Venezuela Expels US Diplomats

Nicolas Maduro, the newly elected President of Venezuela, announced Monday that he is expelling the top U.S. diplomat as well as two other American envoys from the South American nation. It was the latest of several public disputes between Maduro and the U.S. following the death of his mentor and predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and Maduro's subsequent election this past April. The accusations brought against the American diplomats included their alleged support of plots to sabotage the country's electrical grid and economy. The announcement came at a military event commemorating a battle during Venezuela's war of independence at which Maduro asserted:

"We have detected a group of officials of the United States Embassy in Caracas, in Venezuela, and we have been tracking them for several months. These officials spend their time meeting with the Venezuelan extreme right wing, financing them and encouraging them to take actions to sabotage the electrical system, to sabotage the Venezuelan economy." 

Maduro concluded his lively televised speech by shouting:

"Yankees go home! Get out of here! I don't care what actions the government of Barack Obama takes."

                             

Wild accusations and increased tension between Maduro and the United States has been a recurring theme since he took office. Just hours before Chavez's death, Maduro expelled two U.S. military detachments, later accusing them of attempting to start a coup against Chavez. The new president also implied that Chavez's illness could have been caused by his enemies in the United States, an allegation the Obama administration has denounced as "absurd." Just last week Maduro canceled his plans to attend the U.N. General Assembly in New York because of what he said were plots to physically harm him there.

Maduro argues that Venezuela's recent product shortages and backouts are a direct result of a U.S. - led "economic war." Critics of the president rebuttal that these problems stem from a currency control system that encourages corruption coupled with a lack of investment in the nation's weak power grid. Whether accusations against the United States are well founded or merely a smoke screen to divert attention from deeper internal problems is up for debate. Nonetheless, the United States and other nations have found it difficult to work with Venezuela without exposing themselves to accusations of encroachment.

Sources:

Reuters
New York Times
CNN

China Bans Export of Chemical Substances and Nuclear Equpment to North Korea

China, a long time supporter of President Kim, has declared a ban of chemical substances and various equipment to the North Korean government. China decided to make this move due to its fear that North Korea would use the items to speed development of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear bomb on top.  Chinese officials have also been increasingly frustrated with Mr. Kim's unpredictable behavior and his aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite China's disapproval.

The list of banned items came as a surprise to anybody who understands the historical relationship between China and North Korea. In the last decade, China has been very reluctant in allowing the United States to obtain control over the Korean Peninsula. However this particular move by the Chinese government gives hope to possible international cooperation and compliance with the international law. Many international experts see this move as a significant international development and it is very important that Chinese companies are committed to the export control list. The United Nation has already imposed sanctions on North Korea and the export ban imposed by China gives the necessary boost to degrade and possibly stop North Korea's increasingly advanced nuclear program. With Chinese cooperation, sanctions against North Korea might finally provide some positive results.

At the same time that China decided to make a significant move on North Korea, Iran and the US have improved their diplomatic relations. The benefits of the US/Iran deal could possibly damage or limit the relationship between Iran and North Korea.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/world/asia/china-ban-on-items-for-nuclear-use-to-north-korea-may-stall-arms-bid.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=world

 

http://world.time.com/2013/09/29/iranian-diplomat-calls-talks-with-u-s-first-step/

 

Kenya's Terrorist Attack: An Advantage to Kenyatta?

On September 21^st at 11:30am Islamist militants from the Al Shabab terrorist group stormed Nairboi’s shopping mall, Westgate. The attack lasted three days and at least 61 civilians and 6 Kenyan soldiers were killed (Time). The group was targeting men, women, and children alike, mainly from the political and business elite. Even President Kenyatta lost a nephew and his fiancée. Though Muslims were also killed in the attack, those who identified themselves were spared. Al Shabab stated that it had attacked the mall because of the Kenyan intervention in Somalia (The Economist). Kenya intervened in Somalia after a series of al-Shabab blamed kidnappings by sending Kenyan troops across the border to squash these security threats (NYTimes).

President Kenyatta is currently under indictment in the International Criminals Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity for leading ethnic clashes that killed over 1,300 of his people around five years ago (The Economist). Though it seems that President Kenyatta is using this tragedy to his own political advantage, in a sort of rally round the flag effect. The people of Kenya and neighboring countries have banded together in support of the Kenyan people and Kenyatta. There have been reports of people flooding into hospitals to donate blood and other supplies in such excess, that some people have even been turned away.

Following these attacks, Kenyatta had filed to have his trial date with the ICC postponed, but the motion had been denied by the ICC. Kenyatta is trying to paint himself as a unifier of Kenya. Trying to distract the public’s attention away from his previous crimes, to his “unifier of Kenya” persona. For those in the international community, Kenyatta stepping up and supporting his people during this tragedy has not overshadowed his accused past wrongdoings. But will the people of Kenya see him as a hero or a villain?

Boswell, Alan. "Kenya Sees in Terrorist Attack the Long Hand of al-Qaeda." Time. 25 SEP 2013: n. page. Web. 29 Sep. 2013. <Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/09/25/kenya-sees-in-terror-attack-the-long-hand-of-al-qaeda/

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21586851-national-politics-has-shifted-response-attack-somali-terrorists

Gettleman, Jeffery . "Ominous Signs, Then a Cruel Attack Making Sense of Kenya’s Westgate Mall Massacre." New York Times. 27 SEP 2013: n. page. Web. 29 Sep. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/sunday-review/making-sense-of-kenyas-westgate-mall-massacre.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How Genuine Is Iran?

On September 27th, in a rare event not seen in over three decades, President Obama spoke by phone with newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Although the phone call was brief, the New York Times notes this historic call was so significant because it was the first "direct contact" between leaders of the United States and Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (New York Times). The Times reports that the phone call was mainly centered on discussion of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's future role in the Middle East region. Many are speculating Iran is now more willing to re-establish relations and engage in talks due to the economic strain imposed on Iran by US enforced sanctions. Regardless of the motivation, this amount of contact between the United States and Iran is like nothings we have seen since before the revolution in Iran.

However, while the US is optimistic about these talks, this new development is making other countries, like Israel, quite nervous. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is flying to the US this week to meet with President Obama and also to give a speech at the United Nations. Netanyahu says he would like to

"...tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk".

This signals considerable concern from Israel about these new-found American-Iranian relations.  Israel and the United States have historically been very close allies, while Israel and Iran have always had a historically contentious relationship. It appears that the Israeli delegation is weary and at least suspicious about Iran's new willingness to socialize with one of its closest allies. Another Times article published on the 29th of September analyzes this development more closely. With the question of whether diplomacy can resolve the Iranian nuclear development problem, Israel and other countries,

"...worry about Iran's sincerity".

It seems time will tell how serious Iran is about maintaining diplomatic talks with the United States. In the meanwhile, this new relationship is quite enough to make countries like Israel nervous.

Sources:

BBC News 
New York Times 9/27/13
New York Times 9/29/13

Brazil, the NSA, and the U.S. Cooperation Problem

Relations between the United States and Brazil have become strained in the last month following leaked reports from NSA contractor Edward Snowden. It was revealed that the NSA has been monitoring the phone calls and emails of Brazil’s president Dilma Rouseff, as well as collecting information coming from Brazil’s oil company Petrobras. The scandal has resulted in the cancelation of a visit to Washington by Rouseff in October and has sparked public debate within Brazil about the security of information within the country (The Economist). Brazil has announced that it will lay down a fiber-optic line that will allow the country’s electronic information to bypass the United States. They also plan to set up secure email systems that don’t rely on U.S. companies such as Gmail and Yahoo. This is significant because tensions between the two countries could have potentially far- reaching consequences for two of the biggest trading partners in the Americas.

One of the biggest issues from this conflict involves cooperation in the international system. On the world stage, cooperation is difficult since the international system is in anarchy, meaning there is no overarching force holding states accountable to their actions. Power and capabilities become essential for states to attain security from the uncertainty of actions of other states. Through this lens, realists would argue that the United States was simply using its superior capabilities to secure itself by accessing the maximum amount of information about other countries actions and interests (including Brazil). However these actions lead to a type of prisoner’s dilemma. In this situation, the United States wants to get information from Brazil to confirm that the country will continue to act in a way that is favorable to the U.S., which includes trade and security policies. Brazil, however wants to have sovereignty from outside influence. This means that the best situation for the US would be to have access to information on Brazilian actions unbeknownst to the country, while the best situation for Brazil would be to act freely without being spied on. Overall cooperation would be the best compromise for both countries. To attain it the U.S. would have to be ensured that activity hurtful to the country was not occurring within Brazilian borders, and as a result the United States would have to respect the privacy of Brazil’s secure information. In reality, such conflicts result in the worst situation for both nations where Brazil pursues protectionist policies that limit trade/cooperation with the US (such as investing in a bypassing fiber-optic cable), and the U.S. feels vulnerable to threats from geographically close countries.

At the moment, the U.S. appears to be at an advantage in the situation because their superior online technological infrastructure makes it likely that they can continue to collect information in the region regardless of the measures that Brazil takes. Experts have warned that a rerouted fiber-optic cable would only have a limited effect on securing data because information will still likely go through U.S. systems. They point out that even with tighter cyber security agreements, the U.S. can still do what it wants in the international system because “there is no oversight, there's no comeback if they do not live up to them” (BBC). Furthermore, trading relations are likely to be unaffected for the most part in the future between the countries because the two economies are so interdependent. This also makes more escalated forms of conflict such as war unlikely. So how or will the situation be resolved? Could future interactions be a way to encourage cooperation in the future with Internet surveillance? Only time will tell.

Sources:

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/09/brazil-and-united-states

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24145662

Foreign Policy: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian_president_snubs_white_house

Bulgaria’s Political Demise

Since the beginning of June 2013 thousands of Bulgarian citizens have been protesting on their parliament, demanding that Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski resign from his seat. This uprising started when Oresharski appointed Delyan Peevski as the head of the Bulgarian Secret Service. The quarrel with Peevski is that his family owns many of the nation’s top newspapers, and media sources. It is believed that such a high ranking official should not have influence over the nation’s primary media sources, because this can lead to falsely reported information and deceptive tactics from the government. For this reason the Bulgarian citizens saw Peevski as dangerous and took his appointing as a sign that their entire government was corrupt and lacked credibility. Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski quickly noticed that Peevski was not approved by the public and relieved him of his position (Article released when Peevski's seat was revoked), but it was too late, the public was already exposed to the notion that their government was corrupt. The citizens of Bulgaria began to surround the parliament and demand for the Prime Minister’s resignation ( Short article and video expressing the protests on parliament).

As discussed in class, to assure political survival a leader must please his/her selectorate and more specifically his/her winning coalition. The Bulgarian political system is a parliamentary representative democratic republic which means there is a larger winning coalition and that to stay in power, Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski, should be doing what the people ask of him, or at very least he should be attempting to quell the uproar and to come to some mutual agreement on the matter. Instead however, Oresharski and the rest of the Bulgarian government are acting very uncharacteristic as leaders of a democratic republic who want to stay in power. They are simply attempting to ignore the protesters and carry on business as usual. Their attention is primarily being focused on the county’s powerful actors which are mainly comprised of wealthy bankers and construction companies. The government is acting as if their winning coalition is very small and made up similar to an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic. This is an interesting tactic because, when not meeting the needs of the people, leaders will be removed from office; however, if the government is putting its focus on the wealthy players rather than its voters than these signs point toward a corrupted government. This is such because, if it remains true that leaders want to stay in power, than all of their focus should go towards who is keeping them in their seats. If the government is taking care of the wealthy and powerful players while they ignore the citizen majority than clearly there is an incentive given to the government in order to do this; or is it possible that the government and Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski are not corrupt but rather have simply come to the realization that their political careers are over no matter what they tell the public, incentivizing them to gain powerful friends while they still can, in preparation for what comes after their political lives? 

**Short article and video explaining the entire situation from citizen standpoints**

The case of Rwanda

One case, which our reading by J.G. Stein briefly touches on, where psychological explanations are useful to understanding conflict is the mass murder of Tutsi's during the Rwandan 1994 genocide. An ethnic divide between the Tutsi's and Hutu's in Rwanda has been a source of conflict since the colonization of the country. Rwandan's were placed into categories by their colonizers which were based on the looks of the natives. Over time, these distinction led to the Tutsi's being viewed as land owners and the Hutu's as land workers (PPU). The Tutsi's status and the Hutu's poorer, but larger, class is the source of the ongoing conflict. The genocide was due to many aspects, but one can make a strong argument that psychological motives were used to perpetuate violence form the Hutu's towards the Tutsi's.

Stein discusses this conflict saying, ""[Hutu] leaders...chose to execute others [Tutsi's] rather than accept a diminished political status. They were able to...mobilize support for genocidal action because they expertly played on long-standing ethnic fears" (Stein 300). Group decision making played a huge role in this genocide. Public messages were regularly broadcast throughout the country which violently described the way to eliminate the Tutsi's. As more Hutu's joined the violence, their in-group status became dominant over the out-grouped Tutsi's, which spread the violence.

This conflict can be related to the diversionary war theory as well. In an article written by Moise Jean entitled, The Rwandan Genocide: The True Motivations for Mass Killing, the author discusses how the Rwandan president at the time, Habyarimana, supported the Hutu attacks in order to remain in power. By supporting the Hutu's, the author argues that the president was trying to gain political support by the large Hutu population, since his reign was currently in jeopardy.

This genocide illustrates several theories we have been discussing in class and shows a shocking example of how group think, rational choice, pre-existing beliefs, and diversionary intentions can lead to conflict. In and out group beliefs led to the mass murder of Tutsi's throughout Rwanda and these class separations were used to justify killing ones own neighbor. By analyzing this situation, we can see why understanding psychological motives for conflict and violence plays a huge role in international politics.

JG Stein

Moise Jean

Economist

The Power of One

It's incredible how all it takes is one person to lead a country and its people down a dark path through psychological manipulation. Adolph Hitler may be the most notorious leader in history, but the way by which he convinced his people to follow him should be something to ponder. Hitler was directly responsible for the killing and torturing of millions of European Jews. But why and how did he commit such horrendous acts? Why would the German people follow this particular man? A brief history of Germany is needed prior to explanation:

 After WW1, Germany was destroyed economically from extremely high reparations. The monarchy had been run out of the country leaving Germany without a proper leader to take hold of the post-war mess. The country and its citizens were in shambles. It's important to note that the Jews in the country were sitting high and wealthy unlike the rest of the German citizens. Within just a few years, Adolph Hitler, rises to supreme chancellor and forms a socialist movement called the Nazis. From there, Hitler begins his manipulation of the German citizens.

Carl Yung, a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist that founded analytical psychology, met Hitler in Berlin in 1939 and was able to provide psychological accounts of him. Yung described Hitler as 'sexless and inhuman'. 'A man who was driven so immensely with a singular purpose of establishing the Third Reich.' Hitler was the master of coercion and an excellent speaker which made for a dangerous combo. The German people, lower than they'd ever been before, needed to have a scapegoat to blame their problems on and someone to look up too. Hitler preached the fact that while they're on the streets, the Jewish people are in their homes eating bountiful meals. German citizens ate it up and the green monster took over. 'Groupthink', a concept where members of a group 'see the world through a biased, narrow lens, reach premature conclusions, and make bad decisions,' can easily be see in the German people and the Third Reich imposed by Hitler. His ability to influence his followers and army with national pride, something that was so needed in the country at that time, allowed him to grow as such a great leader and blinded his people of his immoral decisions. Hitler surprisingly wrote a book, called Mein Kampf, that discusses his formula for coercion and how he was able to engage his people so well. "Hitler was nothing, and from nothing he became everything to most Germans" -NY Times. The fact that Hitler started from the bottom probably had a lot to do with his outrageous appetite for power. In an Economist article titled, 'All power tends to corrupt', they did a study with a participants that tested power and status and the effect it has on how you treat other people.  They found that 'participants who were low in status but high in power—the classic “little Hitler” combination—chose more times for their partner to engage in the demeaning tasks done in the study.' Statistically, it greatly stood out in the research. So because of Hitler's origins, the condition of Germany, and his excellent use of coercion, he was able to gain Germany's loyalty which in turn led to a mass genocide and a war that put them back under the bus once again.

But could this happen in the modern world? Could Hitler do what he did today?

Diplomatic Negotiations Between US and Iran: Is there Something We're Not Seeing?

After a rocky history diplomatically between Iran and the United States, some major steps have been taken over the past several days to hopefully help these two states’ relations. In an article The Economist published on September 21st, 2013 it seems as though Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani has every intention to better Iran’s relations between western states such as the United States. The major source of tension between the two states is the uneasy nuclear standoff the countries have been participating in for decades. Rouhani began taking steps in the right direction by releasing 11 political prisoners on September 18th, 2013. A personal letter to President Obama and the well wishing of the Jewish New Year also marked some enthusiastic events done by President Rouhani. The condemnation of the Holocaust by the new Iranian president also left diplomats stunned (New York Times). The most prominent decision Rouhani has taken was switching the authority of Iran’s nuclear systems over from the national security council to the foreign ministry. On September 24th, 2013 Rouhani spoke at the UN General Assembly (Guardian). The United States and UN are very optimistic in Iran’s new possible diplomacy negotiations with the west, but Israel is not convinced. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that Obama’s weakness with the sanctions against Syria and permissive attitude towards Iran is sending a negative signal to Iran about its nuclear program.

As we have read in class, it would be ideal if Iran and the US could resolve their long history of hostility, but this new diplomatic situation is a great example of how states are “black boxes”. The US may only be seeing one side of Iran’s intentions, but Rouhani is the only one in the dynamic who really knows what his intentions are. Israel’s skeptical view of the sudden change of heart may actually be a wiser one. Prime Minister Netanyahu is being very bold in calling Rouhani’s bluff, but it may be a necessary judgment in the end. From Israel’s view, it can be seen that the state is experiencing an updating information problem. Receiving this new, encouraging information may not be enough to sway Israel’s stance toward Iran and its new government. Article came from The Economist

A Steamy Situation Rises in The Korean Peninsula

Within days of the tenth anniversary of the first “six-party” talks between South Korea, China, US, Japan, Russia, and North Korea, which aims to peacefully dismantle North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programs, satellite imagery taken on August 31st showed white steam rising from the Yongbyon nuclear complex in North Korea.

On Friday, September 20th, member states of the U.N.’s 159-nation International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on North Korea to “halt the restart” of a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The IAEA adopted a resolution by consensus that “strongly deplores” all of North Korea’s nuclear activities. They stressed their "desire for a diplomatic resolution ... so as to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula". According to a report by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SIAS), this reactor is capable of producing enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon a year. Economist

North Korea dismantled the Yongbyon reactor during the 2008 “six-party” talks as a confidence-builder as part of the aid deal. However, in April, other satellite imagery suggested steady progress in expanding the facility and finishing a new light-water reactor. In July, North Korea announced its intentions to keep its nuclear deterrent until Washington ends its “hostile policy” towards it. Reuters

International inspectors have not visited the site since 2008, but many experts believe the plant is outdated and incapable of producing weapons grade plutonium any time soon. However, a co-author of the SIAS report, Jeffrey Lewis, expects the North to invite inspectors soon to reveal its new capabilities. Leader Kim Jong Un is likely using the reactor restart as a bargaining chip to accept monitoring at Yongbyon in return for Foreign aid. There is speculation that North Korea has more facilities than the one in Yongbyon and can still keep many military nuclear programs secret. BBC

Since the dismantling of the nuclear reactor in 2008, the sanctions have loosened and relations have improved. The North has even received some food and medicine since. What else does Kim Jong Un have to gain through reviving nuclear tensions in the region after improving relations this summer through reopening South Korean military hotlines, a North-South joint factory complex at Kaesong on September 16th, and on September 25th, the regime will be allowing 200 relatives separated in the Korean war to meet in the North for the first time in three years? Can the North afford to lose the bargaining power a nuclear weapon can bring to the international arena? Connecting our Monday discussion on why leaders choose to go to war, why doesn’t the international community take military action and destroy the nuclear reactor?

Political institutions and war

The relations between political institutions and war have been the the subject of extensive theorizing and academic endeavor within the field of political science. It is widely accepted that political institutions, in this case Democratic and Autocratic governments, have specific characteristics that render them more/less likely to make certain decisions regarding war and peace. In a theoretical sense, what we have come to learn is that democracies do not readily engage in military conflict with other democracies. In fact, there have been no documented cases of such a conflict occurring (unless I have been led horribly astray). Additionally, democracies have only ever gone to war with non-democratic nations.

Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations published two articles that speak to this theoretical framework. The first article asks the question, "Is there a possibility of a future military conflict between China and the US?" Clearly the theoretical issue here is: would a democratic state, such as the United States, ever go to war with China based solely on the fact that China lacks democratic qualities. The article categorically states that the likelihood is slim to none based on the fact that economic ties between them are so close.

This does not mean, however, that conflict is altogether impossible. China has the fastest growing military on Earth, and has territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and India, all of which are American allies. This raises the question of the Power Transition Theory.

The second article that was recently published by the CFR was titled "The US-Japan Security Alliance." This article describes the importance of the US-Japanese alliance in the context of America's so called "Pivot to South East-Asia." It discusses the role of China in the new world (economic) order, as well as North Korea's Nuclear ambitions, and how Japan fits into the picture. Having been WWII enemies, and now post-war democratic allies, this provides a useful juxtaposition to the Chinese issue.

One question to consider is: Should conflict arise between the United States and China, will it be due to the difference of political institutions? Or will it be due to factors associated with the Power Transition Theory?

Can Diplomacy Prevent Iran From Further Developing its Nuclear Program?

Newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has inherited a difficult diplomatic situation in which he must chose to further develop the Iranian nuclear program, or to adhere to western persuasion and abandon the progress already made by previous administrations. Rouhani took office in August, replacing former President Ahmadinejad who had served two terms and could not run again due to constitutional limitations. Rouhani, a political moderate, is seeking to improve the Iranian economy, draft a civil rights charter, and most importantly improve diplomatic relations with the West; which have been rough since the 1979 revolution, especially under former President Ahmadinejad, infamous for denying the holocaust and antagonizing the west.

Signs point to Rouhani further developing diplomatic relations with the Western nations, however it still remains a question what will happen with the nuclear program Iran has been developing and working hard to conceal from the West. Since taking office in August, President Rouhani has made strides towards improving relations with the US, exchanging letters with President Obama, meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, and attempting to arrange a formal meeting with President Obama (NYTIMES). If the two were to meet, this would be the fist time a US President with an Iranian leader since the failed US intervention in the 1979 revolution. Rouhani, famous for his use of twitter, has temporarily unblocking western social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook in Iran. On September 18th, Rouhani arranged for the release of 11 political prisoners, and another 80 this past monday, much to the approval of the US. With regards to the Iranian nuclear program, Rouhani recently switched...

"...authority over the nuclear issue from the national security council, known for being hawkish, to the foreign ministry, which is now led by Mohammad Javad Zarif, a moderate former diplomat with deep knowledge of America." ECONOMIST

This move surprisingly was co-organized by Rouhani and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has been largely anti-western throughout his reign as grand Ayatollah. President Rouhani asserted he would have complete authority over any decisions regarding nuclear weapons, not the Supreme Leader. In todays UN General Assembly meeting, Rouhani stated that Iran posed “absolutely no threat to the world or region," asserting nuclear weapons had "no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine," and denounced international sanctions as "violent, pure and simple," (BBC NEWS). President Rouhani all but agreed to full transparency of their nuclear program in his recent interactions with the West. With these developments, the future of US-Iranian diplomatic relations looks far brighter than it has since the 1979 revolution. However, it remains to be seen what influence Supreme Leader Kahmenei has over Rouhani's presidency. Furthermore, the west was hopeful after the election of Ahmadinejad because he was not an overly religious candidate, however US-Iranian relations largely deteriorated during his presidency.

Emotional v. Rational Decisions

A Yale psychologist by the name of Irving Janis began to conduct research and investigate a concept names "Groupthink."  This concept can be defined as "a dynamic wherein members of a team see the world through a biased, narrow lens, reach premature conclusions, and make bad decisions."  One such example of this concept that can be apply is the failed Bay of Pigs invasion as ordered by President John F. Kennedy.

Groupthink ultimately is a lack in moral judgement, and clouds someones perception to make the correct decision while in a group.  It in turn doesn't allow them to make a rational choice, rather something they feel is the right thing to do.  That person is compelled to make a decision based on attempting to please everyone in the group instead of thinking about the issue at hand and making a decision that will benefit everyone in the long run.

This is the case in the Bay of Pigs invasion.  The Groupthink concept describes Kennedy and many of his aides as a group working together, but not being able to act and think to their full capacity.  As stated in the article, "Instead, they jumped to conclusions and then moved forward without an openness to new information and without considering changes in direction.  By placing himself in the decision process, Kennedy's presence in a way caused this aides to come up with a strategy to overthrow Castro that was more towards pleasing Kennedy as opposed to the most rational and thought way of going about it.  This unfortunately did not go as planned and was certainly a failed attempt.

Kennedy took a different approach with the Cuban Missile Crisis by allowing a committee to make the final decision on how to tackle the task at hand.  "To help him decide what to do about the Cuban situation, and how much risk to run of a nuclear exchange, Kennedy assembled a small group that came to be called the Executive Committee of the National Security Council - or ExComm for short."  In order for him not to make the same mistake as before by intervening the decision process, Kennedy in fact removed himself and played the other side, coming up with arguments and rebuttals as to why they shouldn't go through with the committees ideas in order to make sure that their decision is absolutely the right one to make.  By taking this plan of action as opposed to the Bay of Pigs way, Kennedy was able to convince to Nikita Khrushchev to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba as can bee seen from the Guardian:

As the ExComm meetings were drawing to a close at 6pm on the 26 October, a letter arrived from Prime Minister Khrushchev, directly to President Kennedy. Khrushchev's "message seemed clear," Stern writes:

"The missiles would be removed if the US promised not to invade Cuba."

The next day, at 10am, the president again turned on the secret tape. He read aloud a wire service report that had just been handed to him:

"Premier Khrushchev told President Kennedy in a message today he would withdraw offensive weapons from Cuba if the United States withdrew its rockets from Turkey."

Studies such as this one can be applied to any level of organization and is in fact evidence that people will make irrational decisions solely based on the fact that they are trying to please someone in a group setting.  Interactions like this is a great way to learn from others mistakes so that this country can continue to grow and prosper and maintain being a world leader and example for others.

Groupthink

ExComm Committee

Guardian

Dismantling the Wall of Corruption: China's Bo Xilai Goes Down

Bo Xilai, a golden child of the Communist Party, has been convicted of embezzlement, bribery, and abuse of power where he was unable to shake murder allegations surrounding his wife. The couple is the center of a conspiracy of the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood, who was evidently murdered by Mrs.Xilai in 2011. Her husband had made an attempt to sway and delay the investigation on the foreign man murder involving some high-ranking police officers. Though Mr. Xilai, star of the show has received the blunt of the charges on embezzlement, co-conspirator Xu Ming remains in custody after proof surfaces of him embezzling money, an estimated "3.5-4.4 million (American) dollars," to Mr. Xilai at his "estate off the French Riviera." (Multiple sources condemn) The corruption then had reached beyond the borders of China. In his official sentencing Sunday September 22, by the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, Mr. Xilai has supposedly been made an example, found guilty with credible evidence to his crimes and that condemned him to a life in prison.

Mr.Xilai is a former incumbent of the Central Politburo of the Communist Party of China; it acts as the executive branch of China, or ultimate political authority. He served as the Secretary of the Central Politburo of Chongqing. Professor Han Deqiang Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics disagrees with Bo Xilai’s sentencing to life in prison. Many Chinese citizens believe that the lavish lifestyles are a thing of normalcy amongst the bourgeoisie and senior government officials, and those cases similar to Xilai’s have earned a lesser sentence, especially one who held such a prominent figure in office. “This shows that power is bigger than the law, that politics is bigger than the law.” (Economist) If anything his statement shows a level of discord between the lower classes of China and the high-ranking officials. The disparity in wealth however is only one of the problems circulating China. Others speculate that under the Communist Part Bo Xialai’s sentence was lenient, as he could have earned the death sentence for such major crimes. What exactly was the Communist Party of China trying to accomplish? Will this in turn lead to a war of social class and political systems? An internal imbalance often doesn't yield much rationality from the country's leaders, and communism is not exempt from the list. Their successes and failures in condemning Xilai might mean a similar fate to those who help structure and support their government. Those who were given a specific amount of privilege in the CPC might meet an end like embezzler Xilai, something the party now appeals NOT to stand for. If anything open communication and loyalty between those investigating and cooperating is imperative for smooth government functioning.

The Communist Party of China has the ability to wield media and law at its disposition and recently has taken to rooting through its highest officials to ensure public policy safety and efficiency. What makes this case vary unique is the notion and rarity that such a public official’s crime comes to light. Especially since the last big case to shake up as much as Xilai’s trial in China was Mao Zedong’s widow, widow of the man who forged much of the People’s Republic of China and fore fronted many communist ideals. That was nearly 35 years prior to Bo Xilai’s trial itself if that says anything about the secrecy or scrutiny of the Chinese government. Despite the judicial system being seemingly separate, decisions are conclusively made by high up party officials of the CPC. Arguably this whole case was an attempt by the Communist Party to make an example of Bo Xilai’s failure to put country before self, otherwise his case would not have been allowed to reach as much publicity as it did. If bringing such a high-ranking politician to his knees was a means to show a faux vulnerability and just side of the CPC, it was only hap-hazardly accomplished. Bo Xilai, despite condemning evidence remained resilient until the end, forfeiting his future and reputation in the process. He really is living the prisoner’s dilemma, playing a game with the State. Should he have chosen pleading guilty, the sentence could have either been lessened if he showed remorse, or like trials before sentenced him to death? At the same time he chose to play it safe and claim innocence to the end, as at least there is a possibility his sentence could be reduced if his trial is reopened and disproven or his prison behavior reads “rehabilitation and compromise.” (New York Times) A gamble for Bo Xilai, only if the CPC doesn’t remain certain to its conviction, and fails to follow through with its anti-corruption campaign in China. If that's the case, and the anti-corruption campaign takes full throttle in China, there might be quite a few successful cases coming up in years to come.

Sources:

• The Economist:Going Down Fighting
• Timeline of Bo Xilai Conviction and Trial
• Chinese Official at Center of Scandal Found Guilty

Update on the Current Situation of Chemical Weapons in Syria and an explanation of reactions from Russia based on logical incentives and IR theories

On August 21, 2013, sarin nerve gas, a lethal chemical weapon was used in the suburbs of Damascus. The final death count was 1,429 people. The United States claims that Assad’s government is responsible for the attack, while Russia thinks that Assad’s opposition staged the attack. Bashar al-Assad has actively and consistently denied any responsibility.

Regardless of who is responsible for the attacks, the search and destroy of Assad’s stoke pile of chemical weapons is imperative to the United States. According to the article, “Removing Syria’s chemical weapons easier said than done,” from Aljazeera America, it would be a political and logistical struggle. The article also references how long it took to track down and destroy Saddam’s chemical weapons in Iraq, and claims that it would far more difficult to do so in Syria due to the ongoing civil war. For more reading on this reference Aljazeera.

Obama is in support of a more diplomatic removal of the chemical weapons, and would prefer to find alternative solutions. In light of that, John Kerry met with Sergi Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia, to discuss how to avoid military intervention. That being said, Kerry has claimed that, “a U.S. military strike could occur if Assad doesn't agree to dismantle his chemical arsenal properly.”

More recently, Russia, Syria, and the US have agreed to place the chemical weapons in Syria under international control. The agreement stipulates that Assad must disclose their locations by next week (9/23-9/30) and have them destroyed by June-July of 2014, but neither the US, nor Russia plan on disposing of the weapons in their own country. For more reading on this go to Aljazeera.

To follow the very brief summary of what is going on with chemical weapons in Syria, I would like to delve into, and discuss, the principle theories of international relations and logical incentives with respect to the Russia.

Russia has several incentives to be less harsh on the Assad Government. I would like to bring our attention to a specific economic incentive: Syria’s purchase of military supplies from Russia that contribute to a notable portion of Russia’s income. For further reading go to question #4 on Washington Post.

Another incentive Russia has to be less harsh on Syria is their naval base. It is their last one outside of the former Soviet Union. To relate this to a theory in international relations, I think we could say Russia is acting with the realist mentality. As we know, realists value survival, above all, and believe that building up a sufficient military is imperative to that survival.

Power shifts and War

This Wednesday, we discussed the effect of the distribution of power on uncertainty and the propensity for war in the international system. Just recently, the journal International Organization published an article about this exact topic with an application to the 2003 Iraq War. We'll talk more about this case later, but you may want to check out this article when you get a chance. Some key parts:

Large and rapid power shifts resulting from exogenous economic growth are considered sufficient to cause preventive wars.
...
Large and rapid power shifts are deterred through the threat of a preventive war. When investments remain undetected, however, states may be tempted to introduce power shifts as a fait accompli. Knowing this, their adversaries may strike preventively even without conclusive evidence of militarization. In fact, the more effective preventive wars are, the more likely they will be launched against states that are not militarizing. Our argument emphasizes the role of imperfect information as a cause of war. It also explains why powerful states may attack weaker targets even with ambiguous evidence of their militarization. 

You can find the article here (not gated if accessed from the campus network).