Iran Agreement Meets First Challenge

The hard-fought for agreement to end a deadlock over a nuclear program met its first major challenge on Friday with Russia cautioning that a US sanctions move could “seriously”complicate its implementation .

Iran said on Friday that its nuclear deal violated the “spirit of the Geneva deal.” Under which, Iran will curb its nuclear activities in exchange for some easing of the international sanctions that have hurt the major oil producer’s economy. It appears that the subject of economic sanctions of past blog posts have been working. However, there may be too much sanctioning because last Thursday, the US black-listed other businesses undersanctions intended at stopping Iran from gaining the capability to make nuclear weapons, according to US officials.  The deal was intended to pause Iran’s nuclear developments for six months to buy time for negotiations on a final settlement of a dispute that has encouraged anxiety of a new Middle East war.

Moscow’s announcement followed after diplomats said Iran had interrupted technical talks with the 6 nations in Vienna over how to implement the agreement, in which Tehran is to cap its nuclear program inreturn for limited sanctions easing.

What kind of effects can tightening sanctions on Iran, while Iran seems to have widened the scope of their diplomacy, have? Sanctions seem to have worked so far, but is the black-listing too excessive? Is the deal in serious trouble?

U.S. sanctions move angers Iran, Russia sees threat to nuclear deal

Iran angry over U.S. sanctions, nuclear talks interrupted

Syrian Peace Conference and Nonlethal Aid

Despite the noninvasive role of the United States in the Syrian civil war, the government has played an outside part in the conflict. In the act of supplying nonlethal aid to civilians and to the rebels, the U.S. has shown support for one side. While the Obama administration has been focused recently on only a political resolution, military and financial support have been given to the al-Assad regime from Iran and Russia, as well as other countries.  As Secretary of State John Kerry plays a prominent role in the argument for a political solution, a peace conference focused on Syria has been scheduled for January 22 in Montreux.  A great deal of attention has been brought to the possibility of creating a transitional government body that could run the country in the absence of al-Assad.  Furthermore, in the midst of such circumstances, the US government has decided to suspend the delivery of nonlethal aid to Syria, which was supplied by the State Department. However, an article yesterday in the New York Times, U.S. Suspends Nonlethal Aid to Syrian Rebels, quoted Syrian activists were stating that the suspension of aid will not affect the free Syrian army or the Islamic front alike.

As the international community seeks a solution to the Syrian conflict, the war goes on. In evaluating the lengthy duration of this conflict we can remember the article by Fearon from earlier in the semester. One of the most plausible explanations for long civil conflict presented here entails the rebel’s ability to finance the war, whether through contraband goods, or in this case international actors. The fact that both sides of the conflict are being held up by other states not only complicates the situation, but has allowed it to last much longer. A final interesting point stems from Fearon’s conclusion that wars following coups are more likely to be shorter.  For Syria, multiple coups led to the installment of al-Assad’s father, and eventually to the regime in power today.  Yet this conflict has become lengthier.

Aid to the Syrian Opposition

The US suspended nonlethal aid to Syrian opposition groups after an incident in which an extreme Islamist group stole “nonlethal” equipment. This group isn’t moderate, but also fights Al-Qaeda, which makes one wonder what each group is fighting for? Whether it is for material gains or grievances the groups continue to become more radical in appearance and action. Although the US may be supporting rebel groups with military equipment through the CIA, it hasn’t been able to find a strong moderate leader. It is even supposed that US backed rebels simply stole everything from the warehouse and disappeared. The many factions make it difficult to pinpoint a leading group. As well as allows for groups to hide, take undue or due credit. These are the same groups that battle moderates and Al-Qaeda questioning what everyones intentions are in the the conflict, greed or grievance. They have recently killed civilians and kidnapped foreigners out of neighboring countries.

The US has had a hard time finding even just a reliable group that has enough support to be effective. The whole worlds had hard time just trying to find any group with a clear message. Too make matters worse much of the aid that rebel groups receive comes from private donations often from foreigners, most notably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The donors tend to target more extreme and even known terrorist groups as they’ve been deemed the most effective fighters. Only polarizing and antagonizing different the factions making the situation even more turbulent. Finally the UN has found the Assad regime guilty of using chemical weapons multiple times on its own innocent civilians.

What is the UN, US, or any other country to do without at least one moderate faction to at least begin negotiations and start peace? Will the international community get involved as conflict begins to spillover in the region?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/world/middleeast/us-suspends-nonlethal-aid-to-syrian-rebels-in-north.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/middleeast/un-confirms-repeated-chemical-arms-use-in-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25370803

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/world/middleeast/private-donors-funds-add-wild-card-to-war-in-syria.html

The Democratic Republic of the Congo Attempts to Transform the M23 Rebel Group

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been engulfed in internal conflict for more than two decades. This can be attributed to the presence of more than ten armed opposition groups to the government and the M23 rebel group who began to increase their terrorist activity since April of 2012, making them one of the most active and therefore most widely known at the international level. M23 rebels justified their actions due to the DRC government’s supposed marginalization of the Tutsi minority, showing ethnic repression, and their failure to adhere to past peace accords between the parties. With the help of a United Nations (UN) force of 19,000 troops who were mandated to neutralize armed forces, the DRC government successfully defeated the insurgency mid-November. 

 Coinciding with this government offensive, rebel military commander, Gen. Sultani Makenga and his force of 1,700 surrendered to army officials in the neighboring country of Uganda. The rebel group used Uganda as a “safe haven” to resupply and to escape the DR Congo military forces. 

“A report by the UN group of experts has said neighbouring Rwanda provided weapons, recruits and training to the M23. It also alleged that some in Uganda's military supported the rebels”

 The UN report shows the porousness of the countries’ border and the regional influence the rebel group maintained.

The reason I bring up this topic now is because the M23 rebels and the DRC government just signed documents Thursday to officially end rebellion (in Eastern DRC), to demobilize and transform the M23 group into a legitimate political party. These documents also stated that there will be no “blanket of amnesty”, those that committed war crimes will be held accountable to international law, while those not accused will be reinserted back into society. 

In regards to the DRC government's success in defeating the M23 rebels with assistance from UN forces, should the UN continue to mandate the use of force to neutralize insurgencies in other conflicts? Do you agree with the DRC government’s choice to attempt to transform the M23 rebel participants into a legitimate political party? Should there be any consequences for the Ugandan or Rwandan government or military for assisting the M23 rebel group? If so, why or why not?

Execution in North Korea

Jang Sung Taek, until recently, was Kim Jong Un's uncle and one of his closest advisors. In the past Jang had been sent to a steel mill for reforming work due to party disloyalty. This time Jang had been caught opening up the north borders to allow trade between North Korea and China. His crime was for not working as a unit with the other political officials. He had also been caught gambling and other corrupt actions. This lead to Kim using Jang as a message to the people of North Korea that corruption is punishable by death, even for royal family. KCNA released Jang Sung Taek's execution on December 12. Kim Jong Un wanted to send a message that North Korea is going to go through some internal reform, but will not allow people like Jang Sung Taek to undercut the people working on it.

It seems to me like Kim wasn't really a part of this. If KCNA come out with the story in less than a week of it happening then obviously Kim had nothing to do with it or else that would have never been released to the outside world. It also seems like Kim was backed into a corner here because his uncle made him look bad and party disloyalty is punishable by death, whether you're family or not. I don't think Jang was in the wrong for opening up the trade borders between North Korea and China.
Economist:
NK News
Free Public News

History was made yesterday as Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize the production and sale of Marijuana. After 12 hours of debate, with a pass of 16 votes to 13, the government-sponsored bill was approved and Uruguayans are now allowed to cultivate up to six plants per household or join those licensed to grow up to 99 plants. Pharmacies will carry marijuana, supplied by private firms, but are only allowed to sell to Uruguayan citizens. Uruguay's reasoning behind the historic bill is that with the new law in place, police can better focus on stopping violent crimes as well as stopping the smuggling of harder drugs. Uruguayan Senator Roberto Conde was quoted saying that "it was an unavoidable response to reality, given that the war against drugs had failed." Other Latin and South American governments such as Guatemala and Colombia are now considering following Uruguay's decision in hopes to stop battling criminal gangs who are profiting from exporting drugs.

The bill is hardly without opposition however. The UN is against Uruguay's decision and says it violates international law. Although I highly disagree with the statement, the INCB, the International Narcotics Control Board, an independent, quasi-judicial expert body for the implementation of the UN drug conventions, previously 'warned that the move would endanger young people and "contribute to the earlier onset of addiction". The INCB chief Raymond Yans claimed the government's reasoning for passing the bill to rely on "rather precarious and unsubstantiated assumptions". So what will be the future outcome for this Uruguay law? Will the INCB or UN intervene? Will the legalization of production and consumption of marijuana for Uruguayan citizens 18 and up help to stop drug fans, smuggling, and violent crimes? What's your view on this bill that marks the first ever country to fully legalize bud?

Ukraine Crisis

Ukraine is facing its biggest crisis since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Tempers have flared in Kiev amongst the oppositional party because they say their offices have been raided by police, ordered by the President. President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign a treaty with the EU, and is leaning towards a Russian led economic union. There is a sense of corruption amongst the political leaders. Protesters are demanding a reelection to dismantle Yanukovych and his party, saying he is bowing to russian interest. Much hatred towards Putin has risen for the Ukrainian people, Sparking protesters to riot in Independence Square. "We call on people to stand their ground, and peacefully, without using force or aggression, to defend their right to live in a free country," said heavyweight boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko, who has emerged as one of the leaders of the protests. There have been clashes between protesters and the riot police, yet none of the skirmishes escalated too immensely. The Lenin statue standing in the City Center was taken down and divvied up amongst protesters, who want the government to embrace the West, in particular the EU.

It's clear that the Ukrainian people want independence from Russia, but how can they do that with their very own president acting like Vladimir Putin's puppet? Yanukovych isn't ready to give up the economic ties of the East, mainly Russia, but the people are demanding the democratic, economic ties of the West, mainly the EU, as I stated above. The last time the Ukrainian people rose up against the government, they became a democratic republic. I think if something isn't done soon to resolve the issues at hand, there could well be a full blown revolution that possibly extends beyond Ukrainian borders to defend against the clutches of Putin's Russia.

BBC News- Ukraine Crisis Explained
Ukraine police move in on protesters and opposition party
EU-Russia Battleground

The UN, China, and Human Rights Violations

As a part of the United Nations General Assembly, 47 member countries are elected to seats on the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC.  These UNHRC members are charged with the task of reviewing and reporting to the general assembly their findings on human rights violations for all UN members ever four years. The council also acts as a resource for individuals and organizations to report human rights violations.

China, a country known for it’s human right violations, was elected to a seat on the Human Rights Council. This comes as the UN continues to report on wide spread violations in China. As acting assistant secretary in the U.S. State Department's bureau of democracy, human rights and labor, Uzra Zeya, stated, “We're concerned that China suppresses freedoms of assembly, association, religion and expression..., harasses, detains and punishes activists..., targets rights defenders' family members and friends and implements policies that undermine the human rights of ethnic minorities.” This is in direct conflict with the UN’s own resolution which states, “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” In 2009, the UNHRC made similar observations about violations in China and China rejected almost all of the recommendations made by the council. While many countries, like the United States, have criticized China, they have found support from countries including Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt. This is also not the first time that a rights violator served on the Human Rights Council, Pakistan, Venezuela and Kazakhstan all of whom are known for committing human right violations have held seats on the council.

Should China hold a seat on the Human Rights Council?

Does having known human rights violators on the council matter?

Will this limit the effectiveness/ credibility of the UNHRC?

Sources:

UN-real: Saudi Arabia, China among nations vying for seats on Human Rights Council

UN criticizes China's rights record at Geneva meeting

China to Defend Human-Rights Record to U.N.

UPDATE 3-West criticises, China defends human rights record at UN

Theatre of the absurd

Delayed Efforts in Syria

On November 5th, Lakhdar Brahimi of the UN delayed a peace agreement to the war in Syria despite external jurisdiction's strong belief that negotiations are the final resolution to the aggression. Due to this delay, Western politicians face a certain dilemma. They have three essential goals to thwart the conflict: to form a peace settlement, to bring in Iran to apply authority to Syria, and finally to out Syrian president, Bashar Assad. However, due to Brahimi's statement of delay, such leaders can only enforce two out of the three goals. To explain why, the Economist provides lessons of circumventing conflicts. In the infancy of the conflict, Western backing may have already achieved the aim of taking down Assad. But such support has failed to go into fruition. Now after years of aggression, leaving thousands dead, nothing can be done. Rebels have been inculcated by Sunni dogma and shown in examples throughout history, civil wars must successfully come to an end in as little as a year, or else they may continue on for many more years to come. The rebels have zero incentive to cease attacks since they believe that yielding will end in their downfall.

This situation increasingly detriments the relief and protection of Syrian civilians. UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordination, Valerie Amos, explains that hardly any effort has been made to protect citizens and make schools and hospitals safe again. She presents chilling information to the council that an increase of approximately three million Syrians (from 6.8 to 9.3) desire humanitarian relief. Not enough effort is being made to protect the lives of Syrian civilians.

So, in dire situations for relief such as the conditions in Syria, is it really too late for Western support? What would be your response in Brahimi's announcement to postpone a peace agreement if it is stifling relief efforts? 

North Korea Releases American Citizen

Just this Saturday, North Korea released 85-year old American war veteran Merrill Newman, who had been detained in the country for nearly six weeks. His cause for arrest and detention was "indelible crimes' that he allegedly committed during the Korean War. Newman had traveled to the North Korean capital of Pyongyang in October with on a friend on a private trip and had all necessary visa documentation. At the end of his trip just as he was on his way back to the United States, North Korean authorities pulled him off his plane and arrested him. A few weeks later in November, Newman read a lengthy, strangely worded apology and confession on state TV that admitted to these alleged war crimes. However, because of the quality of the English in this confession, there is general speculation that Newman may have been forced to read this under "duress" (Washington Post), something that is common in North Korea's treatment of detainees. Newman's imprisonment also led to the United States issuing a "blanket" travel warning, telling US citizens to avoid travel to North Korea (Washington Post).


North Korea is now claiming that they released 85 year-old Newman on humanitarian grounds, citing his advanced age. Newman, speaking to the press, thanked both the Swedish embassy in Pyongyang and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing for helping to secure his release. It is likely the U.S. exerted diplomatic pressure through these entities as the United States obviously does not hold diplomatic relations with North Korea.

So, in this situation, was North Korea just being North Korea? Did they see imprisoning Newman, an American citizen, as some sort of bargaining chip? If so, what did they achieve by detaining him? Was it just a ploy for international attention?

I'm curious to hear what you guys think.

The 'War on Terror' and Friday's Debate

After a week of discussing terrorist threats and the debate in class Friday, I found Stephen Walt's post on FP to be quite relevant.  The main point of his post resonated with a very similar point made towards the end of class about cost-analysis and defining what success meant in terms of this 'war on terror'.

In class the point was made that we can never guarantee that there is no terrorist threat.  Walt writes that America's politicians don't give the people enough credit when it comes to terrorist attacks and refers specifically to the Boston Marathon bombing.  "And doesn't Boston's defiant and resolute reaction to the city's marathon bombing in April suggest that the American population isn't nearly as querulous as politicians fear: If you explain to them that there is no such thing as 100 percent security, they don't go all wobbly. Instead, they display precisely the sort of calm resolution that causes terrorist campaigns to fail."  I think this is a thought that should be taken more seriously.  Obviously politicians are risk-averse, and it is helpful for them to oversell a threat that way they can't be targeted for having too little concern for national security.

This overselling of the threat, and deciding at what point do we accept that we can't have a guarantee of safety, can connect to the discussion on civil liberties we had in class.  Where is a good balance of security, civil liberty, and how do you measure each of these in relations to the actual threat level.

Walt says that this overselling of terrorist threats is unnecessary to a degree when we are worried about 'copy cat' jihadist groups in Syria, where the threat is not directly aimed at the US and is better dealt with by local forces.  He links to this New York Times article as an example of inflating a threat to a greater level than necessary.  He points out Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers as a case for this risk averse attitude that is mostly an outward display of care to national security as a means of covering themselves politically.

The main point of me writing all this was to sort of continue the discussion we had in class, and to see if anyone has opinions on what Walt is saying here, or maybe more information on this line of thinking.

Civilian Casualties- Victims of Pakistani Drone Strikes

Recently, following a two year hiatus, the United States renewed an aid package worth $1.6 Billion to Pakistan, aid that aims to bolster Pakistan's military and economic capacity. The long gap in funds to one of America's most duplicitous, yet necessary partners in the global war on terror came as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden and rapacious drone strikes, all of which represent violations of Pakistani sovereignty and create frosty relations.

Drone strikes are controversial not simply because of the ambiguity surrounding their use in other states' airspace but because of civilian deaths, which have steadily mounted in recent years. Civilian deaths are costly for a number of reasons. Strictly speaking, effective counterinsurgency doctrine necessitates the engagement of the civilian population, characterized by providing them with security. Improved security, in turn, creates a wedge between insurgents and the population, which provides them with refuge, intelligence and supplies. Drone strikes run counter to counterinsurgency doctrine. Drones do not engage the population, nor do they provide security, a fact manifest by the number of deaths experienced in recent years. But there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the real toll that drones have taken.

The discrepancies arise from various reports. According to the Pakistani government, there have been a mere 67 civilian deaths recorded since 2008, however according to the United Nations the death toll is exponentially higher, at around 450 civilian deaths. Not only does this indicate a substantial lack of transparency, it also calls into question the effectiveness and precise nature of drone warfare. John Brennan, the head of the CIA was recently quoted by Al Jazeera as saying there have been "no collateral deaths 'because of the exceptional proficiency, precision or the capabilities we've been able to develop." However, David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to General David Patraeus, countered this, stating, "over the last 3 years (2009-2012) drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders... but they have also killed some 700 civilians (that total was collected by the Pakistani media). This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2%, hardly 'precision.'"

Overall, we see a massive discrepancy in the real number of civilian deaths, but more importantly, we must take into account the fact that drone warfare is largely imprecise and does little to win over the civilian population, whose support is so vital for attaining victory. Therefore, the question I pose, is whether or not you think drone strikes are an effective tool going forward, and if it is a strategy worth pursuing for the future?

Bombing in Yemen

Today in Yemen, there was a bombing on the Yemen's Ministry of Defense. The attack occurred around rush hour Thursday morning. The bombing killed 52 people so far and wounded 167. Among those were foreign physicians and Yemen military personnel. The strike occurred in the nations capitol, Sana'a. The attack came after the government heightened security measures in the area. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's media arm (al-Mallahem) claimed responsibility for the attack. On a twitter account the group stated they targeted the Ministry of Defense building because it "accommodates drone rooms and American experts." The attack occurred when a suicide car bomber detonated in front of the gates to the Ministry of defense followed by another vehicle with 13 heavily armed individuals wearing military uniforms drove through the wreckage and engaged in gunfire with government officials on scene. This led to mass confusion on who was the enemy or ally in the gun battle. Throughout the gun battle many explosions were heard according to eye witnesses. This is the deadliest attack in the capitol since May 2012 according to ABC news. The attack shows the growing strength of terrorist groups in the region.

The attack is believed to be a direct result of increased drone strikes by the United States in the region. The nation of Yemen has served as a allies to the United States in a very troubled region in the world. However, as the United States continues to use drone strikes and operate out of Yemen, the terrorist groups state that these areas constitute as security headquarters used by Americans and are therefor to be considered "legitimate targets." This attack shows the increasing tension throughout the world by these terrorist groups and there efforts to try and undermine the United States and other democracies. Especially in nations such as Yemen with transitioning governments. Although the United States has provided some $150 million in assistance to Yemen, primarily to their counterterrorism operations, the overall instability in the capitol causes increasing instability in the area. This attack also shows the importance of a strong stable government in order to help protect against terrorist attacks. While there is no way to be able to stop terrorist attacks altogether, there are many ways to help prevent them. A large issue in Yemen and this part of the world in the instability of the governments and the rebel groups within them as discussed in The New York Times. As instability rises it is increasingly difficult to be able to secure your nation and protect its citizens. These attacks stress the importance of creating stronger governments along with the need for more effective counterterrorism. The bombing also aligns with objectives terrorists try to accomplish by there attacks as discussed in class. These objectives include trying to coerce governments to grant policy concessions, target civilian and military objects, put pressure on governments and change public opinion overall. The attack shows al-Qaeda's effort to change the publics opinion of supporting the U.S. and the governments support for the drone strikes. The goal is to change the policy in the government and region to support these regimes and gain more support. As drone strikes and other acts of counterterrorism occur in the Middle East, terrorist attacks are expected to be more prevalent and destructive. While one can only hope these attacks diminish over time, the future looks increasingly dim.

Stolen Radioactive Materials Recovered by Mexican Officials

On Wednesday afternoon, Mexican authorities reported to have recovered a stolen truck that contained extremely dangerous radioactive material. The material stolen was cobalt-60 which is used in medical treatment. The container that held the material was found empty, but officials say they have located the cobalt half a mile from the container with no risk to the surrounding population so far. Juan Eibenschutz, general director of Mexico's National Commission of Nuclear Security and Safeguards, reported that the thieves are likely either dead or dying following the incident because of radiation exposure. A main concern of authorities was that the material in the stolen truck is dangerous to handle. In addition, it could also be used to make a radioactive dirty bomb. According to safety guidelines on the IAEA website, a "malevolent use of radioactive sources could also cause significant social, psychological and economic impacts."

In the case of radioactive material being stolen, last year alone the IAEA recorded 17 cases of illegal possession and attempts to sell nuclear materials and 24 incidents of theft or loss. It says this is the "tip of the iceberg." Many cases have involved former parts of the Soviet Union, such as Moldova — where in 2011 several people were arrested trying to sell weapons-grade uranium. But the problem is not confined to Eastern European states. According to the Aljazeera article, major international efforts have been made since the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the September 11 attacks to prevent nuclear material falling into the wrong hands. A report issued in July by the Arms Control Association and the Partnership for Global Security said “progress had been made reducing the threat but that significant work remained.” With loose nuclear material located all over the world, the threat of nuclear terrorism becomes a topic of discussion. Terrorist organizations have tried to obtain nuclear material in the past, so securing these loose nuclear materials has definitely been a priority, especially since Obama’s presidency. This interestingly applies to what we've been talking about in class this week regarding terrorism.  Being that it is indeed a possibility that terrorist organizations could obtain nuclear materials, how does this change the game in terms of terrorism and counter-terrorism? How do resolves change on either side? How does this change bargaining from either side?

Articles:

Aljazeera America

NBC News 

Back to Drones; This Time at Your Front Door

This past Sunday evening, Jeff Bezos CEO of Amazon, went on to CNN's "60 Minutes" and announced that his company is currently researching and developing a service called "Amazon Prime Air". This service aims to "get packages into customers' hands in 30 minutes or less using unmanned aerial vehicles." Any Amazon costumer within 10 miles of one of Amazon's many distribution centers whose order is 5 lbs or less, roughly 86% of items sold, can have their order delivered by drone in 30 minutes or less. Amazon claims this service could arrive 2015 at the earliest, however experts say the exact date could be as late as 2020. An article by Business Insider claims Bezos' "60 Minutes" spot was simply a PR stunt gaining Amazon over 15 minutes of free advertising, a deal valued at over $3 Million on the eve of Cyber Monday. Regardless of the intent behind Amazon's announcement, it can not be denied that drones have once again been thrust into the media spotlight, bringing up several very real concerns concerning the safety of American airspace and the 300 million citizens that live underneath that airspace.

Current concerns include the safety of drones operating in increasingly congested airspace and how these unmanned aircraft will communicate and avoid manned air traffic, worries about terrorists using drones to carryout attacks, and the issues of privacy that comes with tens of thousands of remotely controlled cameras taking to the skies.

Currently the FAA only grants permission for the useof drones by military, law enforcement agencies, universities and local governments. As of right now the FAA does not offer licenses for drones to be used for commercial purposes. Congress has however directed the FAA to come up with a list of regulations for applying for drone licenses by 2015. Non-commercial Drones follow currently are subject to the same operating rules as model aircraft. They must be kept under 400ft altitude, and remain in sight of the operator. As of now there is very little that can be done in preventing an individual strapping an explosive device to a model aircraft and flying it into a building. With the increase in drones that can be flown beyond visuals, the risk of an attack might very well increase and there are currently no solid ways for law enforcement to shoot down or prevent these aircraft from flying near intended targets. Bills currently being drafted call for Drone Licenses where information on the drone operator and their intentions can be collected.

On Monday Sen. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.) issued a statement in response to Amazon's "60 Minutes" announcement. Sen Markey, co-chair of a bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, has been pushing for legislation that forces the FAA to adopt just such privacy regulations. Sen. Markey stated, "Before drones start delivering packages, we need the FAA to deliver privacy protections for the American public. Convenience should never trump constitutional protections." Sen. Markey introduced a bill in March that would create new rules aimed at "protecting American citizens from domestic drones invading their privacy"  as protected by the constitution. Sen. Markey's "drone privacy legislation requires transparency on the domestic use of drones and adds privacy protections that ensure this technology cannot and will not be used to spy on Americans."

Sen. Markey is one of the driving forces behind a bill requiring the FAA to collect information from every commercial drone license applicant. This information would include "who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, and how that data will be used" Commercial drone operators would also have to disclose whether the information collected will be sold to any third party.

Drones have a plethora of potential uses. Whether that includes law enforcement surveillance, or commercial uses such mapping, news gathering, traffic monitoring or now even package delivery, many steps need to be taken by the government to insure the safety of this nation and its citizens. The U.S. defense policy needs to be flexible enough to adapt to this new emerging frontier and only time will tell if the proper security measures will be put into place adequately protecting this great nation from enemies both foreign and domestic.    

Sources:
MIT Tech. Review: The World as  Free-Fire Zone
Business Insider:The Real Reason Amazon Announced Delivery Drones
The Wall Street Journal: Drone Plan Draws Privacy Concerns
Amazon Prime Air
RT News: How Iran hacked CIA drone
BBC News: Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone
FAA: Unmanned Aircraft 
CNET: Amazon 'drones' stir up privacy concerns among lawmakers
Photo Credit:
Amazon Prime Air

The UN IAEA and the dirty truth behind the Fukushima radiation leak

While japan has most recently been in the news with regards to it's involvement in the chinese airspace breaching controversy, and "Fukushima" has appeared to have fallen out of the public eye it most recently received a full ten day inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency. While reports in most major media outlets describe the IAEA's findings as praiseworthy for the Japanese cleanup crews working tirelessly to contain the deadly radiation coming from the part of the plant with the meltdown, it is important to place what they did say in context with what is more broadly being discovered by the UN watchdog group about the international implication of of the low leaking radiation. For a start, reactor number 4 ( the damaged unit in question) has been releasing radioactive material into the surrounding water since March of 2011, and the IAEA team has explicitly stated that there really hasn't been much improvement in the amount of radioactive water being released back into the ocean, although methods of calculating its spread, and containing when it's released appears to have improved somewhat. On top of this, the "good news" coming out of the report includes the fact that fuel rod material has begun to be removed from the most accessible portions of reactor 4. While this is on face seemingly good news, it's important to remember that there are still portions of reactor four where you can't even go, and there will continue to be a slow leak of radiation from the plant for the foreseeable future.

This matters for several reasons, first and foremost being the immediate health concerns arising from the Fukushima incident, as the report released by science students out of Stanford and Stoney Brook institutes show that a clear and identifiable 3% increase in overall radiation has occurred in tuna populations off the coast of San Diego since the incident, with the radiation's definitive source being the Fukushima reactor leak. While 3 % doesn't seem like a lot (and in reality it's not) you must remember it's a whole three percent in the less then 2 years since the disaster began. With it's cleanup efforts lasting well into the foresee eagle future, that number could very easily become much higher. Coupled with how much of the global population relies on the Ocean for food and economic wellbeing, large scale poisoning of the oceans could have long lasting unintended geopolitical consequences (such as the destruction of somalia's fisheries). On top of this however you have the question of the worlds stance on nuclear energy. When industrialized nations such as japan are unable to control their nuclear energy ( we the US are at fault swell: three mile island) when nations like Iran and North korea go after it, particularly in volatile geopolitical regions like southeast asian and the middle east what could be the implications of another nuclear disaster in those areas? Most commentary on the subject of Iran for example focuses on the potential for nuclear weapons, or dirty bombs as coming from their pursuance of a nuclear energy program, with little regard for what would happen if there was say a large scale Chernobyl- like event that could destabilize the region further, a destabilization that could possibly make dirty bomb fears come true. For the class discussion, any thoughts on nuclear energy in a broader context? Should any nation using nuclear energy step forward in blocking it actively? Should nations seeking to acquire nuclear energy be a paramount goal for world powers and surrounding states? What can be done to tackle the increasing pollution problem in the worlds oceans?

"Fukushima remains very complex despite progress on reactor 4" - IAEA

"There still exists no permanent solution for dealing with the radioactive wastewater being used to cool reactor 4" - IAEA

1)Tuna Study:  http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/tuna-radioactive-materials-053012.html

2)IAEA report commentary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25211967

A Government's Response to Extremism...an Encroachment of Rights?

Lee Rigby's death, Soldier of the British Army Fusilier, hit close to home as the young man was attacked and murdered by two individuals with Islamic ties, something the media dutiful crowned a terrorist attack. The murder likewise was unprovoked, as Lee on May 22 was walking and struck by a vehicle, only to be dragged, beaten and stabbed. It's not necessarily the nature of the murder that makes UK officials nervous, but the assailants and their connections that caused skepticism. Immediately the Ministry of Defense investigated the incident, deploying police to protect Muslim communities from retaliation. This event triggered a state and cabinet response to extremist ideals. Everything from “Schools, colleges, charities, Islamic centres and prisons,” (BBC) were investigated and debated whether or not to pursuit some measure of curbing extremism in the UK. This means the “legal powers to ban groups that preach hatred,” something of which was sought after public outcry for some sort of response from the Ministries involved. Home Secretary, Theresa May, now publicly stated that there was an outline being created to support the ban on those that do in fact “preach hatred.” (BBC) Some of these measures that support the ban involve "internet censorship": "websites, organizations," maybe even individuals with ties to Islam or of Muslim background. (The Economist)

But like anything, there are two sides to every coin...if not more. Religion isn't just one dimensional, nor are all of it's followers. It's one thing to target individuals who promote harm and hatred towards other society members, but another to potentially racially profile individual's to try and “beat them to the punch.” If we look at the United States for example, 9/11 created a chaotic and zealous finger pointing bonanza that landed many of its citizens on the no fly list, under surveillance and detained. Yes, with good reason security was heightened in mass transportation, in schools, in businesses, but many people fell victim to new “security” policies. Various Sikhs were prosecuted at airports on the basis of their appearance. And not to forget either that in certain parts of the United States, tolerance is not part of peoples agenda. Racism fused with insecurity creates a hostile climate that many individuals faced following the fall of the World Trade Center, the surmised attack on the Pentagon.

Currently in the UK some of these anti-extremist as well as anti-immigrant resentment is making news. A man born in Iraq, Hilal Al-Jedd, has had his British citizenship revoked for the second time by orders from Home Secretary, Theresa May. What makes this situation tumultuous is the involvement of the Supreme Court which had "previously overturned her first decision" (Independent) to take Al-Jedd's citizenship. The loss of his citizenship means that he is without a nationality, making his presence illegal globally, with no rights, no liberties. The decision was all on the basis of speculated "Islamist Extremism," which the individual has denied in court. (Independent) Not to necessarily condemn the Secretary's decision, Al-Jedd was under military speculation after coming to the UK in the 90's "to seek asylum from Iraq," (Independent) and has since then been in and out of the country battling for his legality since. Whether or not the sentence is too harsh, will only be reinforced by the effort to control Islamic behavior within Britain with the new laws on anti-extremism.

Yes, measures should be instilled to curb terrorism, extremism, and harmful, inexcusable behavior. Yes, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of citizens do not practice and act violence and . However, a policy must exist or be created that can effectively ensure that there are not external victims beyond the target, beyond those “extremist” group . This is becoming increasingly more important as the media gains ahold of footage, testimony, allegations of terrorist behavior and events, and as a nation becomes sensitive to violence after suffered a loss. It's within human nature to form opinions, to want to protect ones own and as a result that may mean the prosecution of another. For the sake of humanitarian rights, the new policy should vary much so refrain from any sort of racial profiling to keep its integrity, even when tried by national tragedy and the loss of human life.

TL;DR… UK responds to terrorist attack by creating measures and laws to effectively ban "groups that preach hatred." Could it in fact mean racial profiling in a nation that already battles with immigration issues, rioting, and the like? And as a result, what does that mean for those who practice and uphold Islam within the UK?

Sources:

BBC "Theresa May to Outline Anti-Extremism Plans"

The Economist Post "Reaction Time"

Home Secretary Theresa May Strips Man of UK Citizenship- For Second Time

Senkaku Islands Escalation

I am sure that the majority of us are familiar with the China/Japan territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands, that both nations have laid claim to. They are uninhabited Islands that pose no real value other than maritime control and strategic positioning near each other's borders. This is not a recent conflict and it has been going on for many years, however there has been some recent escalation of force. Recently Beijing imposed an air defense identification zone (adiz) over an area that included the Senkaku Islands. Neither side has any intention of giving in, which is why earlier this month vice president Joe Biden visited Japan to give support in the escalation shown by China. This is very similar to some themes that we have discussed in class, for example nations testing each other's resolve. This is a real world example in which I believe Japan and China are seeing how far each other will go before there is conflict. There have been many altercations in this zone from ship collisions and activists being taken into custody, but officials are fearing of an accidental confrontation that would lead to war. This region is at the moment very unstable and having interests in the form of allies (Japan/South Korea) the U.S. is committed to maintaing the stays quo.

This is a prime example to see how nations are constantly testing one another too see how viable their threats are. There are no mistakes in the international community and this response from China could be the result of American B-52's flying through Chinese restricted airspace. It is a game of strengths and weaknesses. I am curious to see how this situation will unfold in the future and what it means for our current interests in the pacific theatre.

"The fact that China's announcement has caused confusion and increased the risk of accidents only further underscores the validity of concerns and the need for China to rescind the procedures," Jen Psaki, the chief spokeswoman for the state department

Other Articles

The Guardian

Time

New York Times

Picture Source

Senkaku Islands Picture

DR Congo and the M23 Rebels

About a month ago, various news organizations such as, BBC News, CNN and others reported about the ending of the M23 rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is a conflict that I had known little about, until the announcement on the 5th of November that the M23 Rebels had surrendered to the Congolese government and would meet to sign a peace agreement. The M23 Rebels get their name from an agreement that was signed with the Congolese government on March 23rd 2009. This agreement was supposed to integrate the members of M23 into the Congolese national army. In 2012, the soldiers of M23 took up arms and broke away from the national army due to the Congolese government’s failure to implement the promises of the 2009 agreement. While this insurgency can look like it is mainly over military grievances it also has a complex ethnic component. Most of the M23 Rebels belong to the Tutsi ethnic group. Some of this fighting and disagreement is spill over from the 1994 Rwandan Genocide in which the ethnic minority, Tutsis, were massacred by the majority Hutus. This conflict is also further complicated by the influences of the Ugandan and Rwandan governments. The M23 rebels finally surrendered on November 5th after they suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Congolese Army and UN intervention brigade. One leader of the M23, Bertrand Bisimwa, stated M23 would “pursue, by purely political means, a search for solutions to the profound issues that led to its creation.” The ending of this conflict is not only an interesting example of insurgency but is also an interesting case to examine bargaining and the validity of peace agreements.

 As a part of the surrender of the M23 Rebels to the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo they were to meet and sign a formal agreement.  I discovered in my recent reading on the topic, the signing that was meant to happen on the 11th of November in Uganda never took place. The Congolese government refused to sign the peace agreement with the M23 rebels. DR Congo’s Foreign Affairs Minister states “We have encountered some difficulties over issues important to us, and we think that these difficulties can be removed before finalizing the process.” However, a Ugandan Government representative is quoted in the Wall Street Journal stating, the DR Congo is presenting “ last- minute demands and delay tactics.” In contrast, there are also reports from the UN that there are “no differences on substantive points within the draft document.”  Most recently, on December 2nd, the president of DR Congo returned to Uganda in hopes of finally reaching an agreement with defeated M23 rebels.  Would having a formal peace agreement make a difference? Will peace last? Will another rebel group pick up where the M23 left off? Will conflict escalate to war between the DR Congo and its neighbor, Uganda and/or Rwanda?

More Articles:

Rebel Retreat

Fraying Round the Edges

DRC President in Uganda for M23 Talks

Part of Nigeria in a State of Emergency

The Government of Nigeria imposed a 24 hour curfew due to a recent attack on an Air Force Base and a couple of the Army bases right outside the main city in the state of Borno. The attack started early Monday morning 02DEC13, where reports of hundreds of heavily armed insurgents stormed the bases and destroying equipment along with vehicles and also fought the soldiers of the bases in long firefight. Reports of screaming women and children could also be heard near the bases. The Boko Haram insurgents attacked the bases in an effort to try to push their religious and political agenda in the states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. These fighters have strong ties to Al Qaeda in this region and along with the support of Al Qaeda they want to enact the Sharia Law in the region. The Sharia Law being the Laws Muslims have to follow from their own religious texts. These laws would then be enforced to all civilians in this region and let the Islamic religion have more control over the land then the actual government would. The people's confidence in the military has taken a hard hit because of the reports that the military has had good results from pushing these insurgents out of the country letting the people feel they can breathe easier in their own towns. Thousands of civilians lives have been lost since May because of these attacks. To combat this the military and the government having been trying to find a way to seriously hurt the efforts of the Boko Haram fighters. After the government declared a state of emergency in Borno, they had a huge military presence roll into the area and even people's daily life changed by cutting cell phone links and closing the civilian airport down for a brief time. Unfortunately it is obvious that the insurgents are strong still and can hit anywhere they want in this region.

This situation goes right along with our current topic in class of "terrorism" and "insurgency". In this situation in Nigeria, we see an insurgent group coming into a part of the country and through force they are striking fear into the state of Borno and the surrounding areas. These attacks are directed to the government and the people, the insurgents want a Islamic rule over the region, this would require the government to change policy and give a lot of power to the Muslim leaders in the area and would require all people to also follow what is order by these new religious leaders. New laws would be enacted and justice would be set by religion and not state. This would leave the terrorist in charge of the area making it a good staging area for terrorist camps and training. What could come next if that happened? Could it initiate an United States intervention in Nigeria then to save this region from the oppression of the Boko Haram?

A Ukrainian Uprising

As the Ukraine comes nearer to becoming a strong member of the European Union, negotiations begin to go south between the EU and Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s president. This is something that angers the citizens of Ukraine, for they see the benefits in being such members of the organization and urge their leader to pursue a position within the EU. This weekend peaceful protests took place outside of the Ukrainian parliament to sway President Yanukovych into making greater attempts to negotiate with the EU, it was quickly seen as a sign of an uprising and the President ordered for the protesters to be removed from the area and beaten. There is footage of peaceful students and reporters being hit with iron rods by thug like men in all black, not the police force, for it was documented that President Yanukovych did not initially trust the police to handle such a task because he feared that they themselves would rise up against the government as well. As a result Yanukovych turned to sponsor a group of men without ties to the government to deal with what he thought was the beginning of an uprising in the Ukraine, but later gave control back to the police when order was needed to be restored. The Ukraine had not seen that much violence on its own population in all the years that it has been a free state. After the protests were broken up this weekend, the citizens of the Ukraine quickly began to reform the protests in front of the parliament today, against direct order from President Yanukovych who banned protests after the violence that took place at the initial protests. The people of the Ukraine are currently peaceful but are beginning to be more violent as the days progress, to the point where there has been serious fear that they would make an attempt to overthrow the parliament entirely. As this situation unfolds the United States Government is watching carefully and warning President Yanukovych to stop the violence he is acting on his people.

        This situation poses a few areas of thought for the current class topic of “terrorism” and “insurgency” for we see the likelihood of both sides of this conflict to engage in one, if not both of these affairs. When President Yanukovych used men who were not a part of his military or police force to instill fear in the protesters this was an early form of terrorism on his own people. From this we see the possible birth of further actions taking place by the use of these state sponsored actors in order to keep the protesters afraid of rallying. However, the main area we see terrorism and insurgency is in the evolution of these protests. They have the strong possibility to evolve into a revolution against the Ukrainian government, which could result in terrorist type actions to take place in order to influence the government to listen to the people, or possibly even put new members in who will listen to the people’s desires. Is it possible that this situation could escalate to the point of revolution or insurgency? Or do you think that this situation can be resolved peacefully with an outcome that benefits the Ukraine and keeps them as a whole?

Articles to consider:

Battle for Ukraine

Coup in a making?

Ukrainian President Defends Choice on Accords

Sited for picture:

"Protest in Ukraine." gdb.rferl.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.

Heightened Risk of Terrorist Attacks in the US

I found this article in The Guardian from yesterday (December 1, 2013) and thought it was interesting. Essentially, the article is saying that two senators, Feinstein and Rogers, claim that the threat of a terrorist attack in the US from al-Qaida is becoming more likely. But, there claim is supported by, what I think are, vague claims that don't seem to hold much reason for concern. Their reasons included:

1. al-Qaida groups had changed their means of communication as a result of leaks about US surveillance programs, making it harder to detect potential plots in the early planning stages.
2. there were more terrorist groups than ever, with more sophisticated and hard-to-detect bombs

I could be wrong. What do you all think?

I think this article is worth noting because of how just the threat of terrorism could be used to expand the scope and role of government. I'm not trying to make any unreasonable claims of total government conspiracy, I just think that the information seemed to vague to be a legitimate concern.

Lastly, "...neither lawmaker offered specifics about what led them to their conclusions."

The Beirut Bombing

On Tuesday, November 19th, Al Qaeda organized a double suicide bombing that struck the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, killing at least 23 people, and injuring nearly 150 more. It is the deadliest assault on Iranian interests because Iran has become the most forceful supporter of the Syrian government against the variety of armed insurgent groups, and has also reshaped how the international community examines Iran's domestic and foreign policy. In the more immediate future, the double suicide bombing has emphasized the major costs and risks involved with Iranian intervention in Syria. As  Iran analyst  at Eurasia Group Cliff Kupchan expressed, "Today's event demonstrates the political and economic costs of Syria for Iran."This is because many are divided on the issue of Syrian involvement. On one hand, the international community perceives Iranian support within Syria as its event stepping stone in experiencing an Iranian version of Vietnam. On the other hand, Iran's successful transition in supporting the Syrian President Bashar al Assad has lead to an extremely international decisive influence involving a multitude of issue, wherein Iran is experiencing increases in its ability to overcome and negotiate nuclear program disputes.

Ironically, Iran and other middle eastern nations are blaming Israel as a key player in unifying different supporters and opponents of the Syrian insurgency, and are using this blaming to signal neither Iran, Hezbollah (the main military organization within Lebanon, and other do not want to immediately escalate confrontation that could possibly lead to all-out war within Lebanon. This is probably because Iran's government is facing serious pressure from hard-line political leaders within the different legislative and executive bodies, but will avoid an engagement in order to obtain a deal over it's nuclear program agenda. Therefore, the lack of retaliation from Iran is possibly, as President Mehrzd Boroujerdi, Political Science professor and Iran expert at Syracuse University, explains this is an opportune time for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to attack because "whoever did this was thinking the following: A, we can attack Iranians at this point in time, and the cannot lift a finger against us. Or B, we are going to force them into doing something radical, in which the world is going to have second thoughts about inviting them to Syria negotiations." As a result, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, the offshoot of Al Qaeda that operates within Lebanon claimed responsibility for the bombing is and has been able to threaten to inflict more carnage on Iran until it withdraws forces from Syria, since Iran  could lose significant benefits if it refuses to engage Al Qaeda and enhance conflict within the region. As a result, opponents of the Assad regime believe President Obama and President Rouhani are eager to end the decades of tension with Iran, and supporting the Assad regime has given Iran a crucial position in receiving a nuclear deal. Thus, it is within the interest of these rebel groups to establish terror and drastically effect the stability of specific regions and governments in order to gain influence.

Consequently, the bombing of the Iranian embassy highlights that countries outside of Syria are becoming victims and suffering from the series of sectarian conflicts and bombings on different Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim targets that have become increasingly interlinked with the escalating conflict in Syria. This spill over effect is not a surprise, and as Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif has expressed the bombing should be an "alarm for all" that intensifies the frequent security problem where conflict "cannot be contained in the region." Zarif went on to say "the tragedy today, two Iranians were victims of it and more and more Lebanese unfortunately than Iranians were victims of this tragedy, but that should be a reminder of all of us, that should be an alarm for all of us that we need to deal with the issue and unless we deal with this issue seriously it will engulf all of us." This does seem to be an increasing problem as several of Syria's most powerful rebel groups have just recently established a new Islamic force that desires toppling the Assad regime. This as increased the effectiveness of these rebel militant groups, and has reduced the efforts made by the United States, Iran, and other powers that have attempted to organize discussions that could end the war.

Therefore, the bombing of the Iranian Embassy brings forth a multitude of issues involving war and peace within the middle east. On one level, it effects US and Iranian relations involving deals and negotiations of nuclear energy. On another level, if the bombing highlights the inability for national security to prevent a spill over of conflict from Syria, which also infers an increasing lack of stability within the middle east. Even though this is an extremely simplistic view, it brings forth the issues of civil wars, terrorism, counter-terrorism, bargaining, and international cooperation, rebel groups within Syria have dramatically altered our discussions with countries such as Iran and they have brought forth greater concerns than solutions.

Works Cited

"Al Qaeda-linked Group Says It Bombed Iran Embassy in Beirut." RSS. Euronews, 19 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Barnard, Anne. "Beirut Bombs Strike at Iran as Assad’s Ally." New York Times. New York Times, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

KARAM, SHOUMALI, and HUBBARD BEN. "Powerful Rebel Groups in Syria Announce Creation of Umbrella Alliance." New York Times. New York Times, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

The Fragmenting of Al Qaeda

In an article published this week by Foreign Affairs, William McCants discusses the mismanagement of Al Qaeda by its senior leaders. This topic comes in relation to our discussion this week on military organizations, professionalism, and their ties to government. Any organization as large as the Al Qaeda network needs to follow certain rules and regulations to keep from tearing itself apart. The organizations current leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri is now being reported as having significant problems keeping this kind of infighting out of the organization. Of the four major affiliates, the two in Northern and Western Africa have not been seeing eye to eye as of late. This is a result of having an influx in activity from Al Qaeda and an increase in their recruitment opportunities in the region. Interestingly, what is happening is when these affiliates attempt to recruit from the same regions, they end up squabbling over who will be in charge of the operations. Additionally, the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate or AQI has been openly defying Al Qaeda leadership during its operations in Syria. This groups leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has stated his organization has been operating within the Al Nusra front for an extended period of time and claims he has command over the Al Nusra organization. However, leadership from Al Nusra has rejected this claim, instead pledging allegiance to Zawahiri directly. These kinds of disconnects within an organization represent the chaos that can be created when expansion happens too quickly. Now Zawahiri is attempting to reunited his fragmented affiliates into a working global network.

These concepts apply well to our class by comparing them to the structure and management of the US Army. Although this organization is similar in scale, the US Army is significantly more professional and well managed. This is because of the various rules and regulations each soldier in the Army is held accountable to at all times. There are laws within the organization as well that dictate what a soldier may or may not do, and prevent the types of fragmentation that Al Qaeda has seen. Additionally, our military is tied in to our federal government and takes its missions from our commander in chief, President Obama.

What else do you all feel contributes to the success of large organizations like the military? Additionally, what other factors may be contributing to the fragmentation of Al Qaeda and other similar groups?

Sources:Foreign Affairs, Al Shofra, CNN

Why America doesn't use nuclear weapons

Looking at this enlightening article about the real reason behind America using nuclear weapon, it's reignites a discussion of using a realist lens to view nuclear power: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

America is the the hegemonic leader of the world. America has the greatest economy, with the best armed military. We have the nuclear power to destroy any conceivable enemy and military technology that is superior to any other nation. America is active is maintaining a nuclear balance in the world and keeps volatile enemies in check.  If one is to look at the world through a realist lens, they might ask why America has not acted to leverage its position to exploit other nations and consolidate power. The answer requires an economic lens. The US is a nation desensitized to the costs of war. The expenditures of the government are not felt directly through taxes. Our government finances itself through federal reserve activity and creates hidden inflation that is not recognized immediately by the people. The war effort to build and supply war craft and ammunition is no longer a national effort, but is imported or assigned to a select few government contractors. The American people have never felt a war on their soil and they see foreign intervention through the eyes of the media, which can't effectively convey the tragedy, scope, or price of war. Americans have lost the drivers behind imperialism. We are well fed and happy citizens. Machiavelli proposes that an outside threat must be present to mobilize a nation towards war and Americans do not view many threats as credible. The use of nuclear weapons is seen as a pure cost for Americans because the benefit is not apparent. This article talks about the ineffectiveness of nuclear weapons for some specific military goals:  http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is not a taboo, it's a rational economic choice. Americans look at a nuclear strike as a dangerous endeavor that could upset the status quo and start a chain reaction of nuclear war which is readily understood to harm everyone (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Looking at the graphs shown in class, we see that Americans are not significantly more opposed to the use of nuclear weapons than ordinary military action, we merely lack the incentives. My personal opinion is that if America were to experience a significant economic collapse, affecting the safety and comfort of every citizen, we would see an America much more willing to flex its muscles militarily, including nuclear.

US and Afghanistan reach agreement on long term security pact amid growing narcotics industry

Currently, the United States has 60,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan. At the peak of US intervention, that number was at about 100,000. But recently, Secretary of State John Kerry reached an agreement with the government of Afghanistan on a long term security pact in Afghanistan. The United States was already scheduled to withdraw most of its troops by the end of 2014, but now both governments have reached an agreement on a long term security pact. This would mean that after 2014, the number of US troops in Afghanistan would linger around 13,000. Although there is some speculation that the White House will want a smaller number than that due to domestic calls to withdraw completely from Afghanistan.
But there is one obstacle that stands in the way of this agreement. While the US government and Afghan governments have reached an agreement, the agreement needs to be approved by a loya jirga, or a tribal council. It will be interesting to see whether or not the tribal council will approve of this since they have posed as obstacles in the past to US policy in Afghanistan.
Another obstacle that this agreement is yet to address is the growing poppy trade in Afghanistan. Since 2002, the US has spent $7 billion trying to fight the ballooning narcotics industry. But this money has not been of much use. It is estimated that about 154,000 hectares are used to harvest poppy in Afghanistan. A Pentagon report to Congress reported that the 2013 harvest of poppy was going to be "considerably larger" than the harvest of 2012.
So what will happen once US troops drop to 13,000? The obvious answer is that the poppy trade will continue to grow. After all, this is the livelihood of many rural Afghans. But before we even reach that point, it will be interesting to see whether the loya jirga will approve of the long term security pact. After all, many of the representatives of the loya jirga come from areas where poppy is harvested. So what effects do you think the US troop withdrawal will have on the poppy trade?

Sources: As U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan, poppy trade it spent billions fighting still flourishes.
Kerry: U.S., Afghanistan agree on security pact
Afghanistan-U.S. reach draft security agreement.

And Now I Guess They're Doing Meth...

To switch it up a little from our current posts on nuclear weapons, I recently stumbled on an article on ABC News that stated that five people were charged in a US meth bust from North Korea. Five foreigners were arrested in Thailand back in September and were charged in the United States (today) with plotting to smuggle 100 kilograms of meth, produced in North Korea. Two of the men, who are apparently a part of a Hong Kong based criminal organization that is responsible for selling meth produced in North Korea, along with one other from Thailand and another two from Britain, had agreed to store and transport the drugs, before 30 kilograms of this meth was seized by authorities in both Thailand and the Philippines.

This year, these suppliers provided over 100 kilograms to sources that worked with the DEA, bragging that they were the only group to be able to smuggle this meth from North Korea after the united States cracked down on production there. They also stated that many of the labs in North Korea have been burned down in order to show the American's that they were no longer producing meth, however this particular group has labs that remain open. One of the men even claimed to have stored 1 ton of meth away because of the tensions between America and North Korea that might hinder its production. After meeting with DEA sources, the suppliers meth was tested in the US and was found to be 98 percent pure (that's some Breaking Bad shit if I've ever seen it).

North Korea, which has, for decades, been secretive from the rest of the world in much of its ventures, has received much of its scrutiny from the rest of society because of its tensions surrounding nuclear weapons, as well as surrounding many human rights violations (BBC News). Unknown to myself, and maybe some of you as well, North Korea has also been responsible for trafficking an assortment of drugs for decades with over 50 documented incidents (CNN). It was noted that there had not been a large scale drug trafficking incident involving DPRK state entities since 2004, and that something on this scale may be due to corrupt security agents and government officials who have allowed transnational drug smuggling to slide under the radar. So, should busts like this be happening more often? What can we do about drug traffickers world wide? Should every nation strengthen their trade policies/their security agents who may be responsible for letting drugs pass our borders? While these may be questions that are challenging to answer, I believe they deserve some consideration so that, in the future, the entire world might be safer.

Megatons to Megawatts

"Congratulations on the last shipment! Be safe!" was the message written by the Assistant Secretary of the State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, on the side of a cylinder containing the uranium of Soviet atomic bombs. This past Thursday the final shipment of nuclear reactor fuel left Russia on its way towards the United States thus bringing an end to post-Cold War program that has been supplying energy for the American nuclear power industry for twenty years. The program dubbed Megatons to Megawatts has been creating more electricity in the United States than any other alternative source, providing about ten percent of the overall power. Due to it the Uranium being "weapons grade" its is expected that this shipment should be keeping the lights on in the US until around 2020. Another strategic arms reduction treaty was signed between the two world powers in 2010 that will reduce each respective surplus by 450 warheads. A quote from Bruce Blair, the founder of the disarmament program Global Zero stated, "This program represented the pinnacle of U.S.-Russian nuclear Security cooperation, and its end leaves a huge vacuum that needs to be filled by a new innovative program of cooperation that puts another nail in the coffin of the Cold War."

Luckily for the world it seems that the nuclear arms race of the 1950's is finally creating more than just fear. We read about how the presence of nuclear weapons being used as a threat of complete annihilation does not create an ability to strong-arm, providing that the existential build up of weapons was rather useless. So I now present this question, can we look back on the nuclear arms race in a positive light due to the alternative energy that it is contributing as well as the implication that research from this contribution could further lead to a renewable energy supply that would detract dependence on foreign oil, thus lessening international strain/conflict caused by the economic prowess of the oil industry? Would this even be a plausible scenario to suppress conflict between states of Western ideology with the Middle East?