Unexpected Threat to World Peace

When we think about threats to world peace, it’s commonplace in America to think about Russia or North Korea. People don't tend to evaluate how our government actors, like President Donald Trump, can affect the peace. While Trump should show diplomacy to keep the peace, he has shown in cases over the last year that he is not acting carefully in a global sense. If I were Trump, I would evaluate how the actions he’s making as commander in chief can disrupt the peace. 

  Trump has openly spoke out against the United Nations saying that it wasn't a friend of freedom. During his presidential campaign, Trump openly talked about pulling the United States out of foreign treaties for trade, the military, and the environment. Trump even threatened to take away funding from the United Nations. With the United States being a global power and a huge funder to the UN, Trump’s disproval of the UN could lead to it’s demise. The United Nations was put in place to maintain international peace and security. Without the POTUS’s approval of the UN, it sends a bad message to other world leaders about where the United States stands on foreign policy. If Trump doesn't seem to care about world order and an organization like the United Nations, who’s to say that other countries will. Trump is setting a bad example for other nations as well as the citizens of the United States. 

Some argue that it isn't the United States problem to maintain world peace. Those who believe in a hands-off approach to foreign policy say that the United States invests too much money into places where it isn't needed. What they don't realize is how the United States loses control over what is going on when they don't have a seat at the table. Trump loves to throw out that the United States is the most powerful country in the world and that no one can come close to our military power, and yet, he doesn't realize the world chaos he can cause by not maintaining relationships with other countries. 

Trump has taunted the dictator of North Korea via Twitter over nuclear weapons which is careless. The last thing the world needs is another cold war over the possibility of the United States getting in a nuke war with North Korea. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement sent messages of the United States unwilling to stay cooperative with other nations. Even Trump’s decision to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel wasn't in accordance with what other members of the United Nations wanted. Commenting that the continent of Africa was a combination of shithole countries was not his brightest moment. Trump is showing carelessness in the way he is communicating to and with the world. It can only go on for so long before a threat gets fed up and acts upon their aggravation. 

While Trump has shown a bad track record so far, he has opportunities to show his willingness to maintain peace. With the war in Syria still going on, Trump can come up with a plan to alleviate the stress and aid the humanitarian crisis. Although he is saying he is going to pull out of the Iran Nuclear deal, he can try to negotiate it to get what he wants while still maintaining the peace. Where muslim minorities are  being threatened with genocide in Myanmar,  Trump can do the very least and speak up against this issue. Trump needs to keep his seat at the International table. With no communication with other world leaders, it is naive to assume that the safety and security of the United States is without a doubt. 

Lauren Whelan

Customs and Border Patrol Shortage

Elena Vela

Dr. Muck

PSC212

24 January 2018

Customs Agency Short Staffed

            Customs and Border Patrol are running on a shortage of employees.  We’re not talking necessary staffing is covered and they are looking for extra people.  They are overwhelmingly understaffed.  At face value this may not seem like a foreign policy issue, but it can pose a threat on our national security.

            Let’s talk numbers.  Customs and Border Patrol is understaffed by almost four thousand people.  That means there are four thousand jobs waiting for the American people.  There are potentially four thousand more people who can put food on their table and a roof over their head.  That has a huge impact on the American economy. 

            As a result of the extreme shortage, people who are employed by Customs and Border Patrol are suffering greatly.  Typically, employees will work eight hour days.  However, because of being under staffed, employees are asked to work 16 hour days while still performing to high expectations set for them.  While I am not arguing that is it okay for the agents to perform at a sub-par standard, no one should have to work multiple 16 hour days in a row. 

            Not only are current employees being asked to work double the hours, but workers from other areas are being forced to relocate to accommodate the deficiency.  For example, airport workers from Florida were made to go work at the border in San Diego.  Customs and Border Patrol argues that the experience is good for people who are asked to take up the job for a short time.

            With the lack of employees, or undertrained replacements, come possible threats to our country.  Sleep deprived employees who are examining people and vehicles entering the country may miss things.  People who are undertrained may not know what to look for.  This can result in an increased potential for drugs or weapons to enter the country.  A higher flow of illegal drugs into the country only increases the war on drugs and drug use in America which is already an epidemic.  With more weapons entering unregistered comes more unsolvable crime and violence.  Along with that, food can make its way into the country which could contain bugs or diseases that can harm our agriculture. 

            I believe that it would be more effective to fill the positions permanently.  There are many benefits to this solution.  First, there will be ample people to do the job efficiently and effectively.  With enough people to adequately staff Customs and Border Control, no one will have to work sleep deprived.  In addition, with permanent positions being filled you can ensure that everyone is properly trained.  Furthermore, people won’t need to be relocated to fill positions.

            Another major benefit of filling these Customs and Border Patrol positions permanently is for the American economy and the American people for that matter.  For every person that is able to get a job, that could mean one less person who is homeless or hungry.  To add to that, another person with a job means more revenue in taxes as well as more buying of goods.  With a number like four thousand, that could have a noticeable impact on the economy in positive ways.   

           With positive impacts like these there should be no reservations for Customs and Border Patrol to hire people on.  An easy fix is for them to reach out and find local people who are in need of a job.  They can put in place a preliminary screening followed by a training period after which people can be hired on full time.  It would be beneficial to the economy, national security, and the American people.   A shortage of staffing should never be an issue because there will never be a shortage of people in America looking to build a life. 

A Look at the 19th Government Shutdown

                This past week, the 19^th government shutdown in the history of United States happened. This time the shutdown happened with a unified government in control. Members of Congress Nancy Pelosi took to twitter to recognize that “This is the first time in recent memory that a government shutdown has been possible when one party – one party- has controlled the White House, House, and Senate. The Republicans own that. #DoYourJob”. This means that one party controls both the legislature and the executive therefore a government shutdown should be somewhat avoidable. However, with a fractured Republican Party, the dependence of Democrats support makes it essential to vote on a budget to keep the government open. The politics in Washington have however become more polarized than ever before such that rather than attempting to come up with a political consensus, there is competition between the two parties two prove the incompetency and express distrust for the other side. The problem with this is that federal employees miss days and weeks of work. State governments experience great losses of the income from these shutdowns considering that some of these facilities are a major source of income for the states they are located.

The big difference in this shutdown is that the national mall and other Smithsonian facilities get to stay open. Previous shutdowns, the Smithsonian and other national parks lost billions during the shutdown. This year, the Smithsonian sent out a tweet noting that the museums and national mall in Washington DC and New York get to stay open. Every time a government shutdown looms, the question of what stays open and for how long. The procedure to determine what stays open has often depended on urgency where only key bodies stay open. In previous government shutdowns, the museum and national parks lost billions and stayed closed until the government reopened. I feel that this year’s efforts to keep the museums open was a strategic move to avoid significant losses. Considering that the shutdown did not go beyond Monday 22^nd 2018, we do not know what moves the Smithsonian Institutions would have to either stay open or keep the facilities functional.

The Smithsonian facilities stayed open with surplus funds from previous year and the facilities in New York, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in particular, stayed open because the State of New York decided to pay for the site as long as the government shutdown continues. The effects of the federal government shutdown on state government tends to be significant.

The State of New York and Washington DC receive visitors from all over the United States and all over the world every year. With a split Republican Party in the majority and the Democratic party pursuing a bill that would help them as the minority, the legislative branch does seem to care less about the functioning of the museums and attractions. For the members from the State of New York, allocating funds to keep the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island open may be a strategic maneuver to secure reelection which is the proximate goal for Members of Congress.

Arguments may be made that the efforts by the Democrats to ensure that DACA and CHIP stay on Congress’ agenda is reason enough to let the government shutdown. To some members of congress, the pursuit for DACA and CHIP are genuine, but the truth is the shutdown causes an immediate damage to the economy, to state governments, and to the people of the United States. The present political climate is defined by party lines. Both the red and the blue are darker than ever before. Passing bipartisan bills is harder than ever before and the efforts to blame one group or another seem more rational than working toward similar end goals.

So what does the effort to keep the Smithsonian museum, the Statue of Liberty, and Ellis Island open tell about the Federal Government? Government shutdowns have become common and even when they do not happen the probability of one happening every year seem to be growing higher. Institutions that depend on Federal funding will need to keep functioning even when the government shuts down to keep their profits going. These institutions realize that the shutdown and reopening of the government in a polarized country disadvantaged them since they fall under the not key institutions that rely on federal funding. For institutions like the post office, they are federally funded but do not rely on the federal government for their functioning. Maybe a majority of institutions will find grants that are not dependent on the federal government to keep functioning during shutdowns.

China is pleased with Trump administration

                Trump’s American First policy is somehow playing advantages for China. Although it is predicted for the possibility of Trade war between two nations, due to the clash of policies (such as Made in China 2025 Plan by which China aims to become the top global manufacturer), so far, the two countries have been pursuing relatively positive relationship.

                In early presidency, Trump tried to use “One China Policy”, the recognition of Taiwan as part of PRC, to manipulate China trade practices and deflation of currency. Though a month later, in February 2017, he admitted to recognize “One China Policy” as U. S always has since 1979. The blooming of positive relation started to grow with the withdrawal of U.S from Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). It is the main act of Asia Pivot Policy of the previous administration, an economic pact to counter China from becoming a regional economic power. The action of new administration somehow describes that U.S is no longer pursuing anti-China policy. Another factor is U.S response to South China Sea dispute. China and ASEAN countries (Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei) have overlapped claims of islands in South China sea which are important to China for both economic and military reasons. The involvement of U.S would mean tremendous support for ASEAN countries, whom as small as they are, cannot oppose to China completely. However, the only clear mention Trump gave towards the dispute was, “If I can help mediate or arbitrate, please let me know”, during his Asia trip in November 2017. China realizes that U.S is now assuming pro-isolationist stance and will not engage in the dispute by its own accord.

                Of course, there were several events that could ruin this newly developed U.S-China relation. Trump did blame China for its non-cooperative actions in North Korea issues and he did launch trade attack against China through its aluminum imports. Though it is also worth to mention these two countries’ fruitful high-profile visits.  At the first meeting between two leaders, Trump shared information with Xi of U.S missile strikes in Syria. Trump’s present in China as part of his Asia visit, also ended with good impression of the nation. His speech included “who can blame a nation for taking advantage of another nation for the sake of its citizens.”

Of course, the above-mentioned obstacles, shift back and forth of Trump polices, are only able to overcome with the compromise of China. It’s a rare chance for China to have a such positive and advantageous position with U.S, Xi is not willing to let it slide due to certain comments of Trump. It is safe to assume that China is pleased with the new administration since it is not harsh enough on globalism as it were before but also not much protectionism to corrupt the trade between the two countries. OF course, this would not mean both China or U.S is abandoning their national interests for positive bilateral relationship, however, the interests of these two nations are favoring each other, and let the world to see changing trend of two superpower nations.

-Htar Myat Nadi

               

               

Trump's Position on Israel

The Problem with Palestine (Or: The Issue with Israel)

            Ever since the end of WW2, when the British Mandate ended, the Jews and Muslims have been arguing over the claim to the territory. The city, which is a holy site for all three of the Abrahamic religions, has been a hotbed of both political and religious tension. And Donald Trump made it 100x worse.

            Trump, in a move that is both expected and unexpected, officially declared Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, siding with the Jewish population, while at the same time, denouncing any claims of the Palestinians. Trump broke from the tradition that has been set since Truman, which is to take no stance either way. Trump’s declaration, while not legally binding, still hurts our foreign relations; Palestine will be far less willing to negotiate anything with a country that outright denies their claims, and if the U.S. tries to help solve the “issue” of what belongs to who, then Palestine will obviously find fault with the decision.

            It can also be considered a method by which Trump gauged how foreign leaders saw him; only eight other countries at the U.N. agreed with the United States’ decision to take an official stance on Israel, where the remainder chose either to go against the U.S., or abstain. Also, Trump’s decision can be turned into propaganda by people like ISIS, who always seem to jump up at an opportunity to turn something into propaganda.

            I know what the obvious answer is; let the Israelis and the Palestinians sort this out. Neither side will truly accept any sort of “answer” unless they both agree on something, and having an outsider like Trump coming in to give his opinion, when no one asked for it, only causes more trouble, not to mention that Trump partly did it to pander to the religious conservatives in his own base. Trump choosing a side the way he did shows an obvious favoritism for Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israelis over the Palestinians; a favoritism that will make any peace negotiations involving the U.S. a point in futility. It would also cause harm to the Iran deal, due to the relationship between Palestine and Iran being more resisting towards U.S. involvement. Trump also threatened to cut aid to any countries that went against them in the U.N. vote, further showing Trump’s inability to behave in a way that is proper of the role of Commander in Chief.

Local Power in the Paris Climate Deal

Kevin Oyakawa

1/24/18

Local Power in the Paris Climate Deal

On June 1, 2017, President Trump decided to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, a decision that put the United States in the same company as Syria. The Paris climate accord, signed by 196 countries across the world, seeks to reduce man-made emissions worldwide to combat climate change. The United States’ decision to pull out of this deal is one of many deals where President Trump has shown his isolationist tendencies, including his rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his disdain for the Iran Nuclear Deal. The decision to reject the climate deal should not have blind-sided the American public; on the contrary, voters should have known what kind of policies President Trump would attempt to push forward. Trump is a president that appointed Scott Pruitt, an outspoken climate change critic, as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indicating his belief that the root of climate change is not from man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. In the past, President Trump was known to be a climate change denier, dating back to a Tweet from 2012 in which our president stated that global warming was created by the Chinese to compete with U.S. manufacturing. With climate change being a contentious topic, and with Republicans holding a unified government, who are generally less-than-friendly with environmental issues, the question of how we respect the rights and opinions of the minority has to be brought up.

We normally do not witness local and state governments participating in U.S. foreign policy, as these policies usually are not relevant to the issues they address. However, in response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, a plethora of states, cities, municipalities, etc, have gone on to individually commit to the international climate agreement. This is a phenomenon that is not seen very often in our foreign policy, which makes this even more effective as a political move. On the international scene, the deviation by local governments away from the President’s stance shows that there is divide within our country from the seemingly erratic and senseless foreign policy initiatives President Trump is pursuing, indicating to the international community that the United States is not entirely turning its back on the world’s climate and perhaps offering hope that the next-in-line would be willing to rethink our initiatives regarding climate change.

While local and state governments are very limited in their capacity to change any foreign policy, actions such as releasing press releases, social media postings, etc raise awareness for the issue and represent the dissenting opinion within the United States. Along with that, as recent as January 10, 2018, President Trump made another announcement regarding the international climate deal, stating that a deal that was not a “bad deal” for the U.S. could lead to back in the climate accord. This could be a response to the domestic pressure he has received for his decision both from local and state governments along with players across both aisles criticizing him, showing the power of local governance in our political system, another testament that the phrase “think globally, act locally” rings true for United States citizens.