The Politics of Space

The Politics of Space

            Throughout history, we have seen that international politics often become extremely complicated when it comes to regulating borders. Many wars have been declared because of international border disputes. There are many different instances throughout history where a single empire becomes the dominant force, and these empires—such as the Roman or Mongolian empires—feel it is their destiny to continuously conquer more lands and to expand their influence. Modern international politics have arguably not diverged too far from what they used to look like. Presently, the United States can be seen as a global force of dominance, so much so that it remains the sole superpower of the world. Ever since the United States reached its stride of power, it has been actively stretching its influence—both in policy and culture—to nations from all across the globe. Some people argue that the role the United States has inherited in the global community is one of an “international police,” and that it rightfully assumes this responsibility due to both its strong military and capable economic performance that helps maintain its standing army. The opposing view is that the United States has overstepped its role in the international community by attempting to topple governments that it disagrees with and then help institutionalize (in one way or another) a new government, often modeled after the democratic republic that the United States has adopted. Unfortunately for the United States, many of the critical political actors in the global community currently stand with the latter argument. This has now thrust the United States into an awkward position where each move it makes is closely watched by the international community.

            Now, having briefly analyzed the complexity and fragility of modern international politics under a single hegemon, imagine those same political actors jousting for unexplored territories and unknown worlds…in space.

            Since the beginning of space exploration programs, the international community has attempted to reach beyond Earth as a collective body, formally drafting an agreement known as the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty was created so that disputes over border claims on the moon and on other celestial bodies would not lead to the catastrophes that have become a common element of human history. One of the most significant components of the treaty is that it makes all parts of outer space a “common resource”, meaning that no single nation can claim it for their own.

            Until recently, this treaty has not been often disputed, as most efforts in constructing space stations and collecting samples from the moon and asteroids have been international efforts funded and supported by several different governments. Currently, however, the United States government has been criticized for potentially voting this month on passing a controversial bill that would give companies exclusive property rights over specific resources in space. The bill, which is set to be heard by the Senate before the end of September this year, has already been passed by the House of Representatives. The global community has not only been criticizing the United States government for considering passing this bill, but has also raised the question of whether or not the United States holds the authority to give companies legal claim over resources in outer space. According to critics, if the United States votes to pass this bill it would technically be violating the Outer Space Treaty, which has been signed and respected by over one-hundred countries. Whether or not the United States is the sole global hegemon does not justify its neglect for an international treaty…does it?

            A topic long-debated has been whether or not the amount of power that the United States maintains is a good enough reason for constituting behavior that is either frowned upon or has been disapproved by other members of the international community. A recent incident that comes to mind is the United States’ invasion of Iraq for belief that the country was holding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). When presenting its case to the United Nations, the collective body of member states rejected the United States’ decision to go to war, and urged that it abstain from doing so. Even still, the United States engaged in a military conflict in Iraq, resulting in a loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and a significant loss of international reputation.

            Now, the United States is faced with making yet another decision that could result in not only international disapproval, but potentially devastating backlash from other powerful nations who have still maintained the integrity and legitimacy of an international treaty.

By: Sergio A. Lopez

Should the U.S. ignore this clear abuse of rights ?

Pam Gomez

Since the US has forces in Afghanistan there is always something wrong where the military has to be involved.It doesn’t matter in what way the US military has their business in the problem. But this time the presence of the army in this situation was the contrary of what people would think like a bombing or an attack or even the case saving lives.

I was reading through the New York Times this article about how authorities in Afghanistan are having this cult where they dress boys as girls and make them dance where this lead to a tragic end as the authorities rape this boys. All this for simple entertainment, two american soldiers who lived in the country decided to act about it, like they were trained to defend who can and save the lives they can. This is what somebody who can and notices this will try to do, doesn’t matter if they are soldier or other kind of authority.

The issue has been on the news for a couple of days now this week and I see over and over the U.S addressing the issue but not doing something. The Pentagon said they did not gave orders to ignore any kind of abuse to human rights. But why haven’t been on the news that this is being solved, that we are taking care of this awful group of people. The Afghan authorities declare this is part of their cultural difference from the Westerns. Even thought people from Afghanistan are against this practice. So neither the local people or the foreigns like this, the question is why aren’t the U.S doing something ? The thing is the United States is all pro human rights, but why they are not doing something in this situation. Well they are trying to protect the relationship Afghanistan and the U.S have until now. Which means the won’t do something because it is not in the best interest of America. This gives the idea that even though we like fight for the human rights such as now the gay marriage, that we never fight for something if it does not represents a good possible outcome for the American government.

I belivie that this could help really well to the situation where people in Afghanistan hate the US could turn and believe we are fighting for their rights too not against them. If we show that afghanis that we care about the children tat are being raped, who are the sons of somebody in the city, will show we care and they’ll would dislike the country less than they will do if we keep ignoring this situation as we have being doing so far. With the power this country posses there is certainly somethings that can be done. Such as using the evidence that is with in our power and the people against the problem and address it to the United Nation. But certainly the U.S should take a chance to prove the have more than war interest with in Afghanistan and make the relationship between countries better starting with the defence of the rights of the boys.

US and China: Topics for Discussion

Chandler Olah

American Foreign Policy

Muck

23 September 2015

United States and China: Topics for Discussion

A a a a a a aRecently, China has put together campaigns in which the goal is to bring back suspected criminals from abroad to stand trial at home. After releasing a list of the “most wanted” economic fugitives, President Xi Jinping plans to discuss cooperation on this matter when he makes his first official state visit to the United States later this week. What is important to focus on here is the impending relationship between the United States and China. aThe current situation between the two nations over the fugitives is that there have been slight movements of cooperation but the United States has been “quiet” over the issue.

A a a a a a a It is my hope that the two will successfully bring this issue under wraps and I recommend that the United States break their silence on the matter and send back any fugitives that are taking refuge in the states. In order for this problem to be solved, I believe it to be of extreme importance that an extradition treaty is made between the two nations so that there is a mutual understanding of the process in which will take place when a fugitive is found within the other’s borders.

A a a a a a a As I read through the current situation between the two nations, it reminded me of several other matters that the United States and China have brought to light in the recent weeks regarding the other. As we know, the United States and China have a very codependent relationship with each other. a As topics arise and tensions increase over situations like that of transnational fugitives and cyber-warfare, I believe it to be overly beneficial for the two nations to increase contact and communication with each other in order to strengthen the relationship we have. With articles increasing on the subject of China’s distrust and intentions, especially regarding cyber-warfare, it’s easy to see why this will be a topic for discussion as the Chinese president arrives. Cyber-warfare has become a recent issue due to the fact that technology is increasingly becoming a source of influence on China’s economy, in which the United States holds a lead. As these negotiations pan out, it will be exciting to witness the conclusions the two presidents come to in regards to the future of American and Chinese relations. With Xi Jinping making his first trip the U.S. soil, it could very well be the solidifying meeting we need in order for relations with China to continue smoothly.  

Donald’s Wall: Immigration Reform

Katie Madel

Donald’s Wall:

Immigration Reform

            One of the huge discussions in the Republican primaries is immigration reform. Illegal immigration occurs in large numbers, and both parties grapple with the best way to deal with illegal aliens. This problem encompasses everything from how to keep them out, what to do with the ones currently living in the country, what to do with the children, and then the very process of immigration as well. Both sides cannot seem to find a common ground.

            On one hand, we are a country built for immigration and on immigration. On the other, we are in an age where our country has a history of its own, so we feel less involved in immigrants. So how do we figure out how to reconcile these ideas?

            The first issue to deal with is the immigrants currently in the United States. Many have assimilated and have lives here, but does that make up for the fact they broke laws to come here? I feel that following laws is an integral part of the United States, for the laws enable all to have the freedoms we all cherish. But then what do we do with the immigrants who are already here, already working jobs, already have friends and family? It’s a difficult question. We could give them amnesty for their crimes, give them full citizenship, but how does that encourage future immigrants to follow the necessary means to achieving citizenship? Unfortunately, just like an individual who chose to steal, someone who chose to sell illegal drugs, they must suffer the consequences.

The children present a unique ethical question. It’s one thing to punish the parents, it’s another to punish the innocent children. Interestingly though, the United States is one of the few developed countries that still allows birthright citizenship. Most don’t allow this for the implications of allowing children into a country, but not the parent. So why do we still do it? It is actually considered part of a line in our constitution. All those naturalized or born in this country are considered at citizen. However, this incentivizes illegal immigrants to have their children here. If children too are considered illegal immigrants, the problem is less convoluted. Then should we send the children back after growing up in the states? The answer simplifies to yes, but we can offer them the potential to come back for college programs or others once they are old enough. It minimizes the punishment for the children and offers opportunities to them that their parents likely hoped for. Children, being the future, are likely to benefit greatly from the option of becoming citizens down the road with the promise of college scholarships.

Finally, one of the largest criticism in the immigration process is the process itself. It’s a bureaucratic mess of paperwork, people, and costs. Individuals feel forced to steal across the border rather than deal with these processes. As a country of immigrants, we should encourage legal immigrants to join our numbers, no matter who they are. It should be a zero cost process, simplified as humanly possible, while still assuring truth in documentation. Only those with a history of crimes should be unable to pass through out gates. The process also shouldn’t take any longer than a year.

We want to stop having problems; we need to stop making them. We were all immigrants at one point in our bloodline. Others should be given the same opportunities as we were without having to jump through convoluted hoops. Laws are rarely broken because people want to, but more often because people feel they have no other choice. 

US and China: Room for optimism?

Chris Danielson

9/23/2015

US and China: Room for optimism?

With the arrival of China's president, Xi Jinping, for the first time on American soil, many are interested in the looming meeting between him and President Obama, where cybercrime and the militarization along the South China Sea are expected to be the main topics discussed.

While many are skeptical of China's intentions and trustworthiness, and therefore, the effectiveness of the meetings, I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment and provide some reasons why I believe the discussions will be a push in the right direction in strengthening the shaky relationship between the US and China.

First, with the recent surge in economic power over the past few decades, and an equally impressive growth in their military, thanks to their staggering population of 1.3 billion people, it's easy to become intimidated by China's rapid ascension among the top of the world's key players. However, it is also easy to forget that this type of growth is difficult to maintain, at least, economically. China's economy is beginning to slow down and as CNN reports, its market has shed 45% since June. This couldn't have come at a better time for the US, who just last year, was in danger of being surpassed by China as the economic superpower of the world. Fast forward a year, and the US has regained some leverage as this recent decline in China's economy increases its dependence on foreign markets, especially the United States'.

I think it's also easy to forget Obama's visit to China last year also resulted in the US and China negotiating an agreement in which both sides agreed to reduce their energy emissions, the US by 28% by 2025 and China's by 20% by 2030. While this might not seem to be a big deal to anyone but tree-huggers, it implies two things to me. First, that China and the US have finally found something that they could agree upon, and that small steps are usually the beginning towards strengthening any relationship, especially among those between known rivals. Second, and perhaps more important, it showed me that China may be starting to begin to realize the limits of its economic potential, at least, domestically, and therefore, more open towards negotiating with the US.

I think this meeting between Jinping and Obama could prove to be another milestone in overcoming the US and China's differences, because I've also been learning that next major market for China would be in the field of technology, in which the US is the leader. However, it's up to Obama's ability to negotiate artfully and skillfully, as China has a propensity to say one thing and do another.

This is why discussing cyberwarfare and China's recent attacks on personal information and intellectual property is essential on ensuring the continued co-dependence between the US and China. In order for it to work, I expect the US to force the Chinese to give them a way of monitoring their actions in order to prevent the potential theft of patents. Otherwise, China could theoretically steal our ideas, and our markets along with it, in an attempt to once again propel themselves to the top of the economic ladder.

With the stakes so high, it's understandable why there's a sense of growing pessimism and distrust of China by the American public. However, I believe with China over the past year beginning to open themselves up to negotiations with the US, that it could be a step in the right decision. It is up to us to tread lightly.

America’s Export Import Bank

America’s Export Import Bank

                From Boeing to GE to more than 3,340 small businesses across America, the Export Import Bank has worked for more than 80 years to further support American businesses in their ventures abroad.  Originally created in 1934 with the purpose of easing the grip of the great depression on American exports, the EXIM Bank has grown in to one of the most successful quasi-public entity of the United States government.  In 2014 alone they helped support $27.4 billion of the US’s total $2.35 trillion export sales at no additional cost to the taxpayers.  In fact the government saw a surplus of $675 million in net revenue on loans to both small and big businesses.  However despite its great success over 81 years the EXIM Bank was forced to cease operation for the first time as of June 30^th because their charter has not been reauthorized.  The EXIM Bank is currently at risk of dissolving if its charter is not renewed, such a failure in re-authorization poses a threat not only domestically but internationally.

                It seems almost laughable that such an entity would be the target of political strife, when it has been more successful at job creation than most politicians.  The EXIM Bank has become a powerful tool for business transactions between US companies and risky buyers.  The EXIM Bank aids in loans and prevents US businesses from being hurt by bad deals, one example is Boeing’s satellite manufacturing business.  The risk exist for Boeing that in the production of an $80 million satellite that the suspected buyer could just back out of the deal.  In such a case the EXIM bank insurance policy would prevent a total loss for Boeing, and has a default rate of near zero at 0.175%.  Yet it is for the very way the bank operates that makes it a target for those who see it as a threat to global competition and as a cushion for big businesses.  But, such worries are completely unfounded because there has never been a market in which a bank can be considered unfair, so long as it turns a profit.  It is business and as Coolidge so eloquently said “America’s business is business”. 

                It would be poignant if such a desire to eliminate all forms of government “aid” were to come true even when the societal benefits are greater than the cost.  This should not be something that should be cast aside because of a person’s belief, when there is empirical data to show its use for our nation.  For in our world America’s greatest influence relies on the success of its markets and businesses, we should not sacrifice one of the few things we excel at.  To do so would be a failure in judgement as well as a simple case of self-immolation to both our economy and a tool of American foreign policy.  For in that world in which a person so blindly believes that elimination of such a banking entity will lead to further growth, is a world in which classical economic theory actually holds true.  But, so long as we aren’t in that world there is hope for the re-authorization of the EXIM Bank and for what William T. Stead called the Americanization of the world.

---Nathaniel Dust---

A Warm Welcome for Pope Francis

Lauren Edmunds

So the Pope arrived in the United States on Tuesday. He plans to give a speech to Congress this Thursday, and in light of his stances on particular issues, some members are shaking in their boots. There are many social, catholic issues that some members are hopeful to hear about. What’s really interesting, however, is what Republicans and Evangelical-Republicans are hoping the Pope won’t talk about. Earlier this year, in a letter addressed “to every citizen of the world”, beautifully dubbed “Care for Our Common Home”, Pope Francis officially spoke out in favor of counter-acting man-made climate change. This completely shattered the image that climate change is false to only to the anti-religious folk. As a fellow, catholic/religious, global warming enthusiast, I hope the Pope changes minds as warmly and rapidly as our climate is changing.

The science is clear, and the scientists behind the science are clear – climate change is real, it’s dangerous, and it’s going to be the world’s undoing. It’s no surprise that the current administration is behind the Pope and his ambitions on climate change, especially after the President put this issue on his docket in 2014. President Xi of China and President Obama, the world’s number one and two leaders in carbon emission, formally announced a plan to significantly cut carbon emissions, centering around coal and promoting clean energy. This announcement fundamentally shifted the global politics of climate change, and in some ways, it was really the beginning of a hard battle to legitimacy as well as advancement.

Now, on Tuesday, almost as if to christen the Pope’s arrival, Senate Democrats proposed a climate change bill in line with the administration’s agreement with China. In addition to the proposal of the bill, the United Nations General Assembly is also pushing towards a climate change accord in their fall summit.

These plans and meetings are not met without opposition and climate change deniers. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has placed a full-on block to combat the proposed bill, as well as to combat the administrations future plans on climate change action. In addition, Senate democrats are well aware of the difficulties or impossibilities surrounding passing the bill in the House.

It makes sense that the bill and the meetings could all be centered on the Pope’s visit. Senate Democrats may be trying to inspire the Pope to take a clear stance during his speech on Thursday, but just as well, I believe the Democrats want to demonstrate the kind of opposition they face on the issue to the Pope. If they can give Pope Francis a clear picture of the real road-block, he may be better equipped for a push back.

I’m hopeful that if there is anyone that can open minds of the climate change deniers, it’s Pope Francis. It is almost as if the fear surrounding the speech is palpable. The thought that this issue might be pushed under the noses of deniers by someone of such respect and authority, is downright terrifying. 

As a fellow citizen of the world, I hope the issue is brought up on Thursday. I also hope it combats any lingering thoughts of doubt on the subject. The Pope himself admits that climate change makes sense and yet there are still politicians fighting the truth. So if the Pope can’t convince you, is our ultimate melting in the fires of the Earth the only thing that will? 

Syrian Refugee Crisis

Recently, a photo surfaced of a drowned, three year old Syrian refugee boy who washed up on a Turkey beach. The photo, combined with the unforeseen massive influx of Syrian refugees, revived media attention about the issues Syria is facing. It also helped to increase the amount of money donated to relief efforts.

Syria has been facing conflict for years now, whether that be from the bloody civil war it is battling to the fight against the Islamic State militants. Syria is amidst a major humanitarian crisis, and the civilians are paying a dire price. Millions of Syrians are internally displaced and millions of others have fled to neighboring countries including Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, while others still are fleeing to the West (or at least attempting to). Germany is notable for opening its borders to refugees, while countries such as Hungary and Austria have been less than inviting. Major aid groups, such as Save the Children and Oxfam America, have called out the United States for not doing enough to accept Syrian refugees and that the President and Congress should do more to accept a larger number of refugees.

Is it more money that Syria needs? More countries to open their arms and allow refugees to flow in? Or is there something else that can and should be done?

At the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, life is bleak and the conditions are rough. Food vouchers have been cut, the education is poor if not nonexistent, and infrastructure is a mountain of problems within itself. But life in this camp is much better than what many Syrians were facing back at home. A 26 year old mother of five who resides in Zaatari was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “We’ve become used to a system here, and a way of life. There’s order in terms of security, in terms of service.” The Syrian people here are lacking in some of the most basic human needs, but they are okay with it so they can have some semblance of security and safety.

This is not a crisis that Syria can handle on its own. The world needs to help. Syrians are seeking asylum in other countries, and it is up to those and other able countries to offer some help to the refugees. Those who are fleeing are doing so out of complete desperation because they can no longer stay and fight. Possibly not out of a lack of want, but because they are too worried about how they will feed their children or stay alive to even think about changing the current government. If the larger world powers would prefer to keep the refugees in the camps, then they will have to step up and donate money to the camps. By doing this, those who are there can at least enjoy basic human necessities until they are able to return to their home. Investing in infrastructure, job education, schools, and the like can make a world of a difference for these displaced people. While it may not be “our job” to solve all of their problems, it should be our duty to help when it is needed. The countries to which Syrians are fleeing to, that have the resources available, should do their best to take in as many refugees as they can, which many countries have been doing very well. There can, and should be, checks and processes done when taking in refugees that the countries’ legislators can decide on their own. They should then be integrated into society and seen for their potential, not as a threat or a burden.

This is not just a salient political issue, but a humanitarian one. The Syrian people are in serious need of help, and it is up to the leading countries in the world to set the example.

Ann Nenoff 

U.S. Foreign Policy: Child’s Play?

Winter, Andrew

U.S. Foreign Policy: Child’s Play?

            If, as Muhammad said, the truth spoken in the face of a tyrant is the greatest form of jihad, then we must always be open to another’s perspective of truth. In order to avoid the oppression of a single opinion forced upon one group by another, a degree of cultural pluralism is required. However, when do you draw the line between accepting another’s cultural differences and protecting other people who are in danger because of them? Soldiers stationed in Afghanistan have been told for years to ignore the sexual abuse of boys by their Afghan military counterparts. Missions have come close to failure due to cultural difference many times and simple, small remarks have caused serious personal offense. Because many leaders in the villages in Afghanistan were not happy with the way their own military was treating the local boys, it has reflected poorly on the United States in the eyes of the elders. Many of the Afghan military leaders were put in place by or supported through the U.S. and conduct themselves in manners unfit for western backing. Support must be withdrawn if these officials refuse to conform to the ethical standards espoused by the U.S.

            There is a great different between respecting a person’s cultural differences and turning a blind eye out of convenience. Is not the value of all life equal? If so, then a boy’s safety on a military installation is as equally important to a dangerous mission rescuing a military asset. Clearly there is an underlying difference in priorities and much greater attention to this issue is required. Many American soldiers have faced disciplinary repercussion when intervening or reprimanding the Afghan offenders. Some have even faced military discharge. The structure of the military has been established so that each functioning part is taught to respond as instructed and to trust that such instructions are always correct. When a person witnesses an act which they believe to be wrong, yet, are told not to intervene, something amazing is lost. That spark of doing what’s right in the face of danger is what makes this country’s military what it is. If you take that spark away- the military loses its fire.

            Military members are given examples of heroes throughout the history of the military and some aspire to such great levels. Commonly mistaken today as heroes just for simply putting on a uniform, a hero is, by my definition, a person who is essentially altruistic. The soldiers who intervened on behalf of the boys in Afghanistan only to face reprimand are true heroes. Call it luck, or call it fate, but a person born in the United States cannot give themselves credit for being an American. The privileges and freedoms Americans enjoy should not be taken for granted and should not be considered “earned.” While it is terrible that soldiers return home with haunting memories of a young boy screaming for help in the night, it is even worse to be that young boy screaming for help and receiving none.

            The only response society has when their freedom to choose what they believe to be true is removed is resentment and rebellion. This truth rings true since the very beginning of America. The foundations of this country have been laid upon the freedom to choose. In fact, this goes far beyond the beginning of this country—it is at the core of every human being. Even a toddler will throw a fit when a choice is taken away. Even though the United States has often been compared to an emotional adolescent, easily swayed from one opinion to another—there is something exciting about that. While Americans may take this “savior complex” a bit too far from time to time, who else has been bestowed a comparable capacity to help?  It is not a matter of taking responsibility of the entire world; it’s a matter of stepping up to the plate when able. The first step to solving any problem is becoming aware of the problem. By ignoring this problem, the American government has inadvertently supported the actions of those Afghan violators.  If an individual or government is unwilling to conduct their behavior in a way that positively reflects the United States, than the question of giving direct and purposeful support is already answered by a resounding “NO.”

Building Chinese Relations through Space Exploration

Forming strong relations with China is in my mind the most essential task for American Foreign policy over the course of the next fifty years. It may be difficult for America to do that seeing as we clash on many different affairs politically, economically, and socially; however this does not mean that we should not continue to build bridges. Space exploration is a field that can propel our people into the next era of human evolution, and as the two strongest powers in the world the US and China should lead the people of humanity into the dawn of human interplanetary travel. Yet even on this front we are pushing the Chinese away! The US, Canadian, Russian, Japanese and European Space Agencies all have together taken a unified first step forwards by creating and maintaining the International Space Station, this monumental achievement of international cooperation is a reassuring sign that even the US and Russia can come together to achieve a common goal. Yet when China requested to join the world on the ISS the US, who is the authoritative voice of the ISS, denied their appeal citing human right violations. China then, being the growing global superpower that it is looked inward, as it has done so many times in the past and essentially said “We don’t need you then, we can do this on our own.” and continued on to become the third country in human history to put a man in space and are now working on their own independent space station.

The political downsides are miniscule in comparison to the benefits of such an alliance not only would it help to provide Chinese support for many of NASA’s goals such as a return to the moon or for interplanetary travel to Mars, additional funding for the ISS and to simply create another forum for discussion and conceptual theory with the brilliant Chinese STEM population. As well as add another ally in the field instead of creating a powerful rival but more importantly the US would improve political relations with China as well as draw the Chinese further away from needing the aid of the seemingly anti-western Russians. Creating a stronger relationship with the Chinese is also has secondary effects of possibly repelling the Russian influence on Chinese development. Though space exploration is certainly not the only avenue that should be pursued when dealing with China it is a relatively safe way to gain Chinese trust and lay the building blocks for future cooperation.

China is still a growing country, of course they now are forced to endure human rights violations just as America had itself done less than one hundred years ago. Is not the current and temporary state of Chinese human rights so intolerable by the United States that we should risk pushing even further away the country who will become one of the most powerful countries in human history for potentially the next few centuries? The United States government needs to seriously reevaluate its view of the world and in particular get a little more clarity on the development process that nations follow, no matter their political identity when becoming a fully modernized country. As powerful as the United States has become, in outliving the USSR and now having watched the exponential growth of the PRC to doubt that China does not have the ability to become a perfectly legitimate associate to NASA is simply unbelievable. If the US can become strong partners with China now we can help to guide their development in ways which we prefer in the future.

Michael Johnson

Zackary Ledlow

Why Is Ukraine Not In The News Anymore?

I recently read an article about the issues that are still plaguing Russia and Ukraine.  This made me realize that we really do not hear about Ukraine in the mainstream news anymore.  It has been brushed under the rug and forgotten about.

There are still many things happening in Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia right now.  We do not hear about them anymore though.   It feels as though the West has all but forgotten about Ukraine and the Crimea region.

There were sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe against Russia for it's aggression against Ukraine.  However, we did not get directly involved in the issue between Ukraine and Russia.  Putin essentially went unchecked in his aggressive tactics of rebuilding the former Soviet Union.

The people of Ukraine have not forgotten however.  Right now, the Tatar people who were driven out of the Crimea region have set up checkpoints along the three major Highways into Crimea.  Essentially, they have set up a blockade.  This chokes off supplies to the region that includes food and supplies.

Next week the Prime Minister plans to talk about the Crimea region at the opening of the UN.  They feel that Russia has wrongfully annexed the Crimea region.

But why has the West stopped reporting on this issues?  I feel that other issues have now overshadowed the crisis in Ukraine.  The cease fire in Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian forces and the Russian supported rebels has been maintained.  The Iran deal has become major headlines here in the United States.  Also, the Syrian refugee crisis has also become major headlines both here is the U.S. and Europe.  Moving the focus off of the Russia Ukraine problem and onto a different part of the world.

Can we really be surprised though that the West has forgotten about Ukraine?  We have seen this happen time and time again.  For example, Russia'a invasion of Georgia.  Russia used the excuse of saying they were maintaining peace in certain regions of Georgia to explain why they were invading Georgia.

Georgian military bases were raided and many Georgian people were cleansed from the area invaded by Russia.  Many Georgian people were displaced as a result of this conflict as well.

France negotiated a peace agreement between Russia and Georgia.  However, Russia still maintains military forces in the areas it invaded.  This is not reported on either.  Why is that?  I think it is because no one cares.  The United States does not have any interest in this issue because it does not want to prod the Russian beast as well as there being no U.S. interests in this area of the world.  There is no oil to be had by the United States so we do not care.

The United States is all about being the world police.  However, only when it benefits us.  We like to pick and choose when we want to get involved in world issues based on what is in it for us.

We need to stop forgetting about people when our interests are not directly affected.

Greece and Syriza: a path to nowhere

Ignacio Moreno-Lucenilla

Greece, Syriza, Tsipras, crisis, debt, European Central Bank, bankruptcy… These are terms that have shaken the European Union as well as international order in last months. However, they are not merely words without any depth, their meaning brings ahead institutions and citizens who watch worried how the months passes and the problem is still present.  And when we thought nothing else could go, the seventh elections held in last 6 years. The polls show an expected and illogical result. There will be nothing new under the sun in this regard: Syriza wins and it means another step back for the Greek society. Is in this moment when our mind pops again thinking on the different consequences that this political chaos may have. Why I am talking about chaos? Why does it affect us? Is it as relevant as it resembles?

Set the facts in their suitable context may be mandatory. Alexis Tsipras took the office after winning the last elections in January. That triumph meant a strongly change in the European map which was commanded by moderated left and right parties. Syriza legislature has doomed the Greek population to a Marxist program completely far from European Institution's road map. Within this bailout package we could find their negative to pay the monstrous debt accumulated over the years. Although this measure was its strong point to win the elections, Syriza’s government finally failed in this position and knelt before the Troika. Europe won the first match and as reward, Greece must carry out widespread changes to business and the economy. Last Sunday, Tsipras got a solid victory, handing him 35.5% of the votes and 145 seats in the Parliament.  

After all, why did the population decide to continue in this way? A government that forced a “freezing of financial assets" and it provoked a state of collective panic in the community. Only an insane mind can maintain this situation as well a population disoriented and overtaken by events.

How this victory may affect our country and the international order? 3 points must be taken into account

Economy: The Greek situation creates a high scale of incertitude. For instance, in recent weeks, which really has worried investors has been the monetary policy decision taken by the US Federal Reserve (Fed), which has delayed any change in interest rates. In a globalized world, poor policy actions destabilize the system, and that is what Greece has made along this years. Now more than ever, Greece is bound to send a message of stability to the markets, and it is impossible with an irresponsible government characterized by disobedience and a lack of fixed direction. Who is finally affected by this disaster directed by Tsipras? Citizens, sure. Investors are in "safe mode" and prefer not to risk until new economic indicators yield better results. Syriza hinders the economic growth in fact, not in abstracts terms but in real consequences.

Military bases: Syriza does not  want to install new NATO bases in its territory. This decision directly affects US interests, which find in Greece a superb area to control entry to Russia and the Middle East.

Refugees: Financial troubles are not isolated in Greece. We must add thousands of migrants and refugees landing here on their way to other parts of Europe. Greek Aegean islands as Lesbos, Kos, Samos and Chios are overwhelmed with the massive influx of refugees daily, due to its proximity to the coast of Turkey. Tsipras advocates immigration crisis management made arguing that his government creating a Ministry of Immigration, who also managed, with the support of Italy, holding two European summits on the issue and chartered a ship to transport refugees from the islands to the Athenian port of Piraeus. Who can afford it? There are so many problems to an almost-failed European state.

Jens Bastian said: “I think this election tells Europe that they better find a way to deal with him, because he is not going anywhere soon” But, what kind of Syriza are we going to face now? The new one? The old one? The one that prefers pay the debt? The one that prefer be unruled? Many questions and no so much answers. However, only one thing can describe the current situation: instability, which is the only word that our world needs to forget.

Jake Kazmierczak

 

Not so recently I skimmed past an article discussing the expansion of US military bases in Japan. This post had to have been published around early summertime, because it was fresh in my mind the day I landed there.

 

Anyways, the reason the article somewhat piqued my interest was the image.

 

I was on Facebook, literally skimming when I came across a rather intense photograph of Japanese citizens protesting in numbers. I remember seeing a sea of signs in both Japanese and English demanding the US military’s departure from Japan.

 

I was relatively torn on the subject. As a natural response I assumed the US was doing something stupid again which, mixed with my somewhat irrational love for Japan, made me obviously click on the link and somewhat skim the article.

 

After doing so I wasn’t sure I bought into the argument for the US’ departure. The image though was really jarring and I figured all those Japanese people know more than me about what’s good for Japan so I might as well take this Japanese article’s side.

 

As, I landed in Narita about a week later I expected to see some form of protest. I was prepared to feel out the opinions of those who seemed to care about the issue, just out of natural curiosity. So to my surprise when I saw literally nothing about it anywhere I was taken aback.

 

Now I’m positive that there is a group fanatically against the growth of US power in Japan. I just don’t know if that article accurately expressed the reality of the situation.

 

Now that I’m back at home I don’t have the blessing to walk the streets of Japan to figure out the truth of this but I have been able to click my way around the internet and read a few articles. In doing so I’ve come to one not so surprising conclusion, the Media is sided.

 

This fact is shocking even to me sometimes.

 

Here’s the thing, I don’t think many Americans think through much of the stuff they read, especially when it’s coming out of another country. Unless it’s the Middle East (which I’d argue we’re still clueless on), I get this strong feeling that Americans just assume everything written about another country, by another countries Media, is the word of some divine neutral faction. We don’t really second guess the content because we don’t experience it first hand, we’re all guilty of it.

 

This is a major problem.

 

We spit on our media outlets like dirt but we eat up foreign media because we don’t know who they are.

 

I still don’t know what side of the Japan argument I’m on, and in my opinion that’s a decent thing.

 

As consumers of world media, we need to understand that there are multiple sides to all things. Foreign countries media sources glorify their propaganda, just as the US’s media does, in attempt to convince us one way or another. We should be weary in assuming that “all those … people know more than me about what’s good for [their country] so I might as well take this [foreign] article’s side.” That is a dangerous approach to understanding the world.

Russian Incursion in Syria

            Recently, two critical stories have been badgered into the American public on the twenty-four hour news cycle: Russian aggression and the Syria civil war.  To make these subjects easier for the American public to understand, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to make them one story with his recent actions, increasing the number of Russian troops, supplies and military equipment going to his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad.  Although one could argue that Russian intervention would resolve this conflict, ending half a decade’s worth of bloodshed and heartache, one needs to look at who benefits in this scenario.

            Al-Assad has become infamous for being brutal and apathetic to civilian casualties throughout the course of this conflict, going so far as to use chemical weapons on his own people.  This is the regime that the Russians are arming.

            One could argue that a nation united behind al-Assad would lead to the removal of the extremist group, ISIS.  However, the type of weaponry entering Syria leads one to a different conclusion.  Russia has brought in tanks, aircraft and surface to air missiles.  While tanks and aircraft could be used to go on the offensive against ISIS, the last type of weapon going to the war-stricken nation should cause alarm.  If ISIS does not have access to aircraft, why would the Assad regime need surface to air missiles?  The most likely reason is that the Russians are bolstering Assad in the event that the United States or a Jordanian-led Arab taskforce imposes a no fly zone over Syria.

            What security advantages does Russia gain from its relationship with the Assad regime?  First, Russia is fearful of extremist gains in Syria, especially since they are dealing with extremist insurgencies in their Caucasus region.  Second, it hopes to maintain influence in the Middle East.  Currently, Assad’s Syria and Iran are the only nations in the region accepting of Russian influence.

            Although the actions of Russia in Syria will have a minimal effect at this point and are unlikely to sway the outcome of the civil war, the relationship between these nations should be closely watched, lest a trend develop.