Category Archives: Security

China’s Air Defense Identification Zone: Stand Your Ground

ALEXANDER BOWE

The

The “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you!” school of foreign policy (Image courtesy of the Chinese Ministry of Defense).

In January 2012, a Florida man shot and killed his perceived aggressor and ignited a nationwide debate on self-defense. George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin quickly became one of the most hotly contested and publicly scrutinized cases in the US since OJ Simpson’s alleged murder of his wife in 1994. At the heart of the controversy was a legal principle known as “Stand Your Ground,” which states that in cases of self-defense, even in public areas, those who feel threatened are not obligated to first attempt to deescalate the situation or seek safety before resorting to force. Even though he knew of the law’s existence, Zimmerman did not, in fact, actually make his case based on this principle – nor did the prosecution seek to show that he had even had an opportunity to retreat – but nonetheless the public debate surrounding the case primarily focused on the law in part because the judge specifically ordered the jury to consider its implications in their deliberations. Florida’s law received a great deal of attention throughout the case, but this law is not unique to Florida: more than thirty states in the US have some type of Stand Your Ground law, either explicitly or through case law precedent, while nearly all fifty US states have some variant of the similar but more moderate “castle law,” which applies only to one’s home instead of any area. Critics of Stand Your Ground laws worry that the assurance of legal protection for reacting to any perceived threat legitimizes and enables aggression since the law (in Florida’s case) disregards completely the circumstances which led up to the confrontation; all that matters is that responding to a perceived threat is legitimate. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, Stand Your Ground laws negatively impact public safety and security “by allowing – and perhaps encouraging – violent situations to escalate in public.” Holder’s (and others’) concern is that under the protection of this law, Americans might, by escalating situations in ways that are nor overtly illegal or openly aggressive, deliberately allow confrontations to develop to the point where they will have a justifiable excuse to respond with force simply because they provoked their opponents into drawing first blood.

The text of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law reads, “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” In the Zimmerman case, many observers reluctantly concluded that although Zimmerman’s actions were arguably not truly in the spirit of self-defense due to the larger context of the confrontation, according to the wording of the law no legal outcome other than acquittal was ever likely. Juror B29 stated after the trial that Zimmerman “got away with murder… but the law couldn’t prove it… You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty. But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.” Even though evidence in the developing case indicated that it was highly likely that Martin was the first to actually use force by grabbing Zimmerman, striking him, and bashing his head against the ground, supporters of Martin stressed repeatedly that the confrontation would never have occurred in the first place if Zimmerman had not made the decision to leave his car and investigate a figure whom he subjectively deemed to be a suspicious person, which he had no authority to do and was told by 911 responders not to do. In sum, Zimmerman independently sought out and created a situation in which he then had a legal opportunity to respond with lethal force; the crux of the issue is that none of it would ever have occurred if Zimmerman had simply minded his own business rather than going out of his way to create a threatening situation to which he then felt obliged to respond. This principle is arguably the essence of China’s regional foreign policy as exhibited by its newly expanded Air Defense Identification Zone.

Since at least the 1990s, Beijing has been gradually escalating tensions resulting from contradictory territorial claims, but always in ways that are neither overtly aggressive nor blatantly illegal in order to maintain the carefully constructed appearance of non-aggression and “peaceful rise.” China and its neighbors have routinely patrolled contested waters in the South China and East China Seas in order to reinforce their control over the regions, but China has when possible taken the opportunity to subvert these attempts without being openly aggressive. In 1995, after a severe storm that forced Philippine naval vessels to withdraw from the contested Mischief Reef in order to seek safety, Chinese vessels quickly took over the area before the Philippine ships could return and – over the loud but ultimately ignored protests of Manila – constructed platforms to secure its ownership and control. More recently, Beijing employed a similar tactic when it double-crossed Manila after a mutual agreement to withdraw from Scarborough Shoal in the spring of 2012, claiming never to have signed the agreement, sending vessels to reclaim the area after both fleets had withdrawn. Beijing has also made use of this “salami-slicing” strategy on its western borders in disputes that are less widely reported in mainstream media but no less hotly contested: in areas whose ownership India also claims, China has sent troops to first secure control and then later construct camps and roads as a means of demonstrating ownership, a practice that has been utilized in the region since at least the 1950s. To date, Chinese salami-slicing has mostly consisted of moving into disputed but vacant territory and essentially planting a flag and maintaining a presence in order to be the new king of the mountain; since these areas have all had unclear legal ownership and no direct pushing out of foreign forces, China has been able to avoid actively initiating conflict and thus maintain its claim of “peaceful rise” with the exceptions of small border wars in the mid-late twentieth century.

More recently, however, Beijing has begun to display the kind of behavior that could arguably be characterized by the concerns reflected in Attorney General Holder’s comments above. As China has more aggressively begun to realize what it believes is its destiny of  East Asian dominance, its tactics have shifted from claiming disputed territories that are closer to its sphere of control through minimally confrontational means to now beginning to stake claims in regions where their arguments are much weaker or even totally baseless. When Japan mused on the possibility of shooting down Chinese drones that illegally entered its airspace, Beijing was quick to declare that it would consider such a response an act of war and would respond with force – even though Beijing’s illegal activity would have pushed Japan to protect its own sovereignty in the first place. In China’s eyes, its retaliation in this case would be an act of self-defense because it would not view itself as the aggressor in spite of its trespassing. Beijing has recently raised even more eyebrows with its newly expanded Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, which now explicitly includes the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands even though Japan arguably has the stronger historical claim and also conflicts with Japan’s previously established zone (there is no internationally agreed-upon basis for establishing such zones). China also was upset by Japan’s installation of anti-ship missiles in Okinawa this month, islands whose control is completely in Japanese hands. The missiles were installed to send a message regarding China’s aggressive encroaching on Japanese territory, which Japan intends to defend. China’s behavior has strayed toward the risk of creating conflicts in which it would then be obliged to defend itself, squarely placing the blame on the other country for initiating. This is the essence of the Stand Your Ground principle as it is reflected in Florida’s statute: considering a retaliatory use of force a legitimate instance of self-defense regardless of the events that lead up to violence, even if the party that claims self-defense deliberately escalates and creates its own confrontation throughout the encounter. As China acts increasingly aggressively in its claims on territory that is decreasingly in dispute and increasingly in control of its rivals, it seems likely that it will eventually force their hands in pushing back, which may be just what Beijing wants: the excuse to claim aggrieved status and retaliate even though the conflict was completely avoidable. In order to show firm support for freedom of navigation in open areas, which is a core policy driver for Washington (and to show support for its ally, Japan), the United States deliberately sent two bombers on a flight through China’s new air defense identification zone on Tuesday, demonstrating that the type of aggression demonstrated in the zone’s recent expansion – which threatens to dangerously upset the status quo – will not be tolerated.

Beijing’s rhetoric has consistently claimed that China’s is a “peaceful” rise, but such behavior is not in the spirit of peace or cooperation. If a person aggressively invades another’s space in an intimidating manner and dares him or her to “make his day” so that he has an excuse to hit back, we would not say that this person is acting peacefully. If a person breaks into another’s home and kills the inhabitant in response to the latter’s use of force under a castle doctrine, we would not say that this intruder is acting in self-defense. Protecting sovereignty is as much a fundamental right of countries as protecting life and limb is a fundamental right of individuals, but deliberately blurring the lines  of what counts as self-defense is dangerous in either case. In international relations, just as on the level of individuals, the right to stand one’s ground even after being the one responsible for creating the confrontation in the first place should not come at the expense of others’ rights to true self-defense, which should emphasize deescalation and appropriate, justifiable use of force.  When aggressive people learn that they can get away with initiating and escalating violent confrontations simply by claiming self-defense, what incentive do they have to act differently in the future?

Alexander Bowe has an MA in International Studies from the Korbel School and is currently a doctoral candidate in Political Science at Tsinghua University.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , ,

TKR’s Holiday Guide to Talking International Politics

If you stuff your mouth full of food at all times, you won’t have to talk to anyone!

The upcoming holiday season means family time, and thus plenty of opportunities for giant fights to break out around the dinner table.  Or perhaps your family is more civilized than ours (and by some happy coincidence, share the same opinion on everything) and can discuss the world’s on-going events without someone leaving the dinner table and storming out the door.  Or maybe you’re sharing the holidays this year with your spouse/best friend/partner/college roommate’s family and they are brave enough to discuss global politics.

In the event that you’re not quite up to speed on why the NSA is pissing off the world, the U.S.’ current relationship with Iran, what’s going on in Syria, or other goings on in the international community, The Korbel Report is here to help you successfully navigate your way through the holidays.

 To start, let’s determine if you need this article. You don’t need this article if:

  • Your Dad can name more than 5 heads of state;
  • Your uncles can explain the intricacies if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accurately;
  • Your grandma understands that less than 1% of the U.S. budget is allocated to foreign assistance;
  • Your sister dismantled chemical weapons factories in Syria; or
  • Those at the table who have studied abroad outnumber those who haven’t.

You do need this article if:

  • Your aunts think Africa is a country, not a continent;
  • Your cousins mistook Chechnya for the Czech Republic;
  • Anyone at the table thinks that the Fukushima disaster had anything to do with Pearl Harbor;
  • You have a cousin who just finished his/her first semester of college and took one political science class and is suddenly an expert on Israel and Palestine;
  • Your brother in law thinks Benghazi is still worth impeaching Obama; or
  • You’ve fallen down a job-specific rabbit hole, and aren’t sure what’s going on in all parts of the world.

We’ve broken down some of the most pressing, headline-catching international stories that might come up around the holiday punch bowl in the hopes that you can drop some knowledge on your relatives, impress your in-laws, or at minimum, give you a little ammo against the ill-informed. 

SYRIA
What’s going on there:
It hasn’t grabbed U.S. headlines since President Obama’s threat to intervene, but the conflict in Syria continues to rage on.  On August 21, Government forces in Syria used the nerve agent sarin to attack the town of Ghouta near Damascus.  A UN team of chemical weapons investigators later confirmed the attack.  In the wake of the chemical weapons attack, President Obama warned Syrian President Asad that it would face American military intervention if there were signs that its chemical weapons arsenal was used.  After President Obama’s threat, Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Syria to allow weapons inspectors into the country and take control of their stockpile, resulting in a deal in Geneva in September.  Since then, Syria has handed over control of their chemical weapons (prompting the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize to go to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), and the Syrian Army and its allies have launched offensives near Damascus and Aleppo.  As winter approaches the nearly 2.2 million Syrian refugees in neighboring countries, food, water, shelter, medicine are still scarce, coupled with freezing temperatures.  Many (especially children, who comprise of half of Syrian refugees) lack food, fuel, shoes, blankets, for decent shelters that are necessary to live in what is expected to be one of the harshest winters in years.  According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, approximately $4.4 billion is needed to support refugees for the upcoming winter, and only half of that amount has been raised.  Finally, in the most recent news regarding Syria, a report was released this weekend that concluded that over 11,000 children in Syria have been killed during the conflict, and are being targeted intentionally, by snipers, as well as being summarily executed and tortured.  

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“Mark my words, the Syrians will have nuclear weapons next.”
“Those people are barbarians.  We should just stay out, because they just all want to kill each other.”
“You know who’s the real winner in all of this?  RUSSIA.”
“Why don’t we just bomb them?”

How to respond:
Option A) You can get into a debate over intervention vs. non-intervention, even though the possibility of military intervention by the U.S. seems non-existent at this point in time.  Of course, this could lead to a real dark place in which you and your relatives get into a deep discussion about previous U.S. military and humanitarian operations (Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo), which then in turn, may lead to a discussion about American exceptionalism and the U.S.’ place in the world.  However, this could also lead to accusations about one’s level of patriotism and result in someone leaving the table.  Proceed with caution.
Option B)  Casually mention with a hint of snark that you play Call of Duty and you think you can figure out how to end the conflict based off of your video game experiences.
Option C) Make an impassioned plea to your family to donate to organizations like Oxfam, the Red Cross, the UNHCR, and other credible organizations to help Syrian refugees this winter.

THE NSA & EDWARD SNOWDEN
What’s up with that?
In early June the world found out something shocking: all this information we are transmitting to each other via email, phone, Skype, and snapchat (ok, maybe not snapchat…that’s secure) is being recorded—and guess what? The government wants to look at it! And they do look at it. Edward Snowden, a private contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton worked for the National Security Agency, broke ranks and leaked massive amounts of information to the London newspaper, The Guardian, about the NSA and the extent of its spying on everyone from US citizens to world leaders, all in the name of keeping ‘Murica secure. Snowden reveals his identity days after the first leaks, and then pisses off his girlfriend by running away to Moscow from Hong Kong, where he had gone to escape U.S. law enforcement. In a turn of events that anyone who has had to travel via Miami International can empathize with, he then realizes the transit area of Moscow area is far more punishing than any U.S. jail and starts to seek asylum elsewhere.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“Snowden is a hero/Benedict Arnold.”
“I’m with France/Germany/Britain/Canada on this one. Spying on your own people is just wrong!”
“This whole thing is just made up. There’s no way the wizard in the computer box could do all that. I can’t even set up my own email.”
“What’s that? Well, of course it snowed in Russia.”
“I don’t want Obama listening to my conversations with grandpa!”
“Why don’t we just bomb him?”

How to respond:
Option A) Point out that as Snowden remains in Russia with temporary asylum, his revelations have sparked a much needed debate about how we balance information privacy against national security in an age where all of us so willingly hand over the most intimate details about our lives via the Internet. Whether you consider Snowden a patriot, a dissident, a traitor or a vain-glorious celebrity-seeker, what is undeniable is that his actions have sparked a contentious but necessary discussion about what governments do in the name of our own protection, about the reach of corporations, and the relationship between the two.
Option B) Go more direct, and suggest that it is utterly contrary to any notion of democracy for a government that we elect to steal our personal information without our consent, whether in the name of our own good, or not. Just ask me first, okay?
Option C) Deflect: Because at the end of the day, why was Auntie Sheila Googling “octopus porn”?
Option D) Write an exasperated Facebook status update about how backward “the other side” of your family is. When your cousin reads it out over dessert, self-righteously accuse him/her of spying on you NSA-style, once you’ve had a few more seasonal libations.

THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
What’s going on with that:
This Labor Day, Business Insider gave a great overview of the global marketplace, touching on a few key themes. The United States has experienced better than expected growth. The EU is making a steady comeback, putting the Euro back on stable footing. Amid concerns that the Chinese government was going to crash–hard–the Chinese economy is still growing at a pretty steady rate. But even amid positive growth, many are still concerned about the number of jobs at home, and how an increasingly globalized world impacts the national economy.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“Why don’t we just sell more bombs? That’d make up some room in the budget!”
“This is all Obama’s/Bush’s/Wall Street’s/ high taxes’/China’s/Europe’s/the foreign aid budget’s/the military budget’s/etc. fault.”They took our jobs!

How to respond:
Option A) Ugh, getting into the technicalities of the global economy and its impact at the local level (say, on your poor uncle who just got laid off) is truly challenging. Heck, most economists don’t even agree on exactly what’s going on in the economy most of the time! If you’re reading this because most members of your family don’t know the difference between a fixed and floating exchange rate, this might be a good time to give ’em one of these:

Option B) The economy, by-and-large is getting better in the United States, the EU, and China. The real concern is that many developing economies (Brazil, India, etc.) that were on the rise before the 2008 recession were hit hard, and haven’t recovered well. This not only hurts those countries and the people in them, but it weakens the overall global economy.

U.S. – IRAN RELATIONSHIP
What’s going on there:
The US and Iran have been at odds with one another for over three decades, and many believe now is the time to act. Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani assumed office in August and many believe a rapprochement is now possible. Serious talks have been taking place between Iran and the P5+1 countries (comprised of the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, plus Germany) on reaching a compromise on Iran’s nuclear program. Major improvements were made during the Geneva talks at the beginning of November, but a deal was not formally made due to hesitations by France (not by Iran or the US). While President Obama has stated many times that military action is not off the table, many see a diplomatic resolution as the only viable solution. Given the American public’s wariness of another war in the Middle East, Iran’s threats of an all-out regional war and the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz if Israel or the US were to strike, and the innumerable logistical issues with striking a country as vast as Iran, military action would be both naive and dangerous. As for Prime Minister Netanyahu, over twenty years ago, he solemnly swore that if action were not taken, Iran would have nuclear weapons within five years. And this same rhetoric has been used nearly every year since. It is becoming very clear that Israel’s uncompromising stance is becoming more and more unpopular as both Iran and the US seek common ground.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“Israel is going to attack Iran if the US doesn’t take a more firm stance. They seem really serious this time.” (Try not to spit mashed potatoes on great-aunt Janet when you try to stifle your scoff after hearing this one.)
“Why don’t we just bomb them?”
anigif_enhanced-buzz-14447-1385051049-19

How to respond:
Option A) Discuss how great it is that last weekend, the U.S., Iran, and 5 other non-important world powers signed an agreement that would temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions on the country.  Because, hey, global compromises on nuclear programs are something to be thankful for!
Option B) Sit back and roll your eyes while your family calls Obama weak and powerless while discussing how much this hurts Israel.
Option C) Mention to your family you can look up on the internet how to build a nuclear weapon.  However, proceed with caution on this one, since the NSA is probably watching.

CHINA
What’s going on there:
China is at a crucial point in its planned development. The model that has caused its economy to grow at stupendous rates for the last couple of decades appears to be starting to falter, and the Communist Party is currently deliberating on which reforms to introduce in order to increase the sustainability of its growth and eventually overtake the US as the world’s leading economy, which has been a goal since the Mao era. The Chinese military is also rapidly modernizing and expanding its power projection capabilities, particularly in the South China Sea and Yellow Sea. This past weekend, China demarcated an “air-defense identification zone” over an area in the East China Sea, which covers the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.” Japan has protested this escalation in setting up such an airspace.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“The Chinese are going to try to compete with us militarily! I’m telling you, it’s going to be another Cold War if we’re lucky or another hot war if we’re not.”
“We owe so much money to the Chinese that it’s inevitable that at some point they’re going to come calling, looking to repossess – Sarah Palin said so.”
“Just look at what Communism does: hundreds of millions of people suffering from human rights abuses, toxic air and water, and a completely corrupt government that values money over human life.”
“We should all just start speaking Chinese now.” “We should stop them now, when they’re still weak.”
“You know, we have the Chinese to thank for Pacific Rim’s making enough money to warrant a sequel. I say, let them keep developing.”

How to respond:
Option A) Explain that China has mostly been an aggravation to its neighbors, and its economic ties to the US make future conflict between the two very unlikely. In discussing US-China relations, it is important to note that diplomacy is not a zero sum game, and in the future, there will be more that the US and China can accomplish together, rather than apart. For your McCarthy family members, it can be appeasing to note that the US still remains in a very integral and relevant role in the international community. Our soft power – encompassing our values, culture, and convening abilities – continues to outpace China. The US capacity for foreign aid is still the largest in the world, and it continues to be the largest donor to international, multilateral efforts.
Option B) Stare are your family as they eat Chinese food and complain about immigrants and just. say. nothing. 
Option C) Pick this to be the perfect moment to announce that you’ve recently acquired a Chinese girlfriend/boyfriend. If you want, say that things are getting really serious, so your parents should get ready to not only accept your new partner, but potentially half-Asian grandbabies!

THE UNITED NATIONS’ RELEVANCE
What’s going on:
Despite a recent bi-partiasan Gallup poll demonstrating that most Americans have a positive view of the UN, it’s certainly not uncommon to hear people screaming about how the UN is undermining U.S. sovereignty.  In 2012, Texas voters and voter fraud groups criticized the deployment of UN-backed election monitors for the 2012 Presidential Election.  There are a million and a half examples of how citizens, Members of Congress, and conspiracy theorists think the UN is destroying America and the rest of the world, but we don’t have time to get into all of them.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“Why don’t they just use bombs?”
“The UN is destroying America!  All that good for nothing organization does is support terrorists trying to destroy this country/take our money/undermine our ability to do what we want!”

How to respond:
Option A) Acknowledge that yes, we all know the UN has a less than perfect record (ok, a downright awful record) when it comes to peacekeeping, addressing climate change, Syria, and a whole host of other issues.  However, the UN isn’t a crazy, independent organization run by aliens, it’s run by Member States (plot twist: The UN is the U.S. brain-child, created after the failure of the League of Nations), and if the world wanted the UN to work, it would.  If Members wanted to address climate change, they would.  If they wanted peacekeeping operations to work, they would.  You’ll recall the UN said no to George W. Bush when he wanted to invade Iraq; it didn’t seem to stop him when the UN said no.
Option B) Ignore the comment and pour more wine.

CUTTING U.S. FOREIGN AID TO FIX THE BUDGET
What’s going on with this:
American opinion towards foreign assistance has been polled since 1995. And the result? Americans have consistently overestimated the percentage of federal funding allocated to international aid. The overall median estimate is that the government spends 20% of its budget on assistance. Some more recent polls, perhaps reflecting our engagements in the Middle East, show that figure rising to 25%.

The same individuals were also asked to state what they believe a more appropriate level of funding is. Their response? 10% of our budget, which is 10 times greater than actual spending. Secretary Kerry would leap for joy if his funding could reach the levels that Americans believe to be appropriate (and for the sake of job security, we’d love it too). Though public estimates grow in accuracy with education level, those who have completed a college education or higher still estimate spending to be around 15%. It is extraordinary that these levels of overestimation are so persistent, though perhaps it is because there are no strong domestic constituencies calling for their Congressmen to send money abroad. But in this increasingly globalized world, what happens elsewhere impacts the factories and farmlands of America. And the Department of State and USAID contribute to the health and security of individual Americans, and their local economies, all while having less staff than all the members of military bands combined. So this holiday season, do your part to educate your loved ones, and spread some foreign policy cheer for the growth of American soft power abroad.

What you may hear at the dinner table:
“These morons in Washington, all they do is spend, spend, spend!  We’ve got $17 trillion in debt, and we’re still giving money to countries that hate us?  I know how to solve the debt crisis – just stop giving terrorists like Pakistan money!”

How to respond:
This one is rather simple.  Politely point out that, give or take, 1% of the total U.S. budget is spent on Official Development Assistance (ODA), and wouldn’t have much of an effect on the U.S. budget.  If you’re feeling bold, you can always point out that in 2011, the U.S. spent 20% of its federal budget on the military and steer the conversation towards reducing military spending (which is currently happening).  However, if you’ve got a few Hawks in your family, this could be problematic.

Also, on a related note, please feel free to spread this graph, which shows that Obama has been keeping his pursestrings tighter than any of his recent predecessors, including both Bushes and Reagan.

DOMESTIC POLITICS

Ron-Swanson-Re-Think-That-Move-Son-Parks-and-Recreation

On the whole, Americans know more about domestic affairs than foreign affairs (or they at least think they do). Most people are more likely to care or know about the things that are impacting themselves and their family: education, the economy—things like that. It’s much more personal than talking about what’s going on “over there.” There’s a lot that could come up here, but regardless of the partisan stripes found at your family’s table, misinformation is bound to rear its head.

What could potentially come up:
Immigration reform, the recent government shutdown, the debt ceiling, filibuster reform, the Tea Party, the American Care Act (ACA) aka “Obamacare,” the miserable ACA website rollout, new Common Core curriculum, weird conspiracy theories involving the Kenyan government, Ted Cruz, America is “morally corrupt” (please, someone, tell me what that even means!), Sarah Palin, gun control, abortion, the JFK assassination, Area 51…the list is almost endless.

How to respond:

Option A) Don’t walk—RUN. Remember that part where these issues are really personal to all the people sitting at your table? Remember how no one can even agree on how to roast the turkey? Yeah. Unless you have one of those families who miraculously agrees on all political issues, or who can—perhaps more miraculously—calmly and rationally discuss their differences, stay far, far away from discussing things like healthcare, the Government Shutdown, abortion, gun control, or comparisons of Obama or Ted Cruz to Hitler.  It will only end in head-banging frustration as one or more of your relatives angrily flips over a table full of poultry and stuffing.
Option B) Go for it. Either you’re from one of those miracle families, you’re very brave and on a “but I can teach them” kick, or you’ve got some metaphorical kerosene and match ready to burn up those familial bridges. We’ll leave it up to you to represent the point of view you find most pertinent on the issues of the day. Just try to remember that you’re probably going to have to see all of these people again.
Option C) Enjoy yourself, and devil’s advocate the heck out of everyone. “Troll” your family, as the kids say. If you make everyone’s politics into a big laugh fest, maybe you’ll steer the conversation back to something more tame and make it through dessert with everyone still on good terms.

You are now ready for a battle royale with your family.  We hope that we were able to help prepare you for your upcoming holiday obligations.  Eat, drink, passionately argue, and be merry!

Taylor Gibson worked as lead author on this post, with input from several TKR staff: Alexander Bowe, Morgan Day, Maryam Kar, Alison Lowe, and Xian Zhang, with input from guest writer Michael Briggs.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Last Call for a Resolution

MARYAM KAR

Last Thursday, a new round of talks began in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 countries. The P5+1 countries are comprised of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, plus Germany. Observers of the talks seemed quite optimistic given the understanding stance of both the United States and Iran in recent talks.

There is certainly reason for this optimism as a rapprochement between the United States and Iran is seen as more viable now than ever before. During the UN General Assembly in September, there was a historic phone call between President Obama and the newly-elected moderate, President Rouhani. Moreover, Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, are spearheading the current negotiations. This is the highest-level face-to-face interaction between American and Iranian government officials in decades. The involvement of such high-level officials clearly indicates seriousness on the part of both countries in trying to resolve this issue diplomatically.

The Geneva talks were expected to bring a resolution to Iran’s controversial nuclear program, which it claims is solely for nuclear energy, medical treatments and research. Other countries, specifically Israel, the US and some Western European allies, are of the opinion that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons and is deceiving the IAEA and the world. And some countries were not shy to express their honest opinions about a resolution. Secretary of State Kerry arrived at the talks after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu was very open about his dissatisfaction of a possible resolution. “This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and defend the security of its people”.

Israel seems to have attempted to do everything it needs to stop an agreement, as the talks took an unexpected turn for the worse, when many believed a resolution was near. As Western and Iranian negotiations were putting the finishing touches on a resolution, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius joined in the talks last minute and the negotiations unraveled. Shortly thereafter, the talks ended with plans to resume again on November 20th. France has become one of the most important allies to Israel after the US, and it seems this triggered the unraveling of the negotiations. Prime Minister Netanyahu was not ready to accept a resolution that would allow Iran to maintain its nuclear capabilities and possibly reduce certain sanctions in return for transparency.  Netanyahu, along with neo-conservatives on Capitol Hill, are very much of the belief that the sanctions are working, and should be increased to mount pressure on Iran. Prime Minister Fabius was in agreement with Netanyahu on this point and refused to accept the resolution in its current format.

While the Obama Administration is pushing for a diplomatic solution as a means to protect the US, Israel and its interests in the Middle East, a rift is quickly growing between the US and Israel on its strategy towards Iran. After Netanyahu’s disapproval of a deal before the Geneva talks began, Secretary of State Kerry publically asked certain countries to not jump to conclusions before knowing details of the proposed deal. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest also dismissed criticism from Israel over a deal as “premature”.  Israel’s uncompromising stance, while praised by certain neo-conservative lawmakers back in Washington DC, is becoming more and more unpopular. This window of opportunity to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue will not be open forever, and Iran and the US are aware of this.

If a better compromise is reached in the coming weeks, then France and Israel are not judged as harshly. However, if talks do fail, “France may have effectively scuttled any option of ending Iran’s nuclear program without using military force, something no country — including Israel — wants to do.”

This delay in the talks till November 20th could be detrimental if proponents of war and additional sanctions build momentum in Congress. This has put the White House on defense in vocally calling for Congress to approve of a diplomatic solution and an alleviation of sanctions. As Congress debates increasing sanctions, Secretary of State Kerry has stated that he believes it would be a “mistake” and suggested a temporary pause. He was also expected to brief members of the Senate Banking Committee at a closed-door session later in the week on this issue.

Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council says that it is clear that the US Administration and others want a deal signed before a debate on sanctions heats up in Congress again. “Part of the reason why the talks continued until 2 a.m. in the morning on what was in reality the fourth day when they were supposed to be two days is precisely because of the awareness on all sides, except for the French, that if they don’t get something now, it’s going to be more difficult.” Momentum is currently very high to reach an agreement. On November 20th, Iran and the P5+1 countries need to remember that the security of an entire region is at stake. If all parties do not make compromises, everyone will come out a loser in the end.

Tagged , , ,

Trouble in Mindanao

Overview of the city as government forces attempt to free hostages from the MNLF

Overview of the city as government forces attempt to free hostages from the MNLF

COLIN LAWRENCE

A lot of blood has been shed in the last few weeks: suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; shootings in Chicago, Kashmir, and Washington, DC; and hostage crises in Kenya and the Philippines. Some of these conflicts are well-known and well-publicized. Over 200 members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) entered Zamboanga City and seven neighboring districts, taking hostages and boarding themselves up in government buildings. The historical background of this conflict is less well-known but no less important.

The fighting between rebel groups, based in Mindanao, and the Filipino government has been going on since the late 1960s.  Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Korbel Report’s Weekly Link Roundup

Happy Monday! The staff of The Korbel Report spends its fair share of time on the internet staying up-to-date on a wide-range of international news and trends. Here’s a list of the articles, blog posts, and resources we found interesting, enlightening, or infuriating over the past week:

Did we miss your favorite link from this week?  Let us know in the comments, on our Facebook page, or Twitter @korbelreport.

Tagged , , ,

The Korbel Report’s Weekly Link Roundup

The staff of The Korbel Report spends its fair share of time on the internet staying up-to-date on a wide-range of international news and trends.  Here’s a list of the articles, blog posts, and resources we found interesting, enlightening, or infuriating this week:

Did we miss your favorite link from this week?  Let us know in the comments, on our Facebook page, or Twitter @korbelreport.

Tagged , , , ,

Syria and the Trolley Problem

Courtesy of Neuroethics Canada.

Courtesy of Neuroethics Canada.

ALEXANDER BOWE

Imagine that you are standing at a junction in train tracks with your hand on the lever. You can see a train barreling toward you from the left; you can also hear the engineer’s frantic whistle blows. You look to your right to see what or whom the engineer is trying to warn and notice a group of people – say, five or six – tied to the tracks directly in the train’s path. You start to pull the lever in order to change the train’s trajectory to the other track, but then suddenly notice that the other track has one person tied to it in the same fashion. Therefore, you have two options: either do nothing and allow a large group of people to die, or act and directly cause the death of a smaller group. What do you do?

This dilemma is known as the Trolley Problem and is well-known in the philosophy field. First proposed by Philippa Foot in 1967, it is a thought experiment that allows us to examine hypothetical situations by applying reason and ethics. Like Lartéguy’s Ticking Time Bomb, Nozick’s Experience Machine, and Rawls’ Original Position, Foot’s question has had a lasting influence on how we think about ethics. If her proposal sounds familiar, it is because it is in essence the same dilemma the US under President Obama faces regarding the Syrian civil war: whether to act and potentially cause additional deaths or to remain passive and simply allow the current deaths to continue. Some critics have pointed out the futility of engaging in even more killing in order to stop killing that is already happening and others have responded that it would be worse to allow Assad’s slaughter to go on unchecked (For now, let us leave out the additional ethical variable of chemical weapons since it has not been proven conclusively that Assad’s regime has actually used them), in effect validating his actions. It is rare that political theorists are able to so directly apply abstract thought experiments to real-world issues, so this opportunity should not be squandered.

The side of the argument that favors intervention could be said to adhere to consequentialism, which is the notion that the end result of an action is more important than the morality of the action itself. Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

The Question of the Day

Win McNamee/Getty Images

General Martin Dempsey, Secretary John Kerry and Secretary Chuck Hagel testify in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

XIAN ZHANG

As a complicated issue of how to uphold an international chemical weapons convention, without becoming entrenched in a foreign country’s civil war, Syria is a fine balance between doing too little and doing too much. Toss in broad uncertainty towards the parameters of a limited kinetic mission, and it is unsurprising that it has managed to unite bipartisan support, both for and against US intervention.

Opponents of the resolution question whether US strategic interests are truly at risk, what the limited military response would accomplish, and why more states have not pledged their participation when this is not only President Barack Obama’s red line, but “the world’s red line, humanity’s red line,” according to Secretary of State John Kerry. They also question the timing, and what precedent this sets for American intervention in the future. Some Congressional members are skeptical of whether either side is worth supporting, perceiving a dictatorial regime on one hand, and rising radicalism among the rebel groups on the other.

Sec. Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel responded that the focus is not upon choosing a side, but upon what the US should do in direct response to the breaking of an international agreement. Their main strategic goal for this limited military strike is to detract from President Assad’s ability to utilize chemical weapons in the future. It is clear the Obama administration would like to avoid involvement in a civil war that is in desperate need of a political solution. Sec. Kerry and Hagel also repeatedly asserted that it is in our best interests to enforce an international standard that protects American soldiers and allies in the region. Iran and North Korea were evoked, as cheerleaders of US inaction. Sec. Kerry goes on to assure representatives that, based upon current intelligence, he is 100% confident President Bashar al-Assad will continue to utilize these weapons routinely, if the US remains idle.

The global response has been lukewarm. The UK voted down military action, Russia continues to question who utilized the weapons in the first place, and Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have petitioned for greater international action against President Assad. As neighbors of Syria, they hope to avoid an increased volume of refugees and are one “stiff breeze” away from future chemical attacks. Members of the Arab League have pledged “significant” funding for US action, with France, Canada, and Australia pledging public support as well. As heads of state convene upon St. Petersburg, the intervention issue is sure to overshadow economic discussions at the launch of the G-20 summit today.

So, what do you think? It seems the flight of a few cruise missiles is nearly inevitable, but do you believe it should happen? Is this an issue of the US being led by emotion – having to prove its credibility, or are we discussing the larger issue of reinforcing international conventions? Unpredictability and risk abound, but there is one thing we do know for certain: the US will be criticized regardless of what it decides, so will we be paralyzed by the no-win scenario or will we show a higher caliber in the American decision-making process?

It is also important to note, in such a simplified poll, that two people who have the same answer may have wildly divergent reasons for those responses. As noted above, Syria’s ongoing civil conflict remains a complex issue with many moving parts, and strong regional, international, short- and long-term ramifications, so it is not surprising that individual American responses to our upcoming actions in the country will be equally mosaic.

To see how your responses compare to a national survey, here is what the Pew Research Center found among American adults between August 29th – September 1st. 

For live updates on this dynamic issue, the New York Times maintains highlights and breaking news on its dashboard, “Crisis in Syria.”

Tagged , , ,

Unleash the dogs? Considerations about US action in Syria

BRIAN JOHNSON

As of this post being written, the Obama Administration has not yet given authorization to push the buttons, turn the keys, or light any comically long fuses required to launch strikes on Bashir Al-Assad’s regime in Syria. A last minute play to include Congress in the process means that it is unlikely to see strikes begin until after Congress comes back in session on September 9th. However it seems that, in this town at least, it’s a forgone conclusion that it’s not if Tomahawk (TLAM) missiles start dropping on Syrian bunkers, but when. As recently as last weekend, the National Security Council discussion vis-a-vis a response to chemical weapon (CW) use in Syria was solely focused on what type of military intervention should take place. With the administration set on acting (barring any Congressional inaction), and spending time gauging the appropriate amount of force to use, debate has broken out across the foreign policy landscape. This is my addition to the debate, an argument against intervening in the Syria Civil War. There are really three broad questions to ask.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

Human Rights Monitoring, Google Glass, and the Right to Privacy

COLIN LAWRENCE

Google glass prof

I’m a big fan of new technologies in general, and the introduction of Google Glass has me really excited. Will I be able to afford one? No. Will most people? At $1500 for the current developer-oriented kit, I highly doubt it, unless you work somewhere on Wall Street. What intrigues me about Google Glass is it’s potential for human rights monitoring projects.  Not to mention the other technologies that have become available in the global struggle for consistent and reliable accountability mechanisms.

Simmering conflicts around the globe have spawned numerous allegations of human rights abuse but are often areas of limited access. Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: