Young Diplomats

The roar between Iran and the US has many dimensions. The U.S has, almost, lost its interest in the Middle East and Iran has emerged as a regional power, along with Russian support, raring to challenge the interest of any power in the region. The deploying of the aircraft carrier in the region by the US is a precedent which gives insight to the relations between two countries. The US has imposed sanctions over Iran in order to build pressure over Iran’s economy. Iran has already been feeling the taste of sanctions and its economy is tumbling. However, the US cannot afford to engage Iran in the Strait of Hormuz to build more pressure over the Iran; Iran could block the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has option to make difficult; the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan; Iran could severely damage the US interest in the Middle East and could threat Israel directly, the real ally of the US in Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategically important strait that links the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman. The Strait of Hormuz is considered to be the main artery of the oil from Middle East. It is due to its importance, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz several times in recent history. It is estimated that more than 20 % of the world’s oil flowed on ships through the Strait of Hormuz daily; it is almost equal to 17 million barrels of oil.  The world has never seen the closure of the Strait of Hormuz despite many threats .However, if the Strait of Hormuz closed down it would hurt Iran’s economy as well. Iran’s economy mainly depends on the shipment of oil through strait. In addition, any closure of the Strait would likely cause war between Iran and the U.S and generate new tensions in the region between Iran and the other countries. So the engagement between two countries is unlikely.

Moreover, America is serious about the withdrawal of forces from the Afghanistan to end seventeen years long war of Afghanistan. American have shown clear intend to reach negotiation with Taliban to end the war and establish peace in the region. However, if America engage with Iran, it would be difficult to withdraw from Afghanistan with peace. Little support from Iran to Taliban will seriously hurt the American interests in Afghanistan. Iran enjoys considerable support within Afghanistan and if Iran aims to damage American’s interest in the region it could do easily through proxy war with support of Russia. America is not in position to engage Iran in the region; already America is facing challenges from China and other powers.

Lastly, Iran could damage other American interest in the Syria and Iraq. Iran has considerable support within Iraq and Syria. With diminishing interests of the America in the region could severely hurt the interest of the Israel in the region. The power of the Israel in the region shapes around the power of the America in the region. The new block is already in the making in form of alliance between Iran, Russia, Turkey and Pakistan. Interestingly, if America loses its interests in the region it could severely damage the Arab interests in the region. So, in a nutshell the bullying of Iran through Aircraft carrier is just to pressurize Iran diplomatically to bring the Iran’s government to table for new deal of Nuclear. Future will tell the how things will shape the geo politics of the region.

Raging debates contest over various issues of the board which reign from Economic to major security problems, though the arguments pertaining to International Policies are often very complex they may be simplified by dividing them into two fundamental doctrines or perspective, the Hawkish policies which means policies that advocate a more aggressive solution which could pertain to embargos, aggressive lobbying or even some cases limited warfare. Dovish policies, in contrast, favor reconciliation, compromise, and diplomacy.

In the raging debates between both sides, each side accuses the other of being completely irrational and incomprehensible with popular slurs used against Hawkish reducing them as “warmongers” and “Violent”, whereas Dovish are often labeled as “weak” and “indecisive”, which threaten National Security at best and at worst may be accused of having a soft spot for Terrorist organizations.

The truth, as always is complicated and largely lies in between the conflicting sides, each side whether Hawkish or Dovish polices consider themselves to be Rational while considering others to be irrational. The truth, however, is that both sides have legitimate concerns and are rational in the pursuit of their own goals. The problem is that those goals are different due to different assumptions.

The fundamental difference in the Rationalization between Dovish and Hawkish policies is that of its fundamental assumptions. Before we proceed it is important that we understand the importance of assumptions, assumptions in Social Sciences are fundamental beliefs or perspectives which are considered truth, though the verification of this truth may vary all individuals have the assumptions, and those assumptions are important in International relations, as these assumptions shape the worldview of international politics.

The assumptions of each side must be discussed and understood at an intimate level. Without which we cannot proceed. We will firstly start by detailing the assumptions regarding the Hawkish policies. Contrary to the beliefs of Dovish policymakers, Hawkish policymakers are not warmongers who would like to do nothing more than to fight wars and are bloodthirsty. Such distorted images about each other, lead to walls being formed which results in increasing hostilities against each other. The fundamental beliefs of hawkish policies are that the world is not just. The world does not have an established order we live in an environment of chaos. And in the environment of international chaos, we must defend ourselves from dangerous elements such as nonstate actors or aggressive states. In such an environment we need to defend our selves and establish a security paradigm. Here security paradigm does not mean safety from state aggression or terrorist attacks but economic security as well which includes food and job security. In short, they see the states in a struggle to survive in a harsh geopolitical climate. The hawkish policymakers see themselves as defenders of their nation and guide them by making prudent policies which maximize their survival.

Dovish policymakers, in contrast, believe in the establishment in a world of order, this world order can only be achieved via the policy of reciprocity. If we do not honor our international agreements and prefer peaceful ways to conduct our state affairs on an international level no one else would. They believe that conflict begets further conflict and that if we are to establish a world order based on peace and mutual respect, we have to lead by example. Our focus should instead to build on welfare states, states which promote welfare. It is important to note that hawkish states and policymakers are in no way against welfare policies, in fact, some hawk8sh state does indeed have successful welfare policies. However, their emphasis is on security and not welfare.

Hawkish policymakers, therefore, see that proactive defense preemptive strike policies and over-reactive defense policies and noninterventionism. The fundamental dilemma between these two aspects is what defines the majority of dovish and hawkish argument. Take the issue of policy of foreign interventionism,  states often debate whether they should interfere in the matters of other states. The argument seems obvious of course not, that is by dovish policy Makers. However, upon closer inspection, we realize that the argument is not so straight forward.

The high rate of battle causalities in the ongoing Libyan civil war have mounted to more than 200 along with thousands of people injured and displaced as per the statement of Libyan officials. Libyan National Army (LNA) supporting Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar is engaged in a grueling war of attrition in a bid to take over the capital Tripoli since two months.
Haftar’s confidence of taking offensive against UN-recognized Government (Government of National Accord) led by Fayez-al-Serraj comes from the fact that he has tacit approval of majority of international governments. That is the main reason that there is no lull in the fighting, despite a call for National Reconciliation conference by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Haftar is being provided arms and ammunition by UAE. Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even France have yet to strongly condemn the ongoing fighting, even during the holy month of Ramadan. Russia vetoed a statement by the UN Security Council which urged the LNA to halt its operation and move towards the capital. An EU statement to stop the fighting has also been blocked by France, which has its oil assets established in Eastern Libya; controlled by Haftar’s forces . This has annoyed Italy to a great deal, since her oil assets are in the region controlled by Fayez-al-Serraj. Hence the internal conflict within a
country is lingering because the international powers are not coming to terms with each other on account of varied reasons. The conflict has dragged to a stage where a serious humanitarian crises is imminent, with civilians having the most to lose. Normal life has been disrupted with the economy going down the drain. The cost of living has risen, hospitals are
short of medicine and travelling unsafe. A large number of people have fled their homes to save their lives from indiscriminate shelling and gunfire. Such state of lawlessness is a perfect recipe for creation of power groups and terror organisations.

ISIS has recently claimed responsibility of an attack of Haftar’s forces which saw nine soldiers’ dead. Such attacks may be a precursor to the terror organisation gaining grounds, which it has lost in recent times. The fighting has certainly given ISIS a much needed breather and time to reorganise. This displacement should be a source of concern for many western governments, as they will see an influx of refugees at their borders. With nationalism and populism on the rise in Europe due to fear of refugees taking away jobs, this immigration could end up in a series of fresh hate crimes against the immigrants/ refugees.

Bordering countries like Tunisia, Algeria and Sudan will also take the toll, who themselves are not politically stable will also take the toll. It is surprising to see that major powers have not learned any lesson from the continuous instability in Middle-East for almost an entire decade. Proxy wars between the major states in Syria have achieved no clear victory for any group and have only resulted in misery, death and destruction. ISIS emerged due to the same power struggles and has now spread towards South Asia. ISIS has been active in North Eastern Afghanistan and claiming to have ingress within border region of Pakistan. Recent bombings and terrorism carried out by ISIS in Sri lanka has also emerged as a new threat in the region. The menace of ISIS is attracting many youth joining its cadres, who are radicalised through its social media campaigns, who are not confined to Muslim countries only.

No war in recent history has been decided on the battlefield and the warring parties ultimately sit on the negotiations table to settle their differences. What is stopping the international community to put their foot down and force a truce in Libya? The world cannot sit aloof and let the conflict linger hoping that the fighting and its after-effects will remain confined to the country only. It is time for the United States of America to step in and resolve the issue as per the directions of UN Security Council. President Donald Trump has an opportunity to show much required pragmatism and bring all the stake holders to find a common ground. Negotiations may take time, however, a cease-fire would be the first step towards progress.

The United States is in need of economic recovery. Many parts of the country has been in decline since after the Second World War. Sove have even been in Simple solutions like tax breaks and urban enterprise zones simply will not cut it anymore. There needs to be a fundamental change from the ground up.

 

Many other countries are already doing something transformational to their economies. China is launching the Belt and Road Initiative. India is doing the Made in India Initiative and the Act East Policy. If the United States doesn’t do something similar, the United States will lag behind.

 

What makes it more complicated is that because the United States is so big and vast, with its population not evenly distributed, and encompassing a wide variety of different terrains, means that a one-size fits all approach to economic recovery simply will not work.

 

But, there are some universal policies that can be implemented.

 

The first policy is to strengthen the social welfare. One cannot recover quickly from economic recovery without a strong social welfare net. Lawmakers can do this by implementing universal health care, as that has been proven to help in the spawning of new businesses.

 

The second policy would be on the promotion of local business through small banks, particularly in rural areas. If there are no small, local banks, there cannot be small, local business. The United States needs to support more local banks, more Henry F. Potters, and George Bailey’s, if you will.

 

The third policy is to address debt. Debt has an effect to hinder economic growth. As John Adams said “There are two ways to enslave a nation: One is by sword, the other is by debt.” Most causes of debt are concerning medical costs and education costs, as well as predatory loans from businesses engaged in predatory lending, like the funeral industry and credit card industry. One way to address this to to implement universal healthcare, tuition free colleges, and cracking down on predatory lending.

 

The fourth policy concerns wages. Jobs mean nothing without wages. People must be paid good wages. One can accomplish this by enacting policies that raise wages.

 

The fifth policy concerns labor unions. History has shown that the stronger the labor unions, the stronger the middle class. In order to achieve a strong economy, one must invest heavily in strengthening labor unions. Such ways to do so include striking down right to work laws.

 

The sixth policy concerns competition. Healthy economic output and productive economy cannot happen without the ensuring the establishment of healthy competition. This was realized in the economic policies of Ludwig Erhard, established in West Germany at the conclusion of the Second World War. Ludwig Erhard enacted an economic philosophy known as ordoliberalism, where government would act as a referee in a game of free-market competitions to ensure that everyone is following the rules and that the game is fair. Laws to enact-that include anti-monopoly laws, and trust-busting laws.

 

The seventh and final universal policy concerns urban planning. It has been proven that cities with a strong urban core have more prosperous economies than cities without one. Policies to improve cities include getting rid of mandatory parking laws, abolish zoning laws, and investing in public transportation by building more rapid transit lines (subways, elevated lines, light rail, etc.) and replacing buses with streetcar trolleys.

 

Now, onto the different regions. Including the Overseas territories, you can divide the United States into six regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, West, Caribbean, and Polynesia.

 

NORTHEAST

 

The Northeastern United States consists of Virginia, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine. This region has historically attracted immigrants from around the world for its abundance of ports, banks, and textile mills, notably Irish, Germans, Italians, Jews, and Slavs, among others.

 

The politics of the region are progressive on social policy, progressive on public policy, and centrist on fiscal policy; pro-gay businessmen, so to speak. The elections are dominated by the more left-wing metropolitan cities over the conservative rural areas, as the overwhelming majority of the population in the Northeastern United States lives in metropolitan cities.

 

The region has never been a strong center of heavy industry, although Baltimore and Wilmington did have a massive steel base. New Jersey, a historic center of innovation, was also a center of industry, notably centered in six cities: Newark, Paterson, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Trenton, and Camden. New England, as well as Orange, NJ, was also a center of textile manufacturing until the 1920s, when they left to find cheaper markets in the Southern United States. Holyoke, MA, was known as “Paper City” due to its abundance of paper mills, until they left to find cheaper markets as well.

 

So what is the solution? Technology. Upstate New York is already doing this by transforming into a hub for nanotechnology, Albany in particular. Other industries that the Northeastern United States could transform into include nanotech manufacturing, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, aerospace, and 3D-printing. 3D-printing could also herald in a new era of manufacturing, with the manufacturing of things such as artificial organs, low-cost houses, and new building and be clothing fabric, the latter in particular fundamentally transforming how we impact with our environment.

 

Another thing to do is vertical farming. As more people live in cities, vertical farming will provide an abundance of food year-round. This could be done in old textile mill buildings.

 

There are measures that policymakers can do to insure this. The first is by creating policies that promote and incentivize the formation of startups. Rather than attracting businesses that already exists, a sign in a robust economy should rather be the rise of new businesses. Policies include the promotion of local banks (which I mentioned earlier) as well as tax incentives.

 

MIDWEST

 

The Midwestern United States consists of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. The region is known for being a bastion of heavy industry, due to its abundance of natural resources, and it’s flat terrain making it perfect for transportation. While this area was once a strong, economic powerhouse, the area has been on a steady decline since after the Second World War.

 

The politics of the region is centrist on social policy, progressive on public policy, and progressive on fiscal policy, with the population evenly distributed across the region. Union membership is high here, with pro-union sentiments very strong.

 

Now, before one must discuss the future of heavy manufacturing, one must discuss the history of industrialization in general.

 

At the turn of the 20th Century, there were only four industrialized nations on Earth: Germany, Belgium, Britain, and the United States. In the time between World War One and World War Two, Russia, Ukraine, and Japan also industrialized. But, as a result of the Second World War, the other industrialized nations were reduced to rubble. This meant that the United States enjoyed a period of prosperity as there was no competition in the world that could touch them.

 

But this was not meant to last. Eventually the destroyed countries rebuilt, and by the 1970s, there were new industrialized nations; China, South Korea, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Canada, and Sweden. Eventually Mexico and Israel also industrialized. In the future, new industrialized nations to compete with the United States include India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Brazil, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Kazakhstan. The United States will now figure out how to compete against at least 22 other nations on the global market.

 

There is something about the history of industry in the United States that also needs to be addressed. It is only natural that as industry grows, people demand more in wages and benefits, and the cost of manufacturing increases. The reason why people see manufacturing as a means to jumpstart economic growth is because it is, well, just that. One cannot understand economies unless one thinks of them like children; eventually, they grow up.

 

But there is one country that has bucked this trend: Germany. Despite high labor costs and strong union membership, manufacturing in Germany has remained strong since the Great Recession with hardly any manufacturing jobs in Germany being outsourced to China and other low-cost developing nations. If the United States is to rebuild and revitalize its manufacturing base in order to compete on the world stage, the United States must copy the German manufacturing model.

 

Now, many economists argue that the German manufacturing model, or Middlestadt, is built on foundations that may be tied to the German culture, and thus very difficult to replicate elsewhere, in spite of the fact that the Midwest is predominately of German heritage, as it was settled by German immigrants, and many elements of traditional German culture still remain in the Midwest. But, there are some things that can be replicated in the United States.

 

The first is that German manufacturing companies specialize operating in a specific-niche market of high end products where quality is more important than quantity. While American manufacturing companies  manufacture products for customers, German manufacturing companies manufacture products for clients. Such examples include the manufacturing of tunnel boring machines, machines that cut metal for the production of Iphones, toilets, windows, etc.

 

The Second is that Germany has a strong apprentice program that makes it have an abundance of skilled workers, and thus a very favorable place for manufacturing companies to set up shop, whereas many manufacturing companies have reported on a serious lack of skilled labor in the United States, and thus American factories have no choice but to automate in order to compete.

 

This brings up a serious topic, automation, that has to be addressed before we go any further.

 

Many people have said that to combat automation there needs to be implemented a universal basic income. Finland has experimented with Universal Basic income, the results have so far appeared to have been good. But we are not yet at full automation yet, and thus do not know if the same results will be upheld if full automation is implemented.

 

There is also a second factor to automation that also needs to be discussed.

 

All-human factories are inefficient, as people require break and medical expenses. But all

-robot factories have their problems as well. They are expensive to maintain, but more importantly, they are big, bulky, and dangerous pieces of equipment. The fact that they build giant gates to segregate them from humans in order to prevent injury also lessens efficiency.

 

In response to these two different scenarios, many manufacturing companies have tried a third option: cobots. Cobots are robots designed to work with humans. Ford has installed them at their plants in Cologne, the end result has been proven to be that a human-robot hybrid plants have had higher productivity than either both all human or all robot plants, and have had to hire more people as a result.

 

One also needs to look at automation through a pragmatic perspective. While one can theoretically automate a bartender, the likelihood of bartenders being automated is extremely unlikely. This is for the same reason that companies prefer assembly lines; there are some thing that are run more efficiently by humans, and there are some things that are run more efficiently by robots.

 

A second thing concerning the pragmatic outlook on automation is that people need to be trained for skills of the future. This is where the United States government steps in. The government can set up vocational schools evenly distributed across the entirety of the country.

 

Aside from manufacturing, there are two other industries that were dominant in the Midwestern United States, coal mining and steel making. While these seem like two different industries, with a different past, they may share a common future together.

 

Coal mining was active in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The industry declined due to automation, health hazards, environmental hazards, and the rise of renewable energy and natural gas. Steel making was active in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and declined due to, among other things, lack of modernization.

 

This brings up a fundamental problem with US policy. Because the infrastructure of the United States was not destroyed during the Second World War, there was little incentivization to modernize. This ultimately came back to haunt the United States, as the countries that did modernize ended up outperforming the United States. Such ways that they modernized include recycling old steel through minimills, as well as continuous casting.

 

But there is a future industry that has remain untapped that will revolutionize the future, and fundamentally transform the American Midwest: Graphene.

 

There has been a very important question about the usage of coal no one seems to be asking: Is there uses for coal other than as a fossil fuel? Indeed, there is. Coal is carbon, the main ingredient for graphene. The uses for graphene are enormous: Biorobotics, superconductors that can charge electronics in seconds, light processing, a source of energy, water filtrator, medical sensors, building lubricant, waterproof coating, ultra-tall skyscrapers, etc.

 

Another means of acquiring coal is carbon capture technology. This could bring a whole new future for small coal mining towns, as they become epicenters in the fight against climate change. Not only that, but, as it does not appear that the fight against climate change will ever fully end completely, these small towns could remain stable for several generations.

 

This could also bring a new wave of technological innovation to the American Midwest and even give silicon valley a run for its money. Old steel mills can be converted into graphene production centers. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know how to produce graphene on an industrial scale.

 

THE SOUTH

 

The Southern United States consists of Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. The land is known for its rural towns, rich food, rich music, and massive poverty. The politics of the region is centrist on public policy, conservative on social policy, and conservative on fiscal policy, with the church very strong, although this is slowly changing.

 

The South was once very wealthy, with much of the wealth deriving from slave-based labor in cotton fields. But since the abolishment of slavery following the end of the American Civil War, the south has been in a continuous state of poverty. People there had been working as sharecroppers, and then mechanization meant the end of that profession. Today, most people just live off of small farms.

 

Now, one cannot continue to discuss economics of the South, or any particular region, without discussing geography. For the destiny of a country cannot be determined without its geography. The reason the Northeast is more commercial and the reason the Midwest is more industrial is due to geography.

 

For the Southern United States, the geography has its limitations. The geography of the South means that it is good for agricultural, but is not good for heavy industry. This is due to a multitude of reasons. One, there are little to no industrial resources in the South. There is only one industrial city in the South: Birmingham, Alabama, which wasn’t even around at the time of the American Civil War. Southern cities are great centers of logistics, but not much else. As a result, there has been little incentive for Southern to move into the cities to find work.

 

The Second reason is that there is a reason the Midwest is good for industry. The terrain is flat and good for transportation, while the South is very mountainous, with thick forests make it hard to grow industry. What makes it more difficult for the terrain of the South is that the soil is great for cash crops, but poor for other types of agriculture.

 

But there is a cash crop that can help the South move into the modern age. Hemp.

 

Hemp’s many uses include fuel, fiber, building material, bioplastics, paper, jewelry, rope, and biofuels. This would bring a new wave of industry, as the South becomes a new hub for medical and other companies.

 

Now, the ultimate question remains: How do we protect these types of industrial jobs from outsourcing and sent off to low-cost developing countries? Well, the simple answer is to create an economic zone that makes American low-cost manufacturing, like hemp manufacturing, primarily center its products on American markets before exporting its products to foreign markets, rather than just prioritizing mass producing all across the globe wherever those markets may be.

THE WEST

 

The Western United States comprises the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. The West is known for three things: Agriculture, energy, and abundance of mineral resources like gold and silver, as well as the promotion of science and technology. Let us break down each individual things one at a time.

 

First, agriculture. The United States has the greatest potential for agriculture out of any country, due to its vast abundance of rivers and fertile soil. But, even so, the United States could try to maximize its agricultural output. There are a few ways the United States could do it. First, the United State could invest in high-tech agriculture, meaning products like drones, automated tractors, and satellite farming. Second, American Universities could be created to help people learn modern farming techniques and collaborate with tech firms to integrate new high tech farming methods into American farms.  Third, the United States government could create regional information centers for farmers to be updated to the latest in farming technology to make farms more productive and more energy and resource efficient.

 

Second, energy. The Western United States is rich in oil reserves, particularly in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska. Now, oil cannot last forever. Eventually, it will run out, and the United States will have to search its energy for other means. And that means going to renewable energy. Fortunately, the United States has the greatest potential for renewable energy out of any nation on earth. States such as Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, and California could be home to large arrays of solar panels. Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Idaho have strong potential for wind power. Many other Western States, such as Alaska, have strong potential for geothermal energy.

 

This brings up the topic of climate change. The United States must make a large portion of its economy into fighting climate change, as it seems like it will be a concern for all future time. Such ways it could do that include carbon capture being installed at all of its power plants, as well as replacing oil refineries with algae refineries. Algae biofuels hold enormous potential as a source of energy, as they can do all the functions oil-based gasoline can do, and soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the process.

 

Third, mineral resources. The West was driven by its vast reserves of gold and silver. However, this came to an end as a result of the Great Panic of 1893, when the value of gold and silver, the base of US currency at the time, and key to American industries in the East, rapidly plummeted as the industrial bubble burst.

 

Besides currency value, there is one other prominent uses for gold and silver: Computer circuitry. Idaho has already taken advantage of this, and become a technology hub. Other Western states can do this by having circuitry companies build electronic factories in the manufacturing of computer circuits.

Aside from these three things, the Western United States is also investing in the future of aerospace; Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico in particular. The United States government can further increase this and become the leader in space by partnering with private companies to further develop this industry. The ultimate way, though, for the development of space to take off, is if space, and the exploration of space, is commercialized.

 

There is one main industry that has not yet been put into the mainstream: Mining for resources in space. Though the technology to make this is still far from mainstream, Luxembourg has already invested considerably into this industry. When this industry becomes more developed, space will be more commercialized. The United States government must support the development of this technology.

 

THE CARIBBEAN

 

The Caribbean consists of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Since these are not states, but rather overseas territories, implementing these efforts will prove to be more difficult than in the previous regions listed.   

 

There are many other setbacks that hinder economic development for the region. The terrain is not very well-suited for farming. The region has no raw materials to extract. This makes it so that the region has to import the overwhelming majority of its products from elsewhere. Plus, the region has a brain drain problem, with people who grew up there leaving the region to move to Miami and New York the first chance they get.

 

The geography of the region, though, has a great deal of potential. Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands sit at the center of major shipping routes, as cargo going through the Panama Canal on it’s way to ports in the Eastern United States and Western Europe pass through. If the economy is to grow, it must capitalize on this.

 

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) the complete devastation inflicted on the region caused by both Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria give us the opportunity to start from scratch and build something new in place of the old.

 

And what is this new? One word: Singapore.

 

Singapore is a major economic hub, in large part because the policies of former leader Lee Kuan Yew capitalized on the fact that it sits next to a major shipping artery. The success of Singapore has caught the eye of other countries who wish to replicate their success, notably Rwanda. To rebuild and revitalize, the Caribbean U.S territories must look to Singapore. This would fix the problem of a brain drain, as many who left to go to the main United States will return, and since these are full-American citizens, thereby speeding up the process of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

 

This brings up two topics that need to be addressed: Immigration and gentrification.

 

The issue of gentrification has to concern mainly with the issue of white flight. After WWII, many whites began moving to the new suburbs, and, in doing so, took their money with them. This caused the value of whole neighborhoods to plummet, and new black communities began to move in to them. However, they were unable to compensate for the money lost in white flight, due to a number of reasons, notably zoning laws that favored wealthy communities over poorer ones. But now, white flight is being reversed. The descendants of those who went to the suburbs are now moving back into the cities. In doing so, the value of neighborhoods are going up and money is being poured back in. Hence, neighborhoods are being gentrified.

 

But rather than appealing to the working-class families who moved into the suburbs and now wish to move back in, many developers build housing to the upper middle class, and, as a result, entire neighborhoods of cities are too expensive. This also has a significant impact on traditionally minority communities who are then forced out by more white, upper middle class residents.

 

Now, there are many reasons for gentrification happening. The main reason being not enough housing. Some reasons for this policy include zoning restrictions on housing development, forcing many developers to make housing more expensive. Again, one can look to Singapore for answers, as their housing policy is among the best in the world.

 

The second issues concerns immigration. White flight caused an empty space in the urban neighborhoods that they left behind, that was filled in by low-income low-skilled immigrants from Latin America and the Southern United States, as well as a new round of tensions that culminated in the riots of 1967, the long-term results are still being dealt with to this day. As white flight is reversed, will there be a brown flight? There may very well be one, indeed, there has been a small but noticeable movement of blacks returning to the Southern United States. And, if lawmakers in Washington D.C are not careful, the current reversal of white flight could result in a second 1967.

 

A second factor concerning immigration is the type of jobs immigrants do. Immigration has historically only occurred in relation to labor shortages. This will continue into the future, with supply and demand controlling how many immigrants a country will let in at any particular time.

 

However, these new jobs are jobs that require skills, and, even in a labor shortage, these new immigrants will have to be in skilled labor. Furthermore, this means nothing if companies circumnavigate the process by hiring unskilled labor for low wages instead of American citizens. The reason why there was a golden age of immigration from 1865-1924 was because the United States government looked to expand industry after the American Civil War, but had a severe labor shortage and were unable to fill in the new factory jobs. And since these assembly line jobs required little to no skills and little to know education, a wide casting could be thrown to collect large hordes of immigrants with. Obviously, times have since changed.

Ultimately, any revitalization of the economy to compete with other developed nations, as well as the cracking down of corporations who hire undocumented immigrants over American citizens, will result in the mass exodus of immigrants from the United States to other nations that, although not fully developed, are an industrial power, similar to the state the United States was in the late 19th and early 20th century.

 

Mexico is at this state in its development right now, and immigration will help grow its rising industrial strength. This is also good for the United States, for a number of reasons: First, it lessens the burden of its welfare systems. Second, by helping the Mexican economy grow, and make Mexico a more stable country, the United States solidifies its woes on the Southern border, and help make the United States-Mexico border no longer a national security risk for the United States, and U.S Mexico relations would evolve beyond their current standing, which centers around the idea of giving each other a wide berth, a position that the two countries have regularly been at since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

 

Unfortunately, Mexico is reluctant to open its borders and liberalize its economy. Mexico has one of the strictest immigration laws on Earth, and no one from inside the Mexican government is willing to change that. The United States can change Mexico’s mind with a variety of methods, the most effective appearing to be a carrot and stick method approach with Mexico.

 

Another thing with regards to immigration concerns the prospect of economic sustainability, and having an economy that is immune to outside forces, as well as a stock market that doesn’t rapidly fluctuate. Immigration, in particular mass immigration, can result in a mass disruption to economic sustainability. This is primarily due to the burden on the welfare state it could cause. Yet, the American culture psyche, possibly even the American economy, could be as addicted to immigrants as the Chinese economy is to debt.

 

So what does this have to do with the Carribean? Well, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin (Puerto Rico more so) offers the perfect spot for American inner city residents pushed out by gentrification. The fact that the region is at the bottom in terms of economic development means that there is nowhere for the region to go but up.

 

THE POLYNESIA REGION

 

Our last region, comprising Hawaii, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, is Polynesia. The region comprised of small scattered islands, blessed by fertile soil due to its volcanic activity, but also cursed due to its frequent hurricane activity.

 

Like the Carribean, there are little natural resources, little means of industrialization. Other than Hawaii, the other Polynesian regions are not in a location to capitalize and become another Singapore. The main industry of the region, not just for the U.S territories in Polynesia, is fishing. And it is through fishing that the economy of the region will prosper.

How? Fish farming. Like how the Dutch modernized it’s land-based agriculture, the United States must modernize its sea-based agriculture. Fish farming has many benefits and help spur economic development. By farming fish, rather than catching fish in the wild, it creates sustainability and increases productivity, boosting exports and causing economic output going to up.  Policymakers in Washington D.C. as well as in the territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa can implement legislation of support the creation of fish farms and aquaponics.

 

This grafting tactic has been tried before. Kuwait, before the discovery of oil, was a major exporter of pearls, until Japan simply grafted pearls creating an endless supply of pearls, driving Kuwaiti pearl companies out of business.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In addition to building up the economy of these six regions, one must also intertwine the economies of these regions with one another, otherwise you will have the United States breaking up into six separate countries. Now, while this is not impossible, it is difficult.

 

This is primarily due to geography. One reason Europe was so successful in intertwining their economies was because of Europe’s compactness. For good economies to flourish, one must have a large amount of cities evenly distributed across a region. The United States, on the other hand, is not compact; its population is not evenly distributed. In some parts of the country, major metropolitan regions cannot be found for hundreds of miles, while in others, they overlap.

 

The best way to intertwine the economies is with infrastructure. In particular, transportation infrastructure. The United States must upgrade its railways, roads, and airports, and build high speed rail. While most high speed rail would probably not cross state lines, some, such as a New York- Chicago high speed rail, would help intertwine the economies of entire regions. As well as transportation infrastructure, electricity infrastructure also helps link the economies, by expanding a building a single, national power grid, and where the electricity of one town can be generated on the other side of the country.

 

But this mainly concerns the lower 48 states. As to how to intertwine Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa with the Continental United States, and with each other, one must go wireless in infrastructure.

 

The United States must expand its internet service. One way to do that is to follow the Estonian model and allow for the creation of free public wifi across the entirety of the country. In this day and age, a country that does not invest in its telecommunications falls behind on the world stage rather quickly.

 

Another thing when it comes to economic development is jobs. While there may be plenty of jobs in one location, there may not be enough people in that area, while in other areas, there are too many people and not enough jobs.

 

This is where the United States government steps in. The United States government can, for a brief period, at least, bus people from one place to the next, homeless people in particular, to see to it that everything evens itself out.

 

This brings up the question of how people who are homeless can find jobs and a house, particularly if they don’t know the skills. One solution would be to mimic the South Korean Chaebol system: Where the company must provide homes and job training for its workers. Now, the Chaebol system is not new to the United States, as many coal mining towns were built by coal mining companies to house their workers. And the chaebol system does have its problems, as it does cause high levels of stress, high levels of suicide, and high potential for corruption that is often exploited, and may, in the end, be on the decline.

 

Ultimately, nothing is perfect, but this economic plan is, in my view, the best plan to revitalize the United States of America.

Donald Trump has recently announced through a memo his will to change policies on immigration. This new policy guidance is considered as being the answer of seekers asylum question in the country and has been thought in three parts.

First of all, the President of the United States would like to prevent asylum seekers coming in the USA thanks to the right of work but having their asylum right or documents expired. Nowadays, when the immigrant see his asylum demand expired or himself expelled from the country having a work permit, he could stay. With this new guidance, he has to leave the country and this, even if the permit is still available.

Even if he did not specify, the idea is to turn the asylum demand for a pay fee. The problem is, in order to be considered as being in an asylum demand situation, people have to leave their country due to political instability, war, and fear his own country. Many of the people coming because of these reasons, have no money and only their families. For now, we don’t know if it would turn into a pay fee.

Moreover, is previewed shorten the delay of delivery of the asylum claim. The Administration would only have 180 days to grant an asylum claim to the immigrants who wait for it. After having get an answer from the immigration service, immigrants have to pay it for getting it. We can take it as being means to do a selection of people coming in the US territory.

Another point; when immigrants come in the US territory, they often present themselves as being a part of the same family, sharing the same blood. According to reports done by the immigration service, there are thousands of immigrants pretending being family whereas they have not any blood link with each other. How does it happen? First of all, there are adults who find children alone and pretend being here with them. Then, they request the asylum demand.

They are a lot asylum seekers using this strategy to get their documents. To avoid this. Donald Trump has the idea to make some DNA tests over those immigrants coming illegally and without any documents. How would this test take place? It will need to be done over immigrants by taking some saliva sample, and then those samples will be analysed to verify, if yes or not they’re from the same family.

All of this, has been issued in a memo to the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to change the asylum admission process. We wonder now, if this guidance will be voted and applied or, does it just represent the will of the President Trump to have more control over immigration ?

Middle East is reputed for citadel of civilizations. It is the cradle from which various self- assertive civilizations like Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian, and Ottoman originated and flourished. Competition among Empires to dominate the region, and struggle among colonialist states to have control of the lion share of resources, pitted Arabs against one another on one pretext or another. The vital instrument to put various Arab tribes hands down against one another was Sectarianism. Sectarianism gave rise to non- state actors like Al-Qaida and ISIS and Terrorism. Today, Middle East region is dominated by the rifts of Sectarianism and Terrorism. These menaces can be expounded from multiple dynamics that how they dominated the region, and how once fountain of civilization now became spring of terror.

Middle East was reputed for its traditions of Pharos in Egypt for centuries. Then various civilizations developed respective Empires like Babylonian, Persian and Ottoman Empire. These Empires propagated their respective civilizations across the region. The inevitable consequence was the clash. The clash led to the disintegration of Empires over the course of time. Ottoman Empire was the last one which ceased to exist as a result of the First World War.

History detests vacuums whether it is political, social, or economic. Once Empires became part of the past, there was need to install a new setup in its place. This vacuum was filled with a new political system- known to the world with the name- Nation- State system. This contemporary nation state system didn’t succeed in erecting edifices over the ruins of Empires but resulted in further destruction and violence.

Though contemporary Nation State system was well known in the West and suited that society, but it was an alien system to the nomad Arabs. Second, Nation State system was antithetical to the Tribal structure of the Arabs. Third, states which were created out of Middle-East were based on the arbitrary lines drawn by Colonialists- to meet their coveted ends- without the indigenous knowledge of territory and people. These arbitrary borders carved out by Foreigners sowed the seeds of animosity and bitterness among Arabs. Hennery Kissinger writes in his book, World Order, that the dilemma with Muslim world is that it is pursuing two different world orders i.e. Caliphate and Westphalian simultaneously. On one hand these states are established and functioning in accord with the Westphalian International Order, on the other hand people are demanding caliphate – an Islamic world order- at the same time. These two separate but contradictory orders added to the instability of the region.
There is contradiction between state and society in Muslim World. State is based on the western liberal institutions like parliament, election, political parties etc. while society is extremely religious nostalgic of the golden era of Islam. As compared to West where state and society are reinforcing each other and difference between the two is vanishing, in Muslim states state and society are antithetical to each other and difference is increasing instead of decreasing.

Contemporary map of Middle East is the remnant of the colonialism, nevertheless, Arabs tried to create unity among Arab states. This unity was shattered by the blows of Sectarianism, which entered the scene lately. Zoroastrianism – fire worship- was the first religion which appeared in the Middle East and Islam was the last religion which made its entry to the region and prevailed. Golden Age for Muslims of the region remained from 7th to 11th century. After this climax, anticlimax made its way. The decline assumed the shape of Sectarian dissents in the region particularly between Shia and Sunnis sects.

Sectarianism dominated the region especially after the successful Iranian theocratic revolution in 1979. The revolution created fear of Iranian preponderance in the region and sparks of revolt in rest of the Arab states, where Shias were residing. The revolution posed a serious threat to the hegemonic status of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In order to counter the ripple-effects of the revolution Saudi Arabia started sponsoring various militant groups for the discharge of job on various states. In the same way Iran extended its helping and supportive hands towards those Shia’s militant groups which were involved in subversive activities against the Sunni Government. This sort of polices fanned the flames of terrorism in the region.

Balfour declaration added fuel to the burning fire in which Middle East was frying. Creation of Jewish state in the land of Palestine, was an increment to the existing unresolved plethora of problems. Zionist agenda in the land of Arabs led to four Arab-Israel wars. The creation of Jewish state on the land of Palestine is perceived as a forcible occupation by the Muslim world, which appeals forthwith evacuation. This provided an opportunity to the already functional terrorist factions to wage Jihad against Jews and liberate the Palestinians. So circumstances drifted towards worst rather than good.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Sadam, And Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini attempted to become leader of the Arab states. Iran was the leader of Shiite States in the Middle East. While Saudi Arabia was the leader of Sunni dominated states. Foreign actors like United States of America and Russia were also involved in the region supporting their own blocks Israel has become a powerful state, it defeated United Arab front in all the wars. All these competition for hegemony, ideological conflict, foreign interventions, and Israel and non-state actors have made Middle East an explosive mixture which upon a mere spark can explode at any time. This explosive mixture exploded so many times in the shape of Arab- Israel wars, Gulf wars, Iran- Iraq war, Saudi-Iran conflicts, Iraq invasion by USA, and terrorism along with the rise of ISIS, which has dominated the scene in the region.

Oil resources has become a bane in disguise for the Arabs. Time appeals for the use of petrodollar for the security and welfare of the people. Arab states have to drift away from the extreme religious ideologies towards democratic moderate ideas and principles. Arab and Iran should desert their proxy groups and stop financing them. United Nations must reach a win-win solution to the Palestine-Israel problem. State ought to integrate the society gradually and erase the difference between western state and Muslim society. Middle East should reclaim the status of being the cradle of civilization and disown the titles of sectarianism, Extremism and Terrorism associated to it.

After fighting Taliban for over a decade in the soil of Afghanistan, USA has finally started the negotiating phase with them. The recent peace talks are stimulated by the Trump’s decision of isolationism in the context of Afghanistan and his reiteration that Great nations do not fight endless wars. USA along with some major regional players (Pakistan, China, India, and Russia) is in talks with Taliban to end the ongoing war between them. Zalimay Khalilzad, USA’s special representative for Afghanistan, spent the last year in talks with Afghan Taliban in closed door sessions trying to formulate the road map regarding the principles of their talks.
The first interaction of the both parties was in December 2018, where they sat on the table to start discussion on the peace talks that they are going to have. The role of Pakistan was very crucial in making Taliban sit at the negotiating table as they were not ready to do that before. After that USA realized the importance of the Pakistan that can be very helpful for the future of the peace talks. In the month of March, this year, Taliban and USA had the longest talking session of the two weeks where they agreed on the four clauses that are further going to direct the direction of their peace talks. These issues include; counter terrorism measures, troops withdrawal, comprehensive ceasefire and intra afghan dialogue.

For Taliban, the USA’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is the only incentive for the peace talks as they have clearly stated recently that if USA would back out from their promise of withdrawal, they are not going to hold the peace talks anymore. They want a complete road map of withdrawal from the relevant US authorities before moving on. Zalimay Khalilzad is constantly doing his part of diplomacy to make this work but be also had to face a lot of resentment from within the lobbies from Afghan Government as they see him as a person who wants to become the “viceroy” of Afghanistan.

One of the biggest problem about this ongoing peace talks is the absence of Afghan Government from the previous session of talks where Taliban asked for Hamid Karzai as the representation from Afghanistan instead of anyone from the Government. Because for them there are only two parties to the conflict of Afghanistan; Afghan Taliban and USA. On the other hand Ashraf Ghana’s government thinks that USA can accept the Taliban’s proposal of the interim Government instead for going to elections in the coming July.

Talking about the prospect of peace talks, it is very important to take all the stake holders on board before going to any final decision-making in order to make the talks successful. USA is trying its best to keep the process fast as they want to withdraw within year or two but complete withdrawal of USA from Afghanistan, without any post war work, would create another historical civil war in the country for gaining powers. It would be the same mistake that happened in 1989 right after the defeat of the Soviet Union when USA abandoned this region. It is very necessary to understand that the ability of the afghan government to build a secure society without any substantial foreign intervention is the real challenge for the United States of America.

Recently, Taliban agreed to meet the delegation of Afghan Government and the next round of peace talks is going to start in Qatar but it is very important for both the parties to move ahead with concrete intentions rather than just rhetorical statements. Keeping in view the current circumstances, the July elections are not going to be free and fair at any cost without any chaotic situation. So, whether it is Ashraf Ghani or any XYZ that comes into the power their main challenge is to bring peace and stability in the region that is more required than ever.

After nearly two decades of heavy human and material cost , the land of Afghanistan deserves to witness the ultimate stability and calm and that can be bring about by ensuring the authenticity of the ongoing peace process. Keeping in view the various complex issues of the region, the Afghan peace process needs to be inclusive for all the stake holders. This will lead towards the devising of the strong and fruitful peace plans that can result in tom peace. But question here is how Afghanistan will come to peace if US would leave the region without doing any post war work. There is the need of more comprehensive talks with good intentions and peaceful intents.

Literature indubitably is the reflection of life and its animadversion as well as paints a realistic picture of society and its institutions. Suchlike is the predicament of African novelist Chinua Achebe’s 1966 novel “Man of the People” which talks of corrupt government leaders ruling an unnamed African country who hegemonize its citizens to amass support for their positive and unacceptable works both. They are prosperous by cause of prejudiced role media plays and absolves them from accountability while it demonizes any kind of opposition. Furthermore they attempt to silence the opposition either with the almighty dollar or the assassinations.

In the novel, the protagonist Odili is disillusioned in 1960 when the Prime Minister refuses to cut off coffee prices proposed by economic experts for the good of the country. Two-third of the cabinet upholds the decision and the one-third who do not, are called names oftentimes. The experts are barred to speak by rapacious ministers and their supporters. The ministers contending the move are served blows by angry mobs and labeled traitors. The mobs are never in mood to listen to any reason for the influence of Prime Minister’s speech. The press plays its part by publishing contorted versions of the opposition’s take on the matter. Rebellious ministers are driven out and Mr. Nanga (another character in the novel) is voted in Member Parliament. He within himself is an epitome of corruption. Together with another minister Mr. Koko, Mr. Nanga bribes Odili and his friend Max to withdraw their newly formed political party CPC from upcoming elections and subsequently Mr. Koko murders Max for he accepts money and continues the campaign. The villagers who aid CPC are penalized by Mr. Nanga’s party with the removal of “Rural Water Scheme” and it’s only after their reassured support, some parts of the scheme return to village. The novel ends with a military coup divulging the corruption of government and initiation of inquiries against its ministers.

What Achebe wrote about in 1966 is a pathway the nation of India noticeably walks upon after 2014 with the rise of Bharatiya Janata Party. Although the party claims zero tolerance towards corruption, many leaders with allegations of corruption against them find it a safe heaven. Besides, the discontinuance of survey which provides the rate of unemployment, opacity in Rafael deal, demonization, dismissal of criminal case of multiple hate speeches against Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath, use of tax payer funds for Brahmin only facility by BJP MP in Jammu, bail to VHP leader Atul Vadia accused in Gulberg society massacre, suspension of an IAS officer who checks Prime Minister’s chopper and cases of money laundering against its various leaders are testimonials to the ecumenical corruption in the party. The conspicuous hypocrisy of the government is its adjudication to ban beef at home and top the exporters list each year. The mockery is its very own ministers in eastern India promise quality beef in exchange of their win in elections while it’s avaricious Ministers instigate and venerate their supporters in the northern and central India who lynch people on mere rumors of stealing cows or carrying beef. The victims and each and every one who opposes this barely condemned vicious cycle of violence is labeled a traitor, anti-national, anti-Hindu and asked to go to Pakistan. This fractured political discourse matches exactly to what Achebe talks of in his novel. Either you’re with the hegemonized mobs or an anti-national, a traitor. Nobody has the right to question government or its supporters for whatever they do.

The business Indian media does is exposed by commendable investigation carried out by “Cobra Post” (available on YouTube) which brings to notice the biased and venal nature of Indian media outlets who for a hefty sum are ready to carry soft Hindutva propaganda (manipulating Hinduism) initially to hardcore Hindutva ideology (the ideology of BJP) subsequently on their TV shows and newspapers. Before elections when the works of BJP are to be aired, some media outlets in India broadcast the reign of previous Congress government and their scandals exonerating the ruling party in a way similar to that of Mr. Nanga in the novel who prevents editors from publishing articles critical of their government. The shift in the trend of intial question, from “What work your government is doing or has done?” to “How you manage to do this much work?” asked to the leaders is witness to the fact that the ratings of press freedom in India are not aimlessly touching the ground. The fine example of demonization of opposition is the contortion of election manifesto of Congress by Indian media outlets pointing towards free electricity to Mosques and Churches while deliberately veiling the part of free electricity to Temples and referring to the issue of scholarship to Muslim students for overseas education and deliberately hiding the word “poor Muslim students” and the mention of SC, ST, EBC and OBC students. Not to forget the death threats to Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee and the murder of Gauri Lankesh, all prominent critics of the ruling party accommodate in the cycle of silencing opposition.

Beyond doubt, common Indian masses will find theirselves in the shoe of the villagers penalized in the novel for supporting CPC and not Mr. Nanga’s political party by reason of aggressive and sinister attitude of the leaders of BJP who forewarn voters to vote for them or encounter ceasing of the funds for Panchayats, no jobs, no water to drink and even the shift of sins upon the people who vote against them.

Achebe names not the country in his novel because he seemes to be suggestive of his relevance in the impending era and more than 50 years after the publication, we can say that Achebe’s Africa is modern India. This indeed is a political turmoil in juxtaposition to the situation in Achebe’s novel wherein the leaders hegemonize the citizens, get involved in corruption and create a discourse according to which catechization of government is an anti-national deed and deserves punishment either by the might or mob.

Hariz Aftab is a student of Masters Program in English Literature in University of Jammu and can be contacted at aftabhariz@gmail.com

Air Power Theory
For most of military history, mankind has not mastered the air, and thus the majority of military theorists have not accounted for it (Buckley 1999: 1). With only a century of military history to rely on, the arguments for and against airpower can seem overly polarized. With the capabilities that were made apparent in WWI, many theorists, such as Douhet (1921), began dreaming of future uses of airpower. Others (Meilinger 1995; Pape 1996; Byman & Waxman 2000; Boot 2003; Pape 2004) urge caution – what was envisaged, however, would not come to pass for many decades, if even then (Meilinger 1995: 11). This section will consider modern theorists’ views on the importance of airpower.

When asking a question as broad as ”Can air forces win wars?”, significant
discussion is invited, for air forces have been used for a wide variety of purposes in a wide variety of wars. In exploring this question, I will argue that it might not be as much about the extent to which wars can be won with air forces, but rather the extent to which they can be won without them.

 
The Virtues of Air Power
Meilinger (1995) posits that ”whoever controls the air generally controls the surface,” (Meilinger 1995: 3). Douhet (1921) simply proclaims that ”(…) to have command of the air is to have victory,” (Douhet 2009: 25). Warden (2000) argues that since the Third Reich’s attack on Poland, no country has ever won a war against enemy air superiority (Warden 2000: 10). Though some temper their arguments more than others, the consensus is clear: airpower is of great import.

The invention of the airplane lead to important battlefield developments: planes allowed force projection much farther than before. Meilinger makes this argument in his second proposition about airpower: ”Air Power is an inherently strategic force,” (Meilinger 1995: 8). Fronts have historically been the points of contact in armed conflict. With mastery of the air, this was changed – it was now possible to strike well into the enemy heartland, at important industrial, political, and cultural targets (Buckley 1999: 2). Ground and naval forces lack this advantage. Air-forces can achieve strategic goals with maximum effectiveness and minimal costs (Warden 2000: 94 – 95). Regardless of whether or not air power can win wars, it is an important aspect of warfare – lacking airpower against an enemy that has it can be detrimental. Warden again argues that history overwhelmingly supports the claim that acquiring air superiority should be the first order of business – the Six-Day War serves as an excellent example (Warden 2000: 11, 13 – 14).

In the Six-Day War, Israel’s air-force neutralized no less than three air-forces in 24 hours – Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. This paved the way for an Israeli monopoly on airpower for the remainder of the war, which lasted another five days. It is clear that air supremacy, as argued by Warden, granted Israel a tremendous and fatal advantage over its adversaries. The Six-Day War also serves as a good example of the trade-off facing those with air inferiority: if you emerge on the offensive, you become a target for hostile air-forces, but if you stay on the defensive, hostile ground forces are likely to overrun your position, especially with the help of airforces.

Warden also gives a concise overview of the Germans’ effective use of airpower in the 1939 invasion of Poland and the 1940 invasion of France. Germany established air superiority in a matter of days, which allowed them to disrupt the enemy’s maneuvers while protecting and enhancing their own (Warden 2000: 11). The Germans were unlikely to have dominated those campaign to that extent without air superiority (Buckley 1999: 6).

 
How Great is It Really?
The above arguments paint air superiority as the be-all and end-all of modern warfare. While it is certainly important, that is not to say that airpower equates victory. Many air theorists argue that air superiority is so important it might bring victory, and might be a goal itself (Meilinger 1995: 6). However, this is only so if the air superiority can be exploited. If acquiring air superiority does not bring a tactical advantage, then attaining it is pointless.

Pape (1996; 2004) takes a similar, critical stance on the issue of airpower,
arguing that airpower is rarely a decisive factor (Pape 2004: 117). Airpower itself has not become a revolutionary weapon. Rather, it has changed how we conduct warfare – it works in conjunction with ground forces in a way previously unimagined. Pape argues that this kind of Hammer-and-Anvil strategy – attacking by ground and air simultaneously is highly effective, as it disrupts the enemy’s ability to focus their efforts in offense and defense (Ibid: 119).

Pape (1996) further argues that this type of combat is part of a denial strategy to attack the enemy’s ability to conduct their own operations and strategies (Pape 1996: 19). This partially aligns Pape with Meilinger and Warden – airpower brings advantages, but nevertheless comes with risks that many theorists seem to neglect.

Where WWII and the Six-Day War serve as excellent examples of the success of these tactics, Korea and Vietnam serve as examples of the opposite (Meilinger 1995: 11). This is mainly due to the fact that airpower is more effective in high-intensity conflicts. As Boyd (2018) argues for the OODA Loop, (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) aimed at inflicting damage and chaos on the enemy. This works well for high-intensity conflicts, where a ’command of time’ will be a boon. In low-intensity conflicts, however, this advantage is largely absent, as we can see in Vietnam (Meilinger 1995: 33).

Boot (2003) is similarly critical. The First and Second Gulf Wars show expert utilization of airpower and combined-arms operations, yet fail to live up to the utterly dominating role of airpower envisaged by the early theorists (Boot 2003: 55). Coalition bombardment certainly crippled Iraqi forces, but ground forces finished the campaign, pushing the Iraqi back. This highlights the importance of Warden’s argument: we must think of the center of gravity. Airpower is not necessarily the best way to attack this target, so blanket statements about it are dangerous.

 
A Flawed Debate?
Some proponents will argue that the debate over airpower is too polarized, with people on either side claiming complete dominance or uselessness (Keaney & Cohen 1993; Byman & Waxman 2000; Boot 2003). I ally myself with this argument. While the argument for the decisive nature of airpower might be lacking, the uses of airpower have nevertheless been made clear, as shown in numerous wars – World War II, the Korean War, the Six-Day War, and the Gulf War, to name but a few.

Using the 1999 Kosovo War as a case study, Byman & Waxman (2000) examine the claims that air power brought Serbia to its knees. They conclude that while both sides of the debate claimed Kosovo as proof, it vindicates neither (Byman & Waxman 2000: 37). This argument can be applied to most instances of claimed airpower importance – that airpower would not have achieved much without ground forces to exploit
its benefits. Air-forces are, like the Navy and the Army, part of a larger military force, and will achieve little on its own.

Warden (2000) makes arguments that link well with a more nuanced view on airpower, as well. Not two battles or wars will be identical, and issuing a blanket doctrine can be dangerous – what worked wonders in WWII clearly did not in Korea or Vietnam. Thus, commanders must asses the forces at their disposal, and the composition of the enemy fighting force. Warden refers to this as identifying the enemy center of gravity: the point where the enemy is most vulnerable (Warden 2000: 7). Depending on the organization of the enemy, airpower might not be the most effective way to strike at the enemy’s center of gravity, and so a statement like ”air-forces win wars” lacks consideration of different perspectives.

This debate has also dominated the US Armed Forces for some time. Williams (2002) emphasizes synchronization and integration, enforcing the notion that an army is indeed an intricate machine with numerous cogs – debating which one is more dominant is often futile (Williams 2002: 18). The Army’s argument revolves around the imperative role of ground forces in taking and holding targets, but largely ignores the pivotal role played by air-forces in this endeavor. The air-force, on the other hand, is known to argue for their strategic importance; they can strike at enemy targets deep behind enemy lines, that ground forces cannot reach. Williams argues it is difficult to find causal linkages behind air-strikes and enemy capitulation (Ibid: 18).

Buckley (1999) argues that the role of airpower changed after WWII – the
last total war. War, as it was known, has become obsolete, and so the impact of airpower has decreased correspondingly (Buckley 1999: 222). This is especially so when considering the advent of guerrilla warfare and terrorism; cases where air superiority will have little impact (Meilinger 1995; Buckley 1999; Warden 2000). Thus, it might not be the case that any side advocates the entire truth – the role of airpower was, at some point, critical, but might not be as critical now.

 
Conclusions
Since the dawn of air combat, theorists have prophesied its utter domination. Numerous case studies will vindicate these claims: the German attack on Poland, the Battle of Britain, the Six Day War, and the Gulf War, for instance. This is not, however, to say that it has been infallible. Vietnam and Korea were much less effective examples, and Israel initially struggled to replicate the air supremacy of the Six-Day War during the Yom Kippur War.

The arguments in this paper align with the middle ground. As Pape (2004)
himself concludes: ”Precisions weaponry has not, however, eliminated the need for significant ground forces,” (Pape 2004: 128). Airpower remains an important aspect of the battlefield, but changes in the battlefield have rendered it less effective.

With the obvious strengths of airpower, as well as its limitations, it seems as if the question ”can air forces win wars?” is the wrong question to ask. Rather, we should be asking ”can wars be won without air forces?” The answer to the latter seems much more likely to be ”no”.

 
Works Cited
Boot, Max. ”The New American Way of War.” Foreign Affairs 82, no. 4 (2003): 41 – 58.

Boyd, John R. A Discourse on Winning and Losing. Maxwell: Air University
Press, 2018.

Buckley, John. Air Power in the Age of Total War. London: UCL Press, 1999.

Byman, Daniel L. and Waxman, Matthew C. ”Kosovo and the great air power debate.” International Security 24, no. 4 (2000): 5 – 38.

Douhet, Giulio. The Command of the Air. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press, 2009.

Keaney, Thomas A. and Cohen, Eliot A. ”Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report.” Department of the Air Force, Washington D.C.. 1993. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a273996.pdf. (Accessed October 10, 2018).

Meilinger, Phillip S. ”10 Propositions Regarding Air Power.” Air Force Historical Studies Office. 1995. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469807.pdf. (Accessed October 10, 2018).

Pape, Robert A. ”The True Worth of Air Power.” Foreign Affairs 83, no. 2 (2004): 116 – 130.

Pape, Robert A. Bombing to win: Airpower and coercion in war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.

“Top 10 Incredibly Advanced Fighter Jets.” Aviation News, May 19, 2017, https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2017/top-10-fighter-jets-world-2017.

Warden, John A. and Boyd, John. ”Air Power’s Quest for Strategic Paralysis.” USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies. 1995. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a291621.pdf. (Accessed October 10,
2018).

Warden, John A. The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat. Lincoln: toExcel,
2000.

Williams, Brett T. ”Effects-Based Operations: Theory, Application, and the Role of Airpower.” United States Air Force. April 9, 2002. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a400990.pdf. (Accessed October 14, 2018).

China has established itself as a global power, but this unstoppable rise has triggered fear, as well as intensified other states’ security dilemma. For this reason, China has to triple its efforts to make the world feel comfortable about this advancement in the international arena. In fact, this ascent is not  nearly easy as it seems, mainly because there are some crucial factors that are making it difficult for China to rise peacefully.

Firstly, it is essential to consider external influence on the chinese foreign policy. Considering the international system itself in the frame of the so called ‘realism theory’, it can be seen as the main driver of China’s foreign policy. In other terms, every country wants to have as much power as possible, and gaining power has also been a key point of the China’s agenda since Deng Xiaoping, where seeking more power has always perfectly corresponded to achieving national interests. But in order to reach those goals, China especially wants to preempt U.S. motives to contain China, and therefore a big chunk of China’s foreign policy energies are spent on shaping the U.S. perception of a rising China.

Secondly, foreign policy is also affected by domestic politics in many different ways. For instance, the level of competition among elites and political parties, public opinion, political economy, nationalism that can push leaders to be more assertive and the issue of inter bureaucratic within the government and bureaus fighting with each other all belong to this category. In this regard, contrary to democratic countries, in China the number of access influencing foreign policy is very small, at least on paper. Certainly there are the Politburo of the Communist Party, the military and some regional leaders, but it is undeniable that the access is narrower.

Another fundamental factor of China’s rise is the role of leadership. Related to this, it is clear that Xi Jinping has dramatically altered China’s foreign policy rhetoric, and his conception differs greatly from his predecessors, for instance Hu Jintao. Having travelled in more than thirty countries, the general secretary has championed with the so called ‘big power diplomacy’, that is not talking about how to deal with other big powers, but rather to emphasize on China’s actions, its self identity as a big power and consequently its responsibilities. In fact, since Xi Jinping assumed the leadership in 2012, China has projected itself in the international arena expanding its footprints and influence. Beijing is seeking to play a more prominent role i the world, while laying out its own initiatives, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the near-trillion-dollar trade program, the Belt Road. Moreover, according to this approach, the basis of conducting China’s foreign policy is to draw a bottom line, which is China’s core national interests, and when other states challenge its sovereignity or try to violates this line, China will retaliate.
In addition, under the new Jinping’s leadership, China has been affected by what Edward Luttwak – a popular politica scientist – calls ‘great power autism’, which means China’s inability to listen to other states’ opinions, a mindset which is very far from Deng Xiaoping’s attitude. In fact, todays’ China is more ready to push its interests without taking into consideration other countries’ reactions, and it is with this strategy that China’s hoping to reach the top of the global hierarchy.

Despite these important changes, China’s intent is not to start a war, but rather to rise smartly. In this sense, China’s view of dominance means mainly financial dominance. And it is mostly for this reason that China’s efforts are revolving more and more around the economical sphere. Actually, China perfectly knows that rising by war will be self-destructive, and its purpose is not to overturn the whole world order by military confrontation, but just to reform some aspects of the existing order. But whether this process will be peaceful or not depends on how other countries will respond to China’s rise in future.