North Korea agrees to China's request for nuclear disarmament talks

            With the strong push of Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has inched closer to the table for six-party talks on nuclear disarmament that also involve the United States, South Korea, Japan, and Russia. A North Korean envoy states that the country wishes to concentrate on economic development and thus is open to working towards more peaceful relations with other countries. Both parties wish to cooperate in promoting stability on the peninsula and to strengthen ties with each other.

            Because China is the one country with the most access to North Korea’s decision-makers, it is crucial that President Xi Jinping prioritize the success of the talks in ending Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation. But such six-party talks have failed in the past: beginning in 2003, the talks were created in response to North Korea breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea left these talks in 2009 when the United Nations Security Council resolved to impose heavier sanctions on the former for a nuclear test than in years past. Since then, Pyongyang has refused to acknowledge the world’s disapproval of its currently running nuclear weapons program. The country’s bitter threats of war against the United States these past few years never existed as true actions. Although the world breathes a sigh of relief in China’s stronger encouragement for nuclear disarmament in North Korea, will North Korea truly consider ceasing to develop nuclear weapons?

            Many citizens believe that North Korea will not return to an agreement like that of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; more likely, North Korea will settle for no less than a certain, agreed-upon number of nuclear ballistic missiles. Again, this is only if the six-party talks really proceed and end in agreement between countries that, for years now, have developed hostile relations. At the very least, however, China’s move is a hope for mollified tension.

About Us: Rex Peel

Describe yourself.
I am a pragmatic and honest person who feels committed to making the United States of America an even better place than it already is. I am inspired by key figures in American history and I am intrigued by the US government. People often tell me that I have a varied set of interests. I enjoy keeping up with current events, as well as working on old cars and riding my motorcycle in my free time. I am drawn to post-World War II American culture and I aspire to work for the federal government upon my graduation from college.

How did you become interested in International Relations?
I have always been interested in what is happening around the world at any given time. However, what really boosted my curiosity and understanding of the complex matter of foreign affairs was Mr. Phillips' class on International Relations. Mr. Phillips devotes all of his time to his IR class and to our expansion of knowledge and it shows. Because of my experience in his class, I feel that I am better prepared to serve the American public when I am eventually part the United States government. As time goes on, I seem to become more interested in international politics and the coordination between groups from different parts of the world. The more I learn, my perspective broadens and my vision of what is happening around the globe and its effect on the United States becomes clearer.

Favorite topics/focuses relating to International Relations?
My favorite aspect of International Relations is that of national security and defense. It is the most dynamic in my view. The military role of the United States around the world is constantly changing, as is the the manner in which the government copes with foreign threats.

What you plan on majoring in, in the future?
I am going to be working on a mechanical engineering major at Virginia Tech over the next four years. Even if I may not pursue a career as an engineer, I have always been intrigued by machines and I believe the practical and logical approach to problems that I will acquire with an education in engineering can be applied to nearly every profession. I will minor in political science.

Character/public figure you hope to emulate?
There are many people whom I look up to, but the greatest of them all is undoubtedly George Washington. He was a farmer who was arguably the best general that this nation's military ever had. He was reluctant to serve as the first president of the United States, but because of his devotion to his country and respect for his peers who unanimously elected him for the job, he decided to make the sacrifice, putting off his own personal interests for the benefit of the nation.

Why did you join the Plenipotentiaries?
I joined the Plenipotentiaries because I was confident that it would be an excellent opportunity to not only discuss my own views on global matters, but also to learn from my colleagues and develop more educated opinions.

What do you hope to do after leaving Mills?
I hope that I will be successful in college and take advantage of all of the opportunities that Virginia Tech provides. Subsequently, I plan to serve the United States government in either one of the branches of the armed forces or a federal agency.

Globalization and the American Worker

These past few weeks have been long. I am finally wrapping up my high school career and moving on to bigger and better things. It has been a while since my last post, but now I'm back.

      Those who know me understand that I am a strong advocate of foreign aid and other forms of United States international affairs, or at least I hope that they do. I believe that this nation's superpower status deeply relies on its relationships with other nations, both industrialized and developing. Trade between the USA and its economic partners is imperative to maintain the global economy. In no way do I believe that the United States of America should isolate itself. But I have one concession to make.
     In the 1980s, American manufacturing firms began moving a great deal of their labor from their home to poor, developing nations in East Asia and South America. They claimed, accurately, that products manufactured by this cheaper labor would bring a higher profit margin and help United States corporations sell their products for a lower cost. The public understandably welcomed this change. After all, they would be paying less for just about everything they could buy.
     The true cost of this change, however, was considerably higher than people believed. It was also dangerously invisible. Companies saw their bottom lines remain stagnant while others were seeing huge increases since exploiting cheap labor in China, Bangladesh, and India. They inevitably panicked. They laid off workers and shut down factories that in some cases had been in operation for over a century (see Levi's). Working men and women were left out in the cold. Too many factory workers struggled to support their families. Their kids went hungry. The government was not untouched. Unemployed factory workers were not able to pay taxes. Instead, they needed to borrow from their countrymen to sustain themselves, putting them to shame. Schools were closed and essential services such as police and fire were cut back because of the newfound (and currently remaining) budget deficits.
     There has also been a more subtle detractor to outsourcing. American corporations such as Boeing and General Electric that spend a great deal of capital on research and development have moved much of their manufacturing to nations that have very little regard for intellectual property. The rate of reverse engineering of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner wings, GE's jet engine parts, and other high technology products is quite high, proving that outsourcing is not only detrimental to the United States, but is also a poor business decision.
     Factories and the workers that operated them have effectively made the United States an industrial and economic giant. Since the colonists first landed at Jamestown, the integrity of this great nation was built upon the promise of the American worker. Businesses that put money ahead of morality in conjunction with free trade are unraveling the fabric that has maintained the industrial power of the United States.
     In order to clarify my purpose, I will concede that I am relatively conservative. I believe in capitalism and the free market. I understand the importance of the private sector in the United States and appreciate its efficiency and dedication to performance. However, in my eyes, the American worker should always come first. In my eyes, the conservative state of mind revolves around the idea of the value of the individual. Betraying American workers by replacing them with the foreign working poor does not respect the value of the individual.
     The modern world is a global one, and I truly believe that this nation is committed to making the world a better place. In order for the United States to remain strong and capable of providing foreign aid, its people need to realize the true cost of outsourcing and understand the value of the American worker.

About Us: Justin Li

Describe yourself:
      I have been described as an analytical person with "chronic euphoria." My opinion is that world events are more interesting in the past tense and science is more exciting the future tense, and most of the research that I do for fun reflect that. Outside of studies, I'm an avid reader, gamer, and writer, quite possibly with an overactive imagination.


How did you become interested in International Relations?
      My dad introduced me to strategy games at a very young age, so I picked up on the basic ideas behind politics and history pretty quickly. For me, the motivations and effects behind history came easily, and International Relations was an extension of that, except that everything is in the present instead of the past. 
      Unlike what seems to be the norm, growing up as a Chinese-American child has been utterly unremarkable for me. I didn't have very many conflicts trying reconcile my heritage and my environment, despite, or maybe because, I spent most of my school years in an American school system with an Asian majority.
      I did, however, focus more intensely on Western history than I did on Asian history, probably because most historical strategy games are developed by western companies for western consumers. There may have also been the issue that there are relatively few books on Asian history written by culturally Asian authors in English.
      Who said games rot the brain?

Favorite topics/focuses, regarding International Relations?
      I don't have much of a mind for remembering recent events or names of prominent public figures, however, I do enjoy analyzing the potential motivations behind world events and extrapolating potential actions that could result. I believe that by using history as a starting point, any action committed by a political entity can be understood and analyzed for future actions.

What you plan on majoring in, in the future?
      Biology, or failing that, some other science. Not that I lack passion in International Relations, but I really am a shy and introverted person. I really don't think a future that requires such a high level of human interaction is for me. 

Character/public figure you hope to emulate?
      I have no idea. As far as public figures go, I was fairly determined to make my own way in the world. I still am.

Why did you join the Plenipotentiaries?
      Alexis sent an email one day about writing a blog. It hit me out of the blue but I jumped on because it's not every day that I get to write about something I'm passionate about.

What do you hope to do after leaving Mills?
      I hope to do what everyone else hopes to do, make enough money doing a job I love to live life. Odds are, because of my science focus, I won't be out of college for quite a few years, but after that, anything goes. I would like to travel, maybe revisit the places my parents took me as a child, but this time seeing the world through a more mature (and physically higher) perspective.

About Us: Alexis Dale-Huang

Decorations at an outdoor bakery in Meinong, Taiwan.

1. Describe yourself:

I would describe myself as a perpetually curious and nostalgic individual, with interests varying from the Chinese language, to eating foreign delicacies and studying contemporary American politics.  I also have slight obsessions with Coldplay and J. Crew.

2. How did you become interested in International Relations?

Coming from a biracial background, I genuinely think it is important to fully understand your own culture(s), but also the cultures of others around the globe.  I grew up in a household with what my friends like to call, “switched parents”: my Taiwanese father is considered “white-washed” due to his preppy style and inability to read and write Mandarin, while my Caucasian mother is currently a Chinese history professor, fluent in Mandarin, and knowledgeable of Chinese cuisine and customs.  After struggling to really understand the disparities between my two cultures, and eventually seeing them, I became interested in learning more about cultures other than my own by reading novels by writers such as Haruki Murakami, Khaled Hosseini, and Rohinton Mistry.  With these readings, I gradually developed a passion for history, foreign languages, and politics, and discovered International Relations with my mother’s guidance. 

I quote my English teacher as I state, “context determines meaning,” in this setting.

3. Favorite topics/focuses, regarding International Relations?

Although I often invest my free time reading up on Asian culture and the histories of nations in the Pacific Rim, I have recently discovered an interest in human rights in oppressed countries, and the cultural aspects that affect the politics of such societies. 

4. What you plan on majoring in, in the future?

I have declared a major in International Relations, and hope to either double major in Communications, or minor in Asian Studies.

5. Character/public figure you hope to emulate?

I’m afraid I can’t answer this; there are too many!

6. Why did you join the Plenipotentiaries?

My colleague, Marie Johnson, and I originally created this blog to allow ourselves to conduct more in-depth research on our topics of interest.  Yet, as the blog grew, I found that I was able to not only become more aware of what was going on in all parts of the world, but was also able to educate my fellow peers through my posts, and ultimately have a better experience in the process.

7. What do you hope to do after leaving Mills?

As I begin my studies at my selected four-year university next year, I hope to study either French or Arabic in college, while continuing my Mandarin, and plan on studying abroad several times with my university’s various programs.  While my main goal for the next four years is to continue exploring all of my interests in school and eventually find the career that fits with them. I also hope to return to my original hometown of Washington, D.C. 

Soft Power

      Soft Power, according to Joseph S. Nye, is a country's ability to attract others to its point of view. In other words, it is a "pull" factor in getting others to work toward a country's goals. In terms of a metaphor, it is a carrot dangled in front of a pig. Hard Power, on the other hand, is a country's ability to force others to serve its goals. Going back to the pig metaphor, this would be the stick that threatens to hit the pig should it disobey.
      Soft Power would be like the United States to get another country, say Great Britain to join in an economic agreement because that would be beneficial to both countries. Hard Power would be like the United States getting a trade agreement out of Japan because a squadron of armored gunships appeared in Tokyo harbor and it would be incredibly unwise to refuse at that moment.
      According to Nye, Soft Power comes from having an attractive culture, upstanding political values, and moral foreign policies. In his article in Foreign Policy magazine, he notes that America's substantial Soft Power comes from its culture. It makes sense to seek economic partnerships with American business because of its economy power all across the globe. At the same time, American politics stay true to American morals and its foreign policy is ostensibly aimed towards improving living conditions. (That improving living conditions coincide with advancing American interests is probably why one can both love and hate American policy overseas at the same time.) Additionally, the diffusion of American culture throughout the world makes Americans seem less scary, in contrast to our often-skewed perceptions of other countries.
      On the other hand, Nye talks about China and Russia's heavy-handed attempts to use Soft Power, which are portrayed as misguided and misunderstood. Both countries strike me as reminiscent of the to-be-colonized peoples of the European Imperial Age trying to buy firearms but not adopt the industry and discipline necessary to fight back effectively.
      China invests in Africa to combat poverty and builds schools in Manila, but continues to crack down on human rights. Russia's Putin talks about the need to use Soft Power but uses his military on Georgia. Already, they've shot themselves in the criteria that call for upstanding political values and foreign policies. The only thing that remains is having an attractive culture, of which China has some, and Russia has little. Russia, incidentally, also has few allies, while China has strong trade relations because of its manufacturing base.
     In the absence of substantial Chinese cultural diffusion, it has to keep its Soft Power policies afloat by being a massively powerful economy, which it does with aplomb. There is a phrase I heard once that would sum up China's Soft Power cornerstone for the time being: "If God made everything, He would live somewhere in China."
      If China and Russia want to have things their way by doing the political equivalent of asking nicely, they'll have to prove themselves to be "nice" countries first.

So... I Bought a Llama

   Yes, I actually bought a llama.

   While going through my family’s daily dose of L.L. Bean, J. Crew and Pottery Barn catalogs during last year’s holiday season, I found a smaller catalog, with a sheep on the cover that immediately caught my attention.  Upon seeing the Heifer International logo on the bottom of the cover, I began to recall the church announcements I often heard around the holiday season, regarding Heifer International and how you can literally buy a cow for somebody in another country for only a small sum of money.  Curious, I flipped through the catalog to see what the options were, and finally saw a llama – a gift surprisingly fun and affordable, with its price of $150.

   Based in Little Rock, Arkansas, Heifer International is a global nonprofit organization that works to eradicate hunger and poverty worldwide.  As a way to meet the needs of families and individuals in over the forty countries impacted so far, Heifer International offers a wide variety of donation options, ranging from sending a girl to school, to starting a business, to buying goats.  In operation since 1944, Heifer International has helped over 18 million families around the globe restart their lives, and build a sense of hope within each of the communities affected.

While I still have yet to watch the movie,
I have heard it is just as intellectually fulfilling
and eye-opening as the book.

   As I was reading Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s novel, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, at the time, I was inspired by the novel’s stories of the attempts women made to recreate lives for themselves in their oppressed circumstances.  Thus, I decided to take advantage of the opportunity Heifer International offered, and began to save up for my llama as my paychecks began to come in.

   I will admit that I was skeptical of Heifer International, at first, and felt uneasy as I began to save up my money.  Yet, after doing my research, I was able to find Heifer International mentioned in not only the foreign aid packets I received in my International Relations class, but also in smaller online newspapers, and the New York Times, with an article written by Kristof, himself!  With this reassurance, I gradually saved up all of my money, and finally made my purchase last December, in hopes that the recipient family would receive their llama before the New Year.

   While I sometimes wonder how the recipient family's llama is doing, wherever it is in the world, it still feels incredible to know that I was able to invest my money in something worthwhile.  Thus, if you’re ever feeling generous, or are just curious about Heifer International and its donation options, I highly recommend looking on Heifer International’s website.  Who knows, maybe you will want to buy something, too!

     Heifer International also allows you to make donations under somebody else’s name.  I know several people that have bought each other various animals for each other’s birthdays and holiday gifts, and they have all been very happy with their purchases.

Master of the Mixed Message: North Korea

      After shutting off contact with South Korea and threatening the West, North Korea has suddenly decided to send many of its soldiers to within sight of the Korean Demilitarized Zone. These soldiers then proceeded to help the farmers dig and plant the spring crops in the midst of barbed wire and tank traps.
      Understandably, South Korean soldiers are uneasy and the border zones are closed to tourists. At the same time, North Korea also stopped all access to the factory park jointly run between the two Koreas. In a typically North Korean move, South Korea has threatened "grave measures" if North Korea refuses talks to reopen the park.
      North Korea, in response, has threatened nuclear war. It's recent missile and weapon tests are indications of its ability to do so, if only passably and in a suicidal effort.

Crossing the Red Line

           
     The UK, France, and the Israel have confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The United States has not confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but John Kerry is telling NATO to consider its role in Syria and how the possible use of chemical weapons changes the landscape of the crisis. The question lies in the fact of what the United States, or more specifically, what may the Obama administration may do?

   In August of 2012, Obama said “that any effort by President Bashar Al Assad to use chemical weapons would have significant consequences.”

   Three countries have now approved the fact Syria has now crossed Obama’s “red line.”

   One option people may consider is arming the rebels.

                  The UK has hinted at the possibility of arming the rebels, but the United States still has reservations about the possibility. There was already an inherent belief that the Syrian rebels were vulnerable to shifts in power. But since the announcement of a prominent Syrian rebel group, Jabhat al-Nursa, joining an Iraqi Al-Quaeda, the already worrisome possibility of arming the rebels is more so currently.

                  With the introduction of arms for the rebels, there has been talk about furthering that influence with no fly zones which ultimately may make the United States involved in the crisis. The last thing the American public and the Obama administration wants is another war or crisis in the Middle East especially considering the United States is still wholly involved in Afghanistan.

  The other option may be to continue the use of nonlethal aid to the Syrians rebels.

                   The crisis is escalating too quickly for nonlethal aid to be effective. The United States has doubled the aid it gives to Syria. The UK is signaling that because of the use of chemical weapons, it may send troops. There is no way Assad will be able to save his regime, and there will be a definite change in leadership. As the crisis continues, Assad is backed into a corner and has nothing to lose by attacking the rebel groups with chemical weapons.

  It is hard dilemma that the Obama administration has to face, and I want to know what do you think will happen?

            In the comments below, please respond to the question:

                         “What do you think Obama should or will do currently if the United States officially confirms the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

       

New Zealand to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

   With a vote of seventy-seven in favor and forty-four against, New Zealand is now to be considered as the first nation in the Asia-Pacific region and the thirteenth nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

   Civil unions in New Zealand have been permitted since 2005.  Yet, Wednesday’s decision amends the 1955 Marriage Act, once against same-sex marriage, and also allows same-sex couples from other countries to marry in New Zealand.  With the policymakers that were each voting on the decision having been heavily encouraged to vote based on their conscience, and not on their policy platforms, the results proved to be both surprising and historic.   

   The new law will not go into effect until the end of August.  However, many in New Zealand have celebrated the progressive accomplishment through means of partying in the pubs of Wellington, and through singing the indigenous Maori love song “Pokarekare Ana” in unison with tears of joy.

   However, not everybody is completely in agreement with the recent news.  Australia, New Zealand’s neighbor, shot down the same-sex marriage proposal as it entered Parliament last September.  Julia Gillard, Australia’s Prime Minister, is also strongly against same-sex marriage, and does not seem to be interested in an agreement any time soon.  Meanwhile, other organizations in Australia, like Family First, have created several petitions against same-sex marriage, declaring that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.  Thus, while many Australian same-sex couples are currently making travel arrangements to exchange marriage vows in New Zealand, their marriages will not be recognized in Australia, itself.

   Yet, in retaliation, Australians have recently started a “rainbow rebellion” in which those supporting same-sex marriage “chalk” rainbow colors in public areas of Australia.  Although same-sex marriage still seems to be a stretch for Australia, hope continues to stay within Australia’s gay community as more nations around the world “face reality.”

     

   With New Zealand in the mix, countries that have legalized same-sex marriage now include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, and Uruguay.

The Iron Lady

      At her funeral, most people turned out to show their respect, but there was a significant faction that were there to protest.
      Commonly compared to U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and he were contemporaries and very close allies during the Cold War. Their relationship has been compared favorably to that of FDR and Winston Churchill. Together, they saw the fall of the Berlin Wall. She also saw to the end of the Argentinian occupation of the Falkland Islands, during which members of both the British and Argentine militaries gave their lives.
      At home, she was a deeply polarizing figure. While her funeral saw many mourners, many of them famous statesmen and ambassadors, many in northern Britain held protests or burned effigies in her "memory," still bitter over her closing of Britain's coal pits which left many out of work. In Ireland, IRA supporters criticized her uncompromising stance on the rebels during her tenure.
      However, for her family, the "Iron Lady" is best summed up by the note left on her coffin by her children, "Beloved mother, always in our hearts."

Perspective

     At about this time last year, I was confused about the United States’ role in world affairs, particularly in the Middle East. Like too many Americans, or anyone for that matter, I was especially uncertain why the U.S. had been waging a war in Afghanistan for more than ten years. I knew that it wasn’t about oil, because Afghanistan produces virtually no oil. I knew that it wasn’t about territorial disputes between nations either, because we were fighting Taliban rebels and Al Qaeda, not the Afghan government itself. Because of my relative ignorance, I opposed American military action in Afghanistan. I thought “We are so far away from West Asia, how does anything that happens there affect the United States?”

It wasn’t until I began studying international relations last fall when I realized that I was deprived of the information that would cause everything to make sense to me, that would cause me to obtain a proper perspective. I will concede that I didn’t seek the proper news sources that I should have. I read the San Jose Mercury, which is generally sensational local articles on the front page, filled with ads in the middle and sprinkled with Associated Press stories. I had quit watching television news because I felt that it was either not centered enough or, like my newspaper, had been sensationalized. I had forgotten about the News Hour.

I was brought out of the fog by the articles that my international relations teacher gave me. I started thinking like a global citizen and learned that nearly all nations are connected to each other in some way and any major event in any given country has the potential to cause a shockwave around the world. This made me see the conflict in Afghanistan in a different light. I began making the argument to people that the West Asian country is a haven for Al Qaeda, the group that ultimately conducted the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I also argued that such terrorists are a major threat to the security of our allies. With the people who questioned our involvement with the Afghan government and supported complete unilateralism, I made the point that the government is going to need to be able to adopt a democracy and support its people in order to stop the growth of terrorist and rebel groups in Afghanistan. As a superpower, we truly are obligated to protect our allies, leading NATO forces to destroy any threats.

As soon as I learned more about why the United States was in Afghanistan and became able to analyze examples of military involvement such as these, I became ashamed of what I did not know before and of the fact that I didn’t seek the information that I should have. I do not agree with the direction in which mainstream news media is going, but I think that it is the responsibility of every well-educated individual who wants to express his opinion to find trustworthy, reliable news.

It seemed as if I came late to some great debate. By the time I knew what was going on, the Army, Marines, and Air Force were already packing up, getting ready to go home. Public sentiment had shifted dramatically in the negative direction, giving the military very little opportunity to right the wrong in terms of strategy and continue employing “small war” counterinsurgency tactics, which have only been used for a short time in Afghanistan. Even though I am just a student with a negligible amount of political pull, I feel as if I could have made a difference if I had developed a sense of perspective sooner.

Pew Pew: Military Lasers to be fielded by the U.S. Navy.

      I'm sorry, where was your home planet again?

      On Monday, April 8th, the U.S. Navy announced that it was moving ahead with mounting a ship-borne laser on a ship bound for deployment for the Gulf of Arabia. The new laser system, much lighter and cheaper than previous designs, is expected to give the ship, the USS Ponce, a cheap, effective weapon for downing drones and small attack boats, such as those favored by Iran. The Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert has stated that the weapon would be able to destroy or damage small drones at $1 worth of electricity.
      Eventually, the Navy, and presumably other armed forces, want laser weapons to increase in power and efficiency to allow it to shoot down incoming missiles, aircraft, and larger targets. Current countermeasures either involved missiles, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per launch, or fast-firing defensive canons, which fire upwards of hundreds of rounds per second. Both are limited by the amount of ammunition carried as well as by the cost to operate.
      Contrary to popular belief, lasers are not bullets made of light, in the vein of Star Trek or Star Wars. Lasers behave almost exactly the way one would logically expect a heat beam to behave, that is, invisibly and incredibly accurate. Because heat in the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible, the only warning of a laser attack is something catching fire nearby and maybe exploding.
      The immediate benefits of replacing traditional kinetic weapons with lasers is a substantial improvement in range and accuracy, as gravity and wind do not affect light waves. A long term benefit is that ships will be carrying less weight, as shells and missiles are heavy and take up space.
      Also, lasers are cool.
      The navy laser is just the first project to be pushed towards field testing. The Army and Air Force also have their own prototype weapons, the former to shoot down artillery and mortar shells, the latter to mount of modified aircraft and provide a moving anti-ballistic missile system. The USS Ponce is expected to be redeployed in 2014.

Education

     I know that I touched on education in my first blog post, but I feel that it is too widespread and too significant to limit such a topic to a brief mention in an article.
     When I think about democracy as a whole, its successes and failures, how it could work better in some places and how U.S. policy could be different regarding the construction of new democratic governments, I notice a common thread. It seems as if every democratic government relies on the intellectual capacity of its people to survive as an institution that is truly controlled by its citizens. Since the United States has occupied Afghanistan, it has tried to establish a system where the Afghan population is involved in creating laws and representing themselves in the government. Unfortunately, Afghanistan's weak educational system has prevented the growth of a democracy similar to the United States and most European nations. It still excludes girls for the most part and much of the population remains illiterate. Afghanistan has established itself as a poor environment for democracy, solely because of its methods of educating its people, or lack thereof.
     What I feel is ironic is that the United States tries to impress democratic ideals upon nations such as Afghanistan, but Congress considers massive cuts to education quite frequently. What politicians from both parties need to realize is that education is the root of democracy. A more educated voting public insures that elected officials will be more qualified and less corrupt. It also has other perks, such as a stronger economy and better relations with foreign nations.
     Education is a long-term investment. This is why people are reluctant to allocate valuable capital to it. They worry that they will not see their returns in a timely manner. They see it as a leap of faith. But the truth is that money that is spent on schools rarely lacks returns. In the Cold War, the United States responded to the threat of an impending nuclear war and the spread of communism by strengthening the methods by which its children were taught. Math and science education reached a monumental high in the 1960s, as well as physical fitness education. Because of this, the United States was innovating at a rate higher than ever before for nearly two decades and its students were performing better than those of every other nation.
     I hope that it will not take another threat of nuclear proliferation to make leaders from both American political parties decide to invest in its people's intellectual capacity. It seems as if every day, people rant about how this country is going in the wrong direction and how they have little say in the government. Hypocritically, these same people refuse to vote on parcel taxes and other measures that have the potential to supplement schools with much needed funds to improve their pupils' learning.
     A solid education is the source of the commodity that is knowledge. Investing time, money, and political capital in education can provide better futures to United States citizens. It strengthens the government, involving more great minds in the creation legislature and providing innovative ideas to governments, from a municipal to a federal level, improving the U.S. as a whole.
  

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 5

Fourth Generation

      As technology far outstrips the abilities of a human, people, not necessarily commanders, realized that fighting a war against a modern military is tantamount to suicide, even more so than before, and suicide is only a strategy for inspiration. Nobody won a war by dying better than the other side.
      The fourth generation of warfare is a reaction, not necessarily to any previous generation of warfare, but to the technologies and power stemming from previous military and political developments. This style of warfare is the strictest interpretation of the expression "Warfare is a continuation of politics by other means." Instead of trying to even fight, fourth generation leaders use force to promote their goal.
      It is the ultimate merging of the military and the civilian sectors because no target is above consideration. Often, the ultimate goal is to persuade a greater power that, whatever their goal is, it is much too expensive given the economic, time, and human costs. Among the weapons available are terror, propaganda, secrecy, and if all else fails, force.
      However, fourth generation warfare is not just seen in these irregular groups. It can also be used by large countries wanting to avoid war.
      Here, I mean cyberwarfare. By avoiding costly and destructive war, large countries can retain their infrastructure while striking at each other. This is the warning of my entire column, that warfare is no longer measured in tanks, ships, and men. All of the previous eras of war have definitively shifted with a bang, but the beginnings can be seen years earlier.
      In this case, the cyberattacks flying between countries is the herald of the times to come. By the time the world wakes up to the era-changing bang, somebody will be on their knees, infrastructure crippled and economy drained.

      For the sake America's future, don't let that be us.

Possible Chemical Weapon Use in Syria

The United Nations has agreed to investigate accusations about chemical weapon use in Damascus and the Aleppo province in northern Syria. The United States viewed these allegations with skepticism, but the different claims between the Syrian government and opposition forces have called for verification from United Nations officials. The central government claims that it lacks chemical weaponry and that it would not use chemical power against civilians; opposition forces insist that they also do not have such weapons and do not have the ability to make them.

However, many military analysts believe that Syria possesses one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world. These stockpiles may include nerve agents such as sarin and VX gases as well as mustard gas, which is prohibited under international law.

Why would countries even use chemical weapons if they could possibly detriment their own people? Compare chemical weapons to nuclear power. Chemical weapons are relatively much less expensive and they are easier to stockpile. They can be used more frequently than the costly, few atomic bombs that countries create. In general, they can be easier for armed troops to handle and use at will. Especially in Middle Eastern countries, armed forces also view chemical power as a possible method of combating or at least deterring the nuclear weapons that Israel possesses.

Last August, President Obama stated that the Syrian government would be held accountable for use of chemical weapons within the country; use of or transport of chemical weapons would draw "a red line for us." If Syria truly is home to such deadly chemical weapons, will the United States finally become more involved in the Syrian conflict?

Rat and Nuclear Panic in Fukushima

During March 20, a power cut occurred in the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant which caused city’s power outage. The suspect: a rat.

It is no surprise that the tsunami-devastated Fukushima is still in recovery.  Tepco, the company that owns the nuclear power plants in Fukushima, is currently struggling to stabilize the cooling systems, which shutdown during the incident, causing instability in the reactors.

Luckily, the cooling to reactors themselves was not affected. However the system’s cooling water was infected with radioactivity as the nuclear rods failed to operate, which took engineer 30 hours to repair.

With further investigation, Tepco discovered the short circuit originated in a makeshift switchboard. Next to it, there lays a dead rodent covered in burn marks.

          Afterward, Tepco quickly concluded that the poor rat is the prime suspect of the city’s power outage, and also indicated that this incident reflects the fragility of the power plant after the meltdown 2 years ago. 

Finally, the company announced that the system has been restored, and the reactors are no longer giving off radiation. Nevertheless, the city of Fukushima has gone into a nuclear panic, all caused by this one rodent chewing an electrical wire. 

*Tepco has already released the picture of the scene which I find it unpleasant and decided to replace it with another "more digestible" picture.

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 4

Third Generation

      France and Great Britain's declarations of war against Nazi Germany seemed to be a repeat of the First World War. German discipline would come face to face with French determination and British heroism in a mighty clash that would ultimately result in Germany dashing its forces to pieces against the mighty Maginot Line, a line of fortresses bristling with cannons and machine guns. After all, the lessons of the previous war had taught elan was worthless in the face of the modern arsenal.
      One month and twelve days later, France had fallen, and the British had fled from the continent.

      First seen in the closing months of the First World War, third generation warfare is the opposite idea to second generation warfare. Instead of trying to force order onto a battlefield, commanders seek to create it. Junior officers are encouraged to take the initiative and act on their instincts rather than wait for their distant generals. Tactics now emphasize speed and mobility over firepower.
      Rather than destroying the enemy in pitched battle, third generation tactics aim to break through enemy lines and collapse his position by causing confusion in his rear and among his supply lines. The idea behind this method of fighting is to use clever strategies to overcome a material disadvantage, such as that faced by Germany during both world wars.
      Third generation warfare also differs from second generation warfare in the matter of home involvement. Previous wars had left populations largely intact, but third generation warfare makes a target of civilian populations. This should not be confused with the genocides perpetrated by the axis forces during the Second World War. A more accurate example would be the American and British bombing campaigns, which targeted industrial regions in German and Japan to try and destroy their production capacity.
      Rather than inflicting more casualties than the enemy can afford to replace, third generation strategy (not to be confused with tactics, which refer to plans on the battlefield) tries to destroy the enemy's ability to replace any casualties at all. Population is only targeted for its ability to produce, not for the value of causing more death.
      This manner of thinking will be reversed as we continue on to the fourth and current generation of warfare.

Risk

     In 2011, when the world watched in horror the tragedy of the tsunami and earthquake in Japan and the nuclear meltdown that ensued, I thought, "this may be the death of nuclear power as we know it." I knew that the world's opinion of using atomic energy to generate electricity would suddenly become more negative because the inherent risks of nuclear power would be brought to people's immediate attention. But, at the time, it did not have a significant impact on me. I did think that it was a shame that such an efficient method of  creating electricity would be abandoned, but I can't say that I was saddened by the inevitable decrease in popularity of atomic energy. "The risks of a meltdown or other malfunction outweigh the benefits" is what I thought.
     The last few weeks in my international relations class have been centered on an oil unit, where we learn about petroleum's effects on the world's conflicts, economy, diplomatic environment, and physical environment. It was in the first few days of this unit that I realized that all major methods of harvesting energy have risks. The oil trade stirs conflict between nations. It also significantly contributes to global warming, which experts have claimed will cause the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions, over the next few centuries. Making power by burning coal is inexpensive, but it also perpetuates the greenhouse effect at an exponential rate. The risks that come with nuclear power are different than those of carbon-based sources of energy, but they are ultimately equal to those of oil and coal over a long period of time.

Editor's note: I do not mean to marginalize the tragedy of what happened in Japan in 2011. 

Iran's Inevitable Nuclear Power Status

In light of recent events concerning Iran and it's nuclear weapons program, I have decided to dedicate a post to the convoluted question of Iran's quest to join the ranks of the nuclear superpowers.

There is implicit evidence in Iran's actions that proves that is developing a nuclear weapon. For one, Iran has (numerous times, in fact) concealed the fact that it had created facilities for nuclear enrichment. If Iran was constructing these facilities for the "peaceful purposes" for which it claimed, why would it need to conceal them? There is no doubt in my mind that these facilities were meant for the creation of nuclear weaponry. In addition, Iran has been adamant in continuing its nuclear program despite numerous sanctions being imposed, and threats of military action. If Iran had innocent intentions, it would have stopped its program then and there, and subject itself to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In my humble opinion, the question is not whether Iran will create nuclear weapons, it is when it will create them. Even though the sanctions are cutting into Iran's economy and wounding the oil industry, Iran shows no plans of backing down. This has multiple factors: Iranian pride, which would be shattered if the government bowed its head to the West and shut down its nuclear program ; the mammoth loss of rare resources, time, and equipment that it had already invested; the lack of any leverage that the general populace has on the continuation of the nuclear program due to the theocratic, nondemocratic government; and the idea that Iran had already known that it was going to receive these sanctions, and was ready to make sacrifices in order to reach its goal.

Both America and Iran both have done horrible things to each other. Neither can claim the higher moral ground, and say that they are right and the other is wrong. I believe the first step in creating a brighter tomorrow is for the two countries to formally apologize for past events, and most importantly create better communication between the two. The lack of understanding and trust between Iran and America will only lead to clashes in the future; in the globalized world of today, we can only hope that they can make up before it is too late.

The Iranian Nuclear Crisis

     Tonight was one of the best speaker sessions that I have attended since I have taken part in World Affairs Council events. It was titled, "The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Roundtable Discussion" and was based on Iran's nuclear program and its involvement in international politics. It gave me a better, broader perspective on the issues regarding the arguably most volatile state in the Middle East.

     The panel of experts began by building the background of the issue. Evidently, President Obama was on an Israeli radio station recently, saying that at the rate of which it is currently developing its nuclear capability, Iran is a year away from having a nuclear weapon. Next, the moderator brought up the P5+1 and its discussions with Iran. The P5+1, I learned, is the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the principal organization in discussing international politics with the Iranian government. This led to the topic of Iran's economy, which has seen a great deal of sporadic changes and instability over the past few years. Also, over the last seven years, Iran's government has collected sixty percent of the nation's oil revenue, which is absolutely colossal compared to other oil-producing countries. 

     Subsequently, the moderator asked the panel the ultimate question about this issue, "How can the issue of the Iranian nuclear crisis be solved practically while guaranteeing the safety of other nations?"                 Inevitably, the state of Israel was mentioned and a discussion about its position toward Iran's nuclear program ensued. Apparently, many members of Israel's government oppose using military force in an effort to discontinue the nuclear program. Citing the counterproductive 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq to halt their nuclear development, many believe that military action against a nation's nuclear program can act as a catalyst, speeding up the process of research and development.

     Most countries are obviously reluctant to allow the Iranian nuclear program to continue. At a conference, Vice President Biden declared, “Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period. Period. End of discussion. Period. Prevent — not contain — prevent.” The experts tackled a serious barrier that prevents us from being able to reasonably communicate with Iran: the fact that the United States, as well as the P5+1 for that matter, does not treat Iran as a sovereign state. A member of the Reagan administration pointed out that the United States needs to stop its policy of talking with Iran's leadership only when Iran complies with U.S. regulations and requests. This prevents many conversations that could potentially lead to agreements between Iran, its neighbors, the United States, and Europe. He also acknowledged that there is a high possibility that Iran does not want to develop a nuclear weapon to use offensively, but rather to use as a shield and a deterrent of attacks from Israel and Saudi Arabia.
     Additionally, the panel dismissed the commonly accepted idea that North Korea and Iran are working very closely to collaboratively develop nuclear weapon technology, despite the fact that Iranian scientists have likely observed North Korean missile tests. 
     

Half-Breed

My first encounters with others can often be described as humorous, yet puzzling.  After the smiles and my usual, “Hi, how are you?” my new acquaintance’s speculation process immediately begins.  It starts with my brown hair, my large, round eyes, and finally the curiously long surname on my notebook.  Then, after careful deliberation and an awkward silence, the observer finally asks the standard, “Wait, so what are you?” 

Annoyed, but prepared, my only response is, “Hmm… what do you think?”

With answers varying from French, to Filipino, to Mexican-Japanese mix, my seemingly unknown ethnicity has become a trademark I have gained throughout a majority of the duration of my high school career.  My facial features and hyphenated British and Taiwanese surname define me as a typical Eurasian.  However, the pervasive culture of my school says otherwise - especially when my race characterizes me as an outcast of the Asian “model minority.”

I usually ignore random bits of criticism thrown at me, whether it is about my “white people” style of dress or my lack of knowledge in the Asian cultural sphere.  However, this question that chronically seems to ask “Which planet do you hail from?” puzzles me.  I have dealt with small instances involving my race in the past, but I still have yet to understand why people in my neighborhood find “half-breeds” to be the newest anomalies.

Confused.  Lost.  Awkward - All three describe how I felt during my first two years of high school.  I first attempted to assimilate into my school’s culture by becoming depressed over ninety percent scores on tests and by laughing at racist jokes against Caucasians.  Yet, once the jokes impacted my own races on a larger scale, I finally began to wonder why one’s ethnicity plays such a large role in the characterization of another.

When we were kindergartners, nobody cared about who is Middle Eastern, Mexican, or Asian.  Yet, the innocence that we once had throughout elementary school slowly deteriorated as we all developed with an expanded pool of knowledge - one that includes racism.  Thus, with things such as terrorist organizations, Mexican immigration, and “Asian invasion” simmering into the minds of the world today, many sadly choose to characterize people by their race, instead of their overall personalities. 

With this realization, I felt guilty not just because I judged many by their race, but also because I lost my former beliefs in order to fit in with my school’s bizarre culture.  Yet, this guilt soon turned into a desire to change as I decided to stop competing against my classmates through quantitative means, learn how to actually enjoy my classes with genuine curiosity, and put more effort into understanding the various aspects and disparities between my own two cultures. 

With this new perspective, I learned “half-breeds” could learn Mandarin just as easily “full Chinese” students, conducted more research on my European roots, and eventually traveled to Taiwan alone and found the components of my lost culture that I was looking for.  Through the criticism I experienced due to my strange ethnicity, I was finally able to appreciate my mixed backgrounds through a new lens, and was also able to prove to my classmates that people not of Asian heritage could be successful in the academic world, as well.

Thus, whether I am from Indonesia or Mars, I now know how to assume both my Taiwanese and European backgrounds, and how to accept my true identity as a young Eurasian.  While many people I meet are still surprised by my Caucasian background and question my academic ability today, the main difference is that I now know to ask, “Wait, what difference does it make?"

I often think of "half-breed" as a way to describe animals rather than people of mixed ethnicities.