planet where Facebook will never take root simply because the technology doesn’t exist there.  But beyond that, it is a fad that has “youthanized” middle aged people all over the world – especially in the United States.

Facebook was created to help college students connect to other college students.  Eventually it was expanded to high school students (much to the dismay of college students), but it was still exclusive and required an “invitation”.  When Facebook went global, students everywhere cried as their parents names began to appear on search engines.  Facebook can only grow so much before the generation who first used it will decide it has been overrun with forty-year-olds unnecessarily sharing their lives and cease to accept it as a proper communication device.

Twitter has a better chance to be a lasting device, but it also has many issues.  First, it lacks proper funding.  While Facebook displays all types of ads, Twitter lacks any substantial means to garner funding.  In order to stay current with the needs of its users it is going to need more monetary backing.  Second, it is likely that news corporations will eventually decide that competing with people’s personal lives is not in their best interest.  They will pay millions of dollars and some new product designed exclusively for the news will develop, and an entirely new system will be created.

At the moment, it may be worth investing in a Facebook or Twitter account.  But don’t plan on them being prominent in ten years.  Globalization has caused the world to move far to fast for that to be possible.

Locke

Leaving Somalia Out to Dry

Promising aid, specifically munitions, to unstable nations is always a risky move.  It could spark a revolution, the weapons could fall into the wrong hands, or the side being supported could simply lose, reflecting poorly on those supporting them.

It is no mystery why other countries are reluctant to contribute to Somalia’s fighting force.  Currently, an African Union (A.U.)  force of 5,000 is attempting to wage war on the Islamist militant group al-Shabab.  The force was intended to be comprised of 8,000 troops or more, and though this seems trivial compared to the 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, it would almost double the amount of resources of the group.  Still, certain countries haven’t followed through with their pledge to contribute to the Somalian force.  Nigeria and Ghana both promised troops but have failed thus far to deliver.  The U.N. continues to send in “peace keepers”, though the effectiveness of such diplomats seems questionable when the goal is peace, not the status quo.

However, what Somalian leaders call for now is a new supply of weapons – ones which are “superior in capacity to Shabab’s”.  While the U.N. currently employs an arms embargo on Somalia, the U.S. has asked for exemption.  The problems providing such resources remain plentiful:

The control and use of such weapons is pivitol.  Allowing these weapons to slip into the wrong hands would be a grave mistake.  At the same time, Africa (and specifically Somalia) has been identified as a possible relocation spot for al-Qaeda or the Taliban in the coming decade.  Allowing an extreme Islamist group to continue to operate will only encourage other terrorist groups to interfere.

Of equal importance is the use of any additional weapons after the conflict has been resolved.  Allowing Somalia to retain possession of such weapons could cause an unstable balance of power in Eastern Africa.  Removing the weapons, however, would leave Somalia with little strength to resist the reentry of extremist groups.

One way or another, the U.N. and A.U. must decide how they are going to handle the situation.  A recent attack killed seventeen people.  While the A.U. force maintains that these attacks do not weaken their morale, this mindset can only hold for so long.  Eventually, as more innocent people die, Somalia will feel as though they have been abandoned by the international community.  Whether it is supplying the fighting force with weapons or simply following through on promises of troops, Somalia needs assistance keeping their hope for success alive.

Demosthenes

Missile Overhaul the Correct Decision

President Obama’s decision to forego the construction of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland is a strategic move at a crucial point in U.S. foreign policy.  A decision that, while criticized by his opponents, President Obama will be please he made.

The White House has reported that this move comes following a review of the development of Iranian missile systems.  Evidently, their systems are not as developed as previously feared, and larger forms of defense systems are not yet necessary.  Beyond this, however, this move will have many other benefits.

First, Russia has already approved of Obama’s decision.  Though the bases were intended for purely defensive purposes, Russia viewed their construction as a threat.  A pacified Russia will be a formidable ally entering the open discussions with Iran (hopefully making them more apt to threaten sanctions if it becomes necessary).

Second, it is a clear indication to Iran that the goal is not an arms race, but peaceful discussion and arms reduction.  The construction of missile bases in neighboring countries would only encourage Iran to advance their own systems out of fear.  Obama’s decision will be key in showing Iran that the U.S. has no intentions of going to war unless it is otherwise unavoidable.

Third, it is a dramatic shift in foreign policy that could have vast implications in other parts of the world.  The Obama administration has taken a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy than the Bush administration’s hard-line policies.  While the immediate effects will be felt particularly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it opens possibilities elsewhere as well.  There are currently over 25,000 U.S. troops in the Korean peninsula.  Obama’s decision in Europe could encourage a relaxing of tension and a reduction in military capacity of the Korean peninsula.  Demonstrating that diplomacy comes before military action will encourage other “rogue states” to consider discussions before firing their guns.

Obviously there are drawbacks to the decision.  This could lead Russia to believe that by applying pressure they can severely influence American foreign policy.  Fortunately, the precedent that diplomacy comes first will encourage other world powers Russia and China to discuss issues before taking action themselves or meddling in precarious situations.  As a long term policy shift, Obama’s decision regarding the missile bases in Eastern Europe will greatly benefit the United States.

Locke