Young Diplomats

While North Korea’s recent nuclear ICBM tests significantly raised the level of fear in the United States, they were not a surprise. North Korea, long a nuclear state, is a dangerous nuclear proliferator that has shirked international commitments.

Estimated Range of North Korean Missiles. Source : Jane’s Sentinel

Iran also remains motivated in the nuclear realm despite the JCPOA

Pyongyang issues highly aggressive rhetoric toward the United States and its regional neighbors on a regular basis; it flaunts its nuclear capability and threatens to use it, and tends to share nonconventional know-how and technologies. And herein lies a link to Tehran: as Iran also remains motivated in the nuclear realm despite the JCPOA, the direct implications of North Korea’s activities for Iran’s nuclear program must be under constant scrutiny. The indirect implications for dealing with Iran’s nuclear motivation invoke the ability to rely on negotiations to stop a determined proliferator. The North Korean case of failed negotiations must be heeded when thinking about Iran.

ICBM that can reach the United States mainland

Twice over the past month (July 4 and July 28, 2017), North Korea tested the Hwasong-14 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The tests were a dramatic demonstration of the latest stage in North Korea’s nuclear program, namely, the ability to fire an ICBM that can reach the United States mainland. Yet while these tests significantly raised the level of fear in the US, they were not a surprise. And although some view the latest missile test as a wake-up call regarding North Korean capabilities, North Korea has long been a nuclear state, and those following the situation knew that it was steadily progressing toward its goal of being able to target the US with a nuclear-tipped ICBM. While initially viewed as successful, the latest test may have met problems – according to some reports, the warhead “shattered into pieces” on its re-entry from atmosphere to earth, and it could take North Korea some six months to overcome the problem. If these reports are correct, North Korea might not yet be able to reach California with a nuclear ICBM, but this is only a matter of time.

Accusing Russia and China of having enabled the missile launch  to offers of negotiations if North Korea agrees to dismantle its nuclear capability.

In response to the July 28 test, the US flew two B-1B bombers over South Korea, alongside South Korean and Japanese fighters. But beyond this show of strength, the US has not demonstrated a direction for dealing with the threat from Pyongyang. Statements issued by Secretary of State Tillerson have run the gamut from calls for global action – while accusing Russia and China of having enabled the missile launch  to offers of negotiations if North Korea agrees to dismantle its nuclear capability. Tillerson also clarified that the US does not seek regime change. Despite some threats of preemptive action against North Korea, the Trump administration is likely not preparing to attack; more likely, it is trying to bolster its deterrence against a North Korean attack. Trump is also trying to deter North Korea from progressing further with its program, and while the administration has not stopped North Korea in the missile realm, it may have had some limited success in deterring North Korea from carrying out another nuclear test, for which North Korea seemed to be preparing several months ago. But deterrence successes are hard to prove and the decision to refrain from a sixth nuclear test could have been for other reasons.

While there are no ready answers to the growing nuclear threat from North Korea, it would be a mistake to view the recent missile tests as a reaction to the Trump administration’s tougher approach. North Korea has been moving forward in the nuclear realm for decades. In fact, major advances were made during the Obama administration, when for eight years the US followed a policy of “strategic patience.” During these years North Korea conducted four nuclear tests, two of which occurred in close proximity in 2016 (January and September), signaling a stepped-up pace of nuclear development. North Korea was also deeply engaged in ballistic missile testing during those years.

As for diplomacy, there are virtually no current ideas among analysts and pundits, or the US administration, that have not already been attempted and proven unsuccessful. On the basis of 25 years of diplomatic attempts, there is little to no chance of negotiating a deal whereby North Korea will roll back its program or denuclearize. Neither carrots nor sticks have had a lasting impact, and if North Korea did not agree to rollback its nuclear capability in the earlier stages, there is little reason to believe it would agree now, when it finally reached its goal, and after paying a very hefty price in sanctions and isolation. In recent days the UN Security Council slapped additional harsh sanctions on North Korea, but based on patterns that have played out over the past 15 years, this is unlikely to alter the situation.

China often features prominently in debates over how to confront North Korea, with many referring to it as the “magic key”: if only China were convinced to cut off North Korea’s economic lifeline, this proliferator would be squeezed to the degree that it had no choice but to give up its nuclear capabilities. Yet while China is indeed North Korea’s economic lifeline, China has no intention of cutting off that lifeline, as this could lead to an implosion of North Korea — in turn leading to a massive influx of refugees into China, and possibly American troops stationed on China’s border. President Trump has tweeted his displeasure with China, and has tried to convince it to do more to rein in North Korea. China’s answer is that the criticism is unwarranted, and that it is trying to help international efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

Some pundits have suggested that the US must offer China more for taking the extreme step of cutting off North Korea, such as backing away from the THAAD missile defense system deployed in South Korea. China strongly opposes THAAD, which it believes undermines its own nuclear deterrence, since the system’s radar covers part of China. But a US reversal would be viewed negatively by South Korea, in light of the increasingly dangerous direct threat from North Korea. Recently, the new leader of South Korea, who initially had second thoughts about the missile defense system, signaled that he now supports it.

Indeed, for the US to back away from THAAD would now be perceived as backing away from America’s long term commitment to South Korea’s security. The main concern in both South Korea and Japan following the ICBM tests is that the US commitment to their security has been weakened now that North Korea can threaten the US mainland. If the price for protecting these states from attack could be a nuclear strike on Los Angeles, the fear is that the US might be deterred from taking action against North Korea. In a telephone conversation with Japan’s Prime Minister Abe, Trump reaffirmed America’s unwavering commitment to its security, but it remains to be seen whether this will be enough for Japan. Abe is also demanding that Russia and China increase pressure on North Korea.

A question often raised of late with regard to North Korea is why the Kim Jong-Un regime is so bent on having nuclear weapons. We can try to appraise North Korea’s motivation for going nuclear – most likely a mix of regime survival and prestige factors – but understanding this state’s motivation should not be confused with legitimizing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. North Korea is a dangerous nuclear proliferator that shirked its commitment according to the NPT (which it exited in 2003) and broke deals with international negotiators. North Korea issues highly aggressive rhetoric toward the United States and its regional neighbors on a regular basis; it flaunts its nuclear capability and threatens to use it, and tends to share nonconventional know-how and technologies. And herein lies a link to Tehran: as Iran also remains motivated in the nuclear realm despite the JCPOA, the direct implications of North Korea’s activities for Iran’s nuclear program must be under constant scrutiny.

The indirect implications for dealing with Iran’s nuclear motivation invoke the ability to rely on negotiations to stop a determined proliferator. The North Korean case of failed negotiations must be heeded when thinking about Iran. There are many differences between these two proliferators, but they share determination and ongoing motivation to achieve nuclear status. Strong international actors cannot afford to be complacent about a negotiated deal – the JCPOA – when it does not reflect a strategic reversal on the part of the proliferator. If this deal has achieved a delay, the challenge is to use this time to reverse negative trends and prepare better for the future, but not to rest on laurels while celebrating a deal that has not stopped Iran in the nuclear realm, and could render that goal even more elusive in eight to nine years.

This article was written by the excellent Emily B. Landau

Whilst the world is caught up with the election of Donald Trump, and his radical policies, China continue to operate behind the scenes to expand its reach globally. China’s geopolitical status enhanced significantly over the years with influence over Africa, for example, increasing in the form of bilateral instruments: infrastructure investment, aid and debt. Yet, we see a transformed China, with a multilateral strategy in this political Game of Thrones.

The belt and road initiative consists of two separate projects, the Silk Road Economic belt and the 21^st Century Maritime Silk Road, which targets 68 countries. Further, it encompasses interlinking trade deals and infrastructure investments throughout Eurasia and the Pacific[1]. Through the project, China is banking on two of these regions’ desires: infrastructure and economic growth.

China’s Ascent onto the World Stage: Military Muscle

The Asian development bank estimates that Asian needs $8tn for investment projects for a period of ten years, up to 2020[2]. On the other hand, partner countries like Sri Lanka plagued with poor public finances due to Treasury bond scams for example, has seen its Fitch rating drop to BB-, as of February, 2016[3].  Through this ambitious project, China aims to facilitate the realisation of these desires.

China has shown great interest in ex-Soviet countries like Kazakhastan.

But what’s the catch for China? Surely China is to benefit?

What happens is more than what meets the eye.

The project is surely insurance against a possible economic slowdown of Western economies. The exported oriented economy, Singapore saw a its economy shrink at an annualised rate of 11% in the last three months of 2008, due to the financial crisis in Western economies. Likewise, with western economies like the United States[4] being a top destination for Chinese exports, the project helps China diversify to less integrated, closer Eurasian and Pacific economies. With trade deals and infrastructure development, a multiplier effect on these economies is inevitable; economic growth in the partner countries gives China fast growing consumer markets to sell its exports to.

More importantly, this move heralds the rise of the ancient economic power. As Cao Wenlian[5], the director general of the International Cooperation Centre of the National Development and Reform Commission puts it, the project is set to trigger “globalization 2.0”, a process where the term globalization isn’t synonymous to Westernization. Hard to believe? Let’s look at the facts.

1. Funds from financial instruments- China will provide $113 bn through its Silk Road fund, the Chinese development bank, and the Export and Import Bank of China. At the same time, the Asian Infrastructure Investment bank, whose ownership is led by China, approved $1.6 billion in loans for the project in 2016. The New Development Bank is yet another financier for this project, with links to China[6].
2. Trade-Trade deals have become more likely with countries like the USA recognizing the legitimacy of the One belt, One road initiative through the May 11 US-China Trade deal relating to the export and import of certain products including beef, chicken and financial service for instance[7].
3. Energy cooperation- China has shown great interest in ex-Soviet countries like Kazakhastan. The $8 bn deal on energy cooperation that China signed with Kazakhastan in January 2017, exemplifies this interest. As this initiative develops, China’s energy partners will only expect to grow, and with it, their oil supplies[8].

All in all, the world’s economy will soon fall into China’s orbit, and with it, will come greater economic integration with China at the core.

U.S.A’s luck seems to be turning for the worse with its grip over loosening, as China begins to flex its muscles. In an economic front, Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership is symbolic for lesser economic participation: this void is filled with the One Belt, One Road initiative. This means that the United States is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world, whilst China continue to re-shuffle the world economic order to emerge on top. At the same time, U.S.A.’s military might is also threatened with China’s military involvement. The global policeman’s influence is expected to shrink with China sending 15 000 troops to protect infrastructure in the Chinese-Pakistani economic corridor[9]. At the same time, the ownership of the Port of Gwadar by a state owned Chinese company would re affirm China’s military position in the region[10].

China’s Ascent onto the World Stage – Sweeping Changes in Society

Yet the future rests on China’s ability to muster support for this ambitious project. As the actions of participating countries have shown, this has not come easy for China. The one belt one road summit held on the 14^th and 15^th of May, 2017 saw the participation of just 20 heads of States from the 65 participating nations[11]. Is this an indicator of the level of political commitment that participating nations are willing to put in to this initiative? Will the initiative be as successful as planned? Thailand has already turned China down, due to some of China’s demands seen as unfair. Will other member nations do the same?

Time will tell us how the following events will unfold. It would be interesting to see how America would react the moment they feel their position is threatened. It would be equally interesting to see how China would react to any actions from USA or any other member nations. Many draw parallels between the Marshall Plan and the One Belt One Road Initiative. Could this possibly erupt into a Cold War or something bigger?

So many possibilities, so many endings. Only time would tell.

About the Author :  

Abeysekara is a 19 year old who just graduated from high school in Sri Lanka. He is involved in MUN, debating and several community service projects in his locality. His interests to name a few include economics, animal welfare and international peace and security.

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/11/asia/china-one-belt-one-road-explainer/index.html

[2] https://www.clsa.com/special/onebeltoneroad/

[3] http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=144108

[4] http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/china-railway-one-belt-one-road-1-trillion-plan.html

[6] https://qz.com/983460/obor-an-extremely-simple-guide-to-understanding-chinas-one-belt-one-road-forum-for-its-new-silk-road/

[7] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/15/the-u-s-china-trade-agreement-a-huge-deal-for-china/

[8] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-kazakhstan-sign-cooperation-deals-worth-over-8-billion/articleshow/59079274.cms

[9] https://www.dawn.com/news/1277182

[10] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/pakistans-gwadar-port-leased-to-chinese-company-for-40-years/articleshow/58284735.cms

[11] https://qz.com/982202/chinas-summit-for-its-new-silk-road-is-missing-44-heads-of-state-from-the-65-nations-involved/

The map above shows each country of the world separated by the percentage of billionaires into various types. The size of each country on the map is relative to its total number of the world’s billionaires. There are five categories of billionaires designated by the colors found in the legend: Inherited, Company Founders, Owners and Executives, Political Connections and Resource Related and the Financial Sector. The data was compiled from this report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The first and most obvious conclusion to draw from the map is the large number of billionaires found in the United States. The world’s largest economy has close to 30 percent of the world’s billionaires and far more than any other single country. The distribution of billionaires in the United States is mostly equal, with the exception of the Political Connections and Resource Related type. Only 3.8 percent of American billionaires attained their wealth through political or resource related ventures, a likely consequence of the US government’s historical hands-off approach to business.

China, the world’s second largest economy, has very few billionaires who inherited money. Before China’s economic success of the past few decades, the country was exceptionally poor. But the rapid growth of its economy through a manufacturing boom has created over 200 billionaires. Around 40 percent of these billionaires are company founders, while around one-quarter are company owners or executives. An opposite trend can found nearby in South Korea. The majority of South Korean billionaires, a whopping 74.1 percent, inherited money from family. In Japan, the majority of billionaires are company founders at 63 percent.

The trend in South Korea can also be found in Europe to an extent. With the exception of the United Kingdom, many of the billionaires in the major economies of Europe inherited their wealth. Denmark has the highest percentage, with 83.3 percent of billionaires inheriting their money. Germany comes in second, at 64.7 percent, while Sweden comes in at a close third at 63.2 percent. Europe follows a slightly different path than the United States. While American billionaires are less likely to have inherited wealth, they are more likely the be either the founder of a company or come from the financial sector.

The United States boasts the highest number of billionaires by far and American billionaires acquire wealth almost equally from inheritance, the founding of a company and the financial sector. The number of Chinese billionaires has grown rapidly, with most being either company founders, owners or executives. Many European billionaires inherited wealth, but a large number are also either company founders or from the financial sector.

The World Map of Billionaires pic.twitter.com/PfsWlTFPEj https://t.co/21oSFAgtSM via @howmuch_net #dataviz #USA #wealth

— How Much (@howmuch_net) September 13, 2016

Please feel free to leave your comments below! We would like to hear your feedback.

Henry Kissinger once said that “moderation is a virtue only in those who are thought to have an alternative.” That is precisely Israel’s dilemma. When it shows moderation, its friends may see it as a virtue, but not necessarily its foes, who may equate it with weakness.

Thus, when Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon to the internationally-recognized border in 2000, Hezbollah apparently thought that it was facing a weak Israel across the frontier which could be provoked with scant repercussions. The Palestinians, for their part, seemed to have concluded that Israel could be pressured into further  unilateral withdrawals by launching a terror campaign against its civilians, leading, among other reasons, to the so-called Second Intifada.

The effect of Israel’s fierce response to the Hezbollah’s attacks has led to eleven years of relative peace in the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Indeed, when Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005, some groups within the Palestinian Arab camp believed that, as a consequence, further terrorist attacks ought to be perpetrated against Israelis in order to elicit further unilateral concessions by Israel.

In both instances, Israel’s friends applauded the display of moderation by former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Their policies were thought of as virtuous. Among Israel’s enemies these were deemed to be a further sign of the country’s feeble resolve to withstand human losses. To be sure, it is possible to draw a clear-cut difference between displaying moderation through unilateral concessions and doing so in the context of a bilateral agreement. Perhaps a show of moderation in the latter case is regarded in a different light even by Israel’s foes.

Peace Agreements and their Perceptions

Thus, when Israel returned to Egypt the entire Sinai Peninsula and agreed to a fully-autonomous West Bank and Gaza, as a result of the Camp David Accords of September 1978 and the Peace Agreement of March 1979, the Arab world did not necessarily identified such a move with weakness. Nor, indeed, did it equate Israel’s concessions to Jordan, as a result of the peace agreement signed by both countries in 1994, with weakness.

Palestine and Israel : The solution nobody wants to talk about.

Both in the case of Egypt and Jordan, Israel’s concessions were undertaken in exchange for peace. In both cases, the Arab leaders concerned were seen to be genuine and serious in their desire to put an end to the conflict, rather than to seek a momentary respite to it, an objective attributed by many in Israel and abroad to Yasser Arafat when he agreed to sign the Oslo Agreement with Israel in September 1993.

Let us now return to Israel’s dilemma. How could Israel display moderation to elicit the support of its friends and the wider international community without losing its deterrence against its foes?

Indeed, Israel has been able to deploy its might against Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War eleven years ago thanks also – though not exclusively – to the moderate policies it had pursued in the past, which, in a sense, tempered the potential criticism of the international community.

Hezbollah is not merely an armed Lebanese group, but the Lebanese arm of the Iranian army.

The Second Lebanon War

Although Israeli political and military leaders have been criticized in Israel for their decision-making process leading to and during the Second Lebanon War, the effect of Israel’s fierce response to the Hezbollah’s attacks has led to eleven years of relative peace in the Lebanese-Israeli border.

It was no other than Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who said in the wake of the Second Lebanon War that had he known how Israel would respond to the attack leading to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, he would have refrained from undertaking it. Paradoxically, the Second Lebanon War may have shown that on occasion radical measures can lead to a moderation of Israel’s conflict with its enemies.

So far at least, as a result of the Second Lebanon War, Israel’s northern border with Lebanon has remained mostly quite for the last eleven years. This may be a temporary respite, considering the consistent objective of Hezbollah to bring about the destruction of Israel and its unrelenting efforts to arm itself with missiles that reach all the populated areas of Israel. After all, Hezbollah is not merely an armed Lebanese group, but the Lebanese arm of the Iranian army.

Why Obama Refused to Shield Israel at the UN

The question with which Israeli decision-makers have to cope is whether a display of restraint, beyond the support from the wider international community, is more conducive to a mitigation of a conflict with an intractable foe or whether a radical action, at least on occasion, can paradoxically lead, as it has with regard to the Second Lebanon War, to such an outcome.

It’s a question that has no mathematical-like answer, but the fact that it can be posed demonstrates that Kissinger’s dictum applies to Israel.

In the early 1990’s, Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori started a process of free-market reforms after strong tensions among the former President Alan Garcia and the US government and International Financial Institutions as well. Fujimori’s political and economic reforms reconfigured the structure of Peruvian economy under many of the principles of the so-called Washington Consensus.

These reforms pursued to integrate the country into the international economy, to put an end to a 10 year long armed conflict against domestic terrorist groups, reduce the State intervention in national economic and social affairs, and establishing a system of self-regulating supply, demand, and pricing mechanisms as well.

Peru’s 1990’s reforms coincide with a favourable trend to open-market policies in Latin America, in a moment when around the hemisphere appeared new and great expectations about the creation of a ‘neo-regionalist’ model of integration under free-trade patterns. As we already mentioned, some milestones in this direction were the creation of MERCOSUR in 1991, as well as the CAN and the WTO in 1994.

However, unlike other countries like Chile or Argentina that were in the middle of their own democratic transition processes, Fujimori consolidated his authoritarian government after the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress in 1992 and the elaboration of a new Constitution in 1993. The concentration of power by the President in the early 1990’s, helped him to promote his reforms freely without major resistance from opposition parties, trade unions or civil society actors.

Figure 1: President Alberto Fujimori announcing the dissolution of the Peruvian Congress, as well as the intervention by the Executive Branch in all major institutions, like the Judiciary, the Ombudsman, and the Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees (1992). Source: América TV.

Fujimori opened all sectors of the Peruvian economy to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and lifted restrictions on remittances of profits, dividends, royalties, access to domestic credit, and acquisition of supplies and technology abroad. In addition, the government offered tax-stability packages for foreign investors for terms of ten to fifteen years and implemented wide-ranging privatization programs that offered international investors investment opportunities; eliminating competition from state-owned and domestic firms that enjoyed clientelistic or material advantages. However, it is important to point that the privatization process was Fujimori’s authoritarian project keystone. Under the argument of the need to create a business-favourable environment, Fujimori sold most of Peru’s strategic assets and undervalued State-led companies guided only by short-term considerations, without a coherent strategy. After selling 68% of electricity, 35% of agriculture, 90% of mining companies, 85.5% of manufacture industry and 68% of Hydrocarbons, Fujimori’s government obtained USD 9,221 million. However, from the overall amount obtained by privatizations, only USD 6,445 million entered into the public coffers. That money was used to buy military machines, the payment of the external debt (forbidden by Peruvian Law), and for clientelistic social spending in order to gain domestic support.

After Fujimori’s fall in 2000, the Peruvian market-oriented reform process was ‘deepened’ through the signing of a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, where various issues relating to state intervention in the economy, property rights and governance were included. We identify four reasons about why Peru decided to engage in a bilateral negotiation with the US instead of operating through multilateral organizations like the WTO or the Andean Community:

At the global level, the stagnation of the post-Uruguay Round negotiations, which initially proposed the total liberalization of World trade. The failure of the WTO summit in Seattle (1999) and the long agony of the Doha Round were the main global reasons of why countries pursued less ambitious and more regional-focused agreements.

The failure of the United States to obtain consensus in Latin America to create a free-market space that encompasses all the Western Hemisphere (except Cuba). Designed as an ‘expansion’ of NAFTA, the so-called Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), seek to promote an unified set of rules in issues like tariff reduction, barriers and access to markets, trade of goods and services, FDI, privatizations, agriculture, intellectual property rights, subsidies, antidumping measures, free competition and resolution of disputes. The potential capacities of such trade area would encompass a population of at least 800 million people and a GDP of USD 8.5 billion. Nevertheless, due to internal resistances coming from the US and the Latin governments (for different reasons), the agreement would never been signed. In the US, the Congress opposed to authorize President George W. Bush to use the ‘fast-track’ mechanism for trade negotiations without a previous surveillance and approval by the House and the Senate. In Latin America, the left-interventionist group of countries (Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador) with the support of Brazil and Argentina, criticized the US intentions to establish a FTA while keeping at the same time protectionist measures due to ‘domestic politics concerns’, like antidumping measures, agriculture subsidies, President Bush’s lack of interest on environmental issues, as well as the ‘democratic clause’ of the draft proposed by the US with the objective to exclude Cuba from the agreement. Finally, the FTAA was definitively rejected in the 2005 Mar Del Plata Summit of the Americas, when the deadline for the signing of the agreement was settled.

Figure 2: Former Presidents from Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela in the Cumbre de los Pueblos in Mar del Plata, Argentina. (2005). Source: Telesur.

At the regional level, there was a profound disagreement among the CAN country members due to ideological and economic reasons. In parallel with the FTAA negotiations, the Bush government was also trying to pursue less ambitious, but more geographically focused agreements with the already existent integration organizations, like the CAN. While excluding Venezuela due to President Bush’s sour relations with President Hugo Chávez’s, the US tried to establish an Andean Free Trade Agreement with Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. Because of the interest by Peru and Colombia to negotiate with the US directly without caring about the concerns of their Andean partners (Especially about biodiversity, environment and labour issues), the Venezuelan government declared ‘the death of CAN’, and asked to leave the organization in 2006.

Figure 3: US President George W. Bush and Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo in Lima, Peru. (2002). Source: Peru.com

At the domestic level, the export-oriented Peruvian economy was experiencing a slow, but uninterrupted recession process since 1998. Furthermore, the lack of juridical and political stability did not create incentives to attract new FDI; and a not-reliable instrument regulated the trade regime with Peru’s most important partner: the Andean Trade Preferences Drug Enforcement Act (ATPDEA). Even if this agreement gave most Peruvian products a preferential access to the US market without tariffs, it was not a reliable instrument to attract FDI. The ATPDEA needed to be renewed each 3 years, and it was conditioned to Peru’s support of the US War on Drugs in the region. Of course, the American Congress was able to deny a renewal if they feel that Peru was not ‘keeping its compromises’; not only in the drug fighting but also in other non-narcotics issues like intellectual property rights.

About the Author : 

By: Anthony Medina Rivas Plata

Peruvian. Master in Public Policy by Erasmus University Rotterdam and the University of York. He currently works as Director of International Cooperation at the Institute of Andean Political Studies.

Despite being labeled as a developing country, the beautiful African continent lies scattered with poverty-stricken countries, battling against political strife, civil wars, poor economic development policies and the embezzlement of public funding. Africa is the second largest continent in the world and boasts 54 sovereign states but according to Global Finance Magazine, the overall ranking of the world’s poorest countries is frequently dominated by those in Africa.

 The poorest countries in Africa all boast a history of being under authoritarian, corrupt regimes which are a big deterrent to foreign investors regardless of copious amounts of natural resources and are in desperate need of international intervention to secure the subsistence of millions of African citizens.

The 3 African countries most affected by poverty according to a GDP analysis are:

3. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) 

The DRC is the second-largest country on the African continent and boasted a population of 81,680,000 in 2015. Although rich in natural resources the country has been ripped apart by severe political unrest. President Kabila, who took over the position from his father (who was assassinated in 2001) is known for his radical approaches to political issues. There have been numerous warnings from opposition groups of a civil war should Kabila refuse to step down at the end of his mandate. A United Nations peacekeeping force consisting of 18,000 troops remain in the DRC with the World Bank reporting that economic recovery and peacekeeping are being enforced.

2.  Burundi

The small country of Burundi still bears the scars of the Hutu-Tutsi fuelled conflict and civil war. Former Hutu rebel, President Pierre Nkurunziza succeeded in winning his third term during a controversial election marred by a boycott after a botched coup. The European Union, Burundi’s largest benefactor, cut all funding to the government in an attempt to force the President into political talks. Burundi is a resource-poor country with a very underdeveloped manufacturing section. The economy of the country is mainly dependent on agriculture which employs 90% of the population but only accounts for a little more than 30% of the GDP.

1.  Central African Republic (CAR)

The Central African Republic is the world’s most under-developed nation and Africa’s most impoverished country with the average life expectancy to be a dismal 43 years. The CAR has suffered a great deal of political discord and corruption has threatened to tear it to pieces. According to the World Bank, approximately three-quarters of the population is said to live in extreme poverty with up to 13.5% facing the HIV/AIDS pandemic.For the first time since the country’s independence from France in 1960 it boasts a democratically elected President, Faustin-Archange Touadera. The successful election of a president was noted as a positive step towards reconstructing the nation and uplifting the ban on diamond exports. An impressive US$250 million program to assist in rebuilding the country was recently approved by the World Bank.

Albert Einstein once said “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”. No truer words have ever been spoken. You can take away a person’s livelihood but you can never take away a person’s courage. As dire as things may be in parts of Africa there will always be hope for a brighter future.

About the Author : “Now working as a writer, Jackie started her career as a foreign aid worker, but after becoming a mom refocused and decided to spend more time with her family. When she’s not writing, she volunteers for a number of local mental health charities and also has a menagerie of pets to look after”

China’s Ascent onto the World Stage: Military Muscle. The People’s Republic of China has been involved in several military conflicts since its founding in 1949, but since then its Soviet-era arsenal has been replaced with newer, more sophisticated weaponry and technology. China has also ramped up arms exports over the years and has manufactured weapons and combat vehicles that are improving in quality and efficiency, many of which are rivalling American and European counterparts.

Rapid Modernization of Chinese Military Forces

The rapid modernization of military equipment and weaponry did not take place on a large-scale until recently; the spiking economic growth over the past decade was accompanied by increased investment in the armed forces. Just three months ago, a report indicated that Chinese arms exports had risen 74%. Increasing reliability of domestic arms producers has allowed China to decrease its dependence on foreign arms manufacturers, and this has resulted in a decrease in arms imports.

Overall, global arms exports have increased with the United States, Britain, and Russia seeing gains as well, however none of these increases have been as significant as China’s. The main buyers of Chinese weapons are Asian and African states. Most Chinese arms exports go to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, while just over 20% of exports go to African countries.

20% of exports go to African countries.

The Norinco Factor

China’s largest arms manufacturer is Norinco, and just this May they reported strong quarterly gains. Norinco saw nearly $15 billion in revenues, and a 31% increase in total profits. Norinco makes a broad range of automatic and semi-automatic rifles, pistols, tanks, and antitank rockets. China has multiple aircraft manufacturers including Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAIC), China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), Hongdu Aviation Group, and Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) is one of the largest shipbuilders in China, and the main supplier of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has over 2.3 million active members with another 2.3 million in the reserves. Chinese defence spending has completely transformed the navy by modernizing the fleet. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) also plans to add more than 15 submarines to its fleet within the next three years. This rise in naval spending has not gone unnoticed; Beijing’s muscle-flexing in the South China Sea has been the cause of concern for its neighbours.

Western military experts have reported that the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is catching up in terms of ability with the air forces of Western countries.

Chinese Air Power

Western military experts have reported that the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is catching up in terms of ability with the air forces of Western countries. Some reports even suggest that by 2030, the Chinese will have air superiority over the United States. Furthermore, China is working on the development of fifth-generation aircraft (the most advanced type of jet fighters). Some of these jets, such as Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31, have been likened to the most advanced American warplanes.

The ground forces, while large in number, have a few logistical problems. These problems are mainly concerned with the transportation of troops, however within the next few years this is not expected to remain a serious issue. Chinese ballistic missiles (ICBM and SRBM) are already known to be very effective and are capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads. While China’s missile defence systems are already adept, there is a possibility that they may purchase advanced Russian missile defence systems for increased security.

Groucho Marx famously quoted in 1954 on a radio show; ‘speak when you are angry—and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret’.  Looking at society today in the United States with the rise in violence and discontent it is easy to see that today’s generation is not heeding Marx’s advice.

There are a plethora of things to be angry about today; unemployment, housing market, rising cost of education, healthcare, continuation of warfare etc. With those serious issues, it brings to question why someone would become hotheaded on something as asinine as inability to join the US Army, when they themselves did not want to enlist. Current president Donald Trump tweeted on July 26^th, 2017 to America ‘After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you’.

There was an obvious outrage from American citizens. However, it is interesting to note two points. The first being that President Trump wants to reinstate a previous policy that former president Obama had reversed. The second point is that Twitter is not indicative of policy. Trump tweeted something, he did not sign an executive order, yet. Fiscally speaking he is attempting to save the U.S. government between $2.4 Million to $8.4 Million. Granted, that barely scratches the surface of the $49.3 Billion spent on Military healthcare in 2014, effectively less than one percent.

Why the outrage? There are copious amounts of people that the U.S. military will not allow to enlist. Patriotic citizens with cysts cannot join the military. No Diabetic is allowed to serve their nation, no are those individuals that do not meet a specific weight, age, or height requirement. Where are the people protesting and raging against the establishment? Men that are missing both of their testicles or that have undescended ones cannot enlist. Women shorter than 58 inches tall, or anyone over 80 inches cannot proudly serve their nation, where is the outrage? Why is it that one issue is raised above all others? In a nation that as of June 2017 has a 4.4% unemployment rate and in 2016 had 564,708 people without homes and teetering on 1.4 million veterans at risk of homelessness does that one issue make your blood boil more than anything else?

It Political Science there is a school of thought on the definition of power. Robert Dahl’s theory essentially is that if you have two people A and B. If A possess the ability to control B than A has power. D.D. Raphael states that power is ‘the ability to make other people do what one wants them to do.’

Wikipedia states that ‘In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or outright control the behavior of people.’ Though Donald Trump may be disliked by hordes of Americans currently, one has to understand that he is intelligent and knows what outcries will come from his Tweets and statements. Essentially, those that protest and run to the streets are giving President Trump power over them. There is a system devised to petition the administration. You can contact your representatives, even the White House to attempt to change policy.

Before the current outcry of ‘unfair’, there was recently another blood boiling issue in the United States, restrooms. The issue basically was that some people identify as another gender. The end result in one case is that Target issued a statement saying they are spending $20 million on single stall bathrooms. Interestingly enough, no one argues over which bathroom they are allowed to use on a plane.

Ultimately, it is a constitutionally protected right to speak your mind. However, there is a difference between speaking your mind thoughtfully, and using profanity and threats. Victor Hugo is famously quoted as saying, ‘strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.’ In lieu of being a keyboard tough guy, take a meaningful stance with a clear mind. Speak your words, rally your comrades and have a peaceful protest. There is enough violence and hate spreading across the United States, enough to make people consider how United America really is.

Anger breeds hate, and hate eats the individual up inside and can cause serious health issues beyond high blood pressure. Hate can cause stress which can lead to a heart attack. There is quote attributed to Buddha which beautifully illustrates this point, ‘you will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger’. It is find to get angry from time to time, just don’t act while you are still seeing red.

Bird’s-Eye View of the 9^th AIPA Caucus Meeting :The ballroom was abuzz with foreign parliamentarians and staff preparing for the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) 2017 caucus. Interpreter booths, cameras, and lights marked the start of two days’ worth of working group discussions. Members of parliament from the corners of South-East Asia soon settled down as the Vice Speaker for the Indonesian House of Representatives, Fadli Zon, as a host welcomed them to conduct discourse on a variety of different topics from marine security and cooperation, peaceful conflict resolution, the protection of endangered species of flora and fauna, to expanding AIPA’s capacity, subjects that are of the utmost importance to ensure the integrity of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

What is AIPA?

AIPA’s efforts to tackle substantial regional issues by laying down common norms may be harder than it sounds.

AIPA may not be as well-known as other intergovernmental organizations in the region; however, the forty year-old organization’s existence plays an important role in uniting different legislative bodies and establishing a more cohesive ASEAN by building a consensus upon which domestic bills and other legislative byproducts are based upon. Its resolutions are by no means legally binding, but it is the closest thing ASEAN has to a regional parliament. In spite of good intentions, with ASEAN’s high regard for non-intervention, AIPA’s efforts to tackle substantial regional issues by laying down common norms may be harder than it sounds.

Marine Security And Cooperation

Marine security and cooperation is an all-encompassing subject title to label the various issues states face when dealing with the seas surrounding them. One can name several issues off the bat including the traditional nation-to-nation threats such as the South China Sea dispute; man-made threats such as movement of refugees, trafficking of illegal goods, illegal fishing, etc.; and even non-traditional threats such as marine pollution. In the first working group for the caucus, Dr. Arif Havas Oegroseno, Deputy Minister of Maritime Sovereignty for the Indonesian government, stated how environmental issues cannot simply be overlooked and will greatly impact ASEAN’s future regional economy and overall stability.

It seems impossible to unravel the complexities of international marine cooperation and security in a matter of two hours, and that improbability is evident in the first working paper. Parliamentarians seem to understand that there was not much room for them to explore deeper, so instead they created a product that reiterated altruism and underlined the importance of legal frameworks (both international and domestic) that are already in place without suggesting considerable changes to the status quo.

Marine Plastic Pollution

What was perhaps notable was the extra attention given towards marine plastic pollution. Cambodia suggested that an improvement should be made to the working paper by recommending that states slowly wean themselves off of petroleum-based plastics in the course of five years. Vietnam echoed the suggestion and recommended that nations create legislations that will change consumer behaviors through proper use of propaganda, impose higher tariffs on plastic production and its trade, including develop further research on plastic alternatives and waste treatment. However, despite the much needed recognition bestowed upon the subject of marine environment, the parliamentarians seemed hesitant to propose the idea of discussing the potentially more controversial topic of marine security that would include bringing out skeletons such as drug and peoples trafficking, illegal arms trade, and more out of countries’ closets.

the parliamentarians seemed hesitant to propose the idea of discussing the potentially more controversial topic of marine security that would include bringing out skeletons such as drug and peoples trafficking, illegal arms trade, and more out of countries’ closets.

The opportunity to discuss further about security presented itself in the second working group that sat down to confer on the matter of peaceful conflict resolution. ASEAN does deserve commendation for successfully preserving a modicum of regional peace and stability since its establishment in 1967. Numerous instruments and modalities have been made to resolve differences and potential conflicts in the region. However, individual ASEAN countries have their own social turbulences and security threats that need to be addressed by the whole association to provide support, mitigate the spread of conflict and unrest to neighboring countries, or simple humanity and respect.

Ignored Regional Challenges

Parliamentarians of AIPA are aware of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, extrajudicial killings and terrorist uprising in the Philippines, the prospective clash with China in the South China Sea, as well as forest fires and haze that are all potential threats to ASEAN’s integrity. However, the issues were never more than whispered through the room; Myanmar’s members of parliament smiled meaningfully at Malaysia’s offer to help the Rohingya situation; unlawful killings and questionable executions were never brought up by the caucus members although the Philippines insist that conflicts must be solved through means that are “equitable and humane”; Indonesia calmly brushed off Brunei’s concern about haze; while Indonesia, Myanmar, Brunei, and Singapore refuse to commit through the working paper that the South China Sea will be resolved peacefully on the basis of international law. The only remotely admirable stance that the caucus reached (but was not specifically concluded in its final working paper) was Brunei’s proposition to help the Philippines with the strife in the Mindanao and Bangsamoro. A careful read of AIPA’s second working paper for the caucus merited the conclusion that no significant legislative recommendations were made to tackle the very real conflicts currently in the region.

During the Working Group 3, the caucus discussed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Freeland, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that aims to free the world from wildlife trafficking and human slavery, graced the meeting by sharing its views on the matter. Freeland was represented by its Head of Liaison for Monitoring & Evaluation and Development Program Liaison Officer of ASEAN, Brian V. Gonzales, and Sallie Yan, Freeland’s Legal Specialist. As an NGO, Freeland is an ideal partner for the governments of ASEAN member states, and AIPA MPs especially, to work upon the intricacies of implementing CITES. Non-governmental organizations in the region can provide valuable on-the-ground insight as well as objective critique to states’ policies on the transport and trafficking of endangered plants and animals. AIPA would do well to continue exploring the many opportunities for collaboration with related NGOs.

Through the report each parliamentarian made on how their country has adopted CITES into their own national laws and regulations, some member countries have gone as far as establishing ad hoc courts dedicated to cases pertinent to environmental crimes, including wildlife-related violations. What exacerbates the issue of wildlife trafficking is the convoluted supply chain of cross-border transactions. In response to this reality, the meeting proposed a creation of a special joint task force to tackle illegal trade of wildlife and plants such as the Siamese Rosewood within AIPA member countries. This action point and previous domestic measures exhibit a degree of commitment from member countries on the matter of CITES to tackle the insidious issue of wildlife trafficking and preserve particular endangered species from exploitation.

Moreover, the meeting also included a special session on developing AIPA’s capacity as a regional forum of parliamentarians. Isra Sunthornvut, the Secretary General of AIPA, initiated the open discussion by admitting that AIPA is at a crossroad. It needs rejuvenating, rebranding, and revamping in all of its aspects, including the relevance of its existence for the past four decades. It is apparent that AIPA, as an institution that complements ASEAN, is showing signs of a mild existential crisis.

Considering the essence of the institution as the representative of the ASEAN people, it is ironic that the public seems to know so little of the assembly. It is obvious that AIPA is not getting the amount of exposure it needs. Even some of the present ministers of parliament (MPs) during the caucus confessed that they had very little knowledge of AIPA before being actively involved in the institution. As the Indonesian proverb goes like “Tak Kenal Maka Tak Sayang (Unknown therefore unloved)”, in order for the people and its MPs to be concerned about and prioritize AIPA, it is obligated that they get acquainted with the institution itself. Mainstream media coverage should be encouraged along with the engagement of civil society organizations, NGOs and the public in general through the well-implemented social media strategies.

Consensus?

Achieving consensus on the final results of the caucus was by no means easy, but the reports will be useful resources for AIPA’s General Assembly. The arduous process also illustrates that open discussions, which allow each MP to voice their concerns, can democratically yield results. Although perhaps not the best resolutions by the end of the day, it is enough to signify that every member has a different voice and has the opportunity to give valuable contributions to ASEAN’s foundation as a regional international organization that prides itself for its cooperation, solidarity, and unanimity.

In light of its most recent caucus, MPs seem to have bitten off more than they could chew during the ninth AIPA caucus: the topics were much too broad and all-encompassing to be effectively resolved in such a brief amount of time and AIPA’s limitations makes constructing adequate recommendations a game of skirting around the principle of non-intervention with a dash of diplomatic propriety. In spite of that, it must be noted that international governance is by no means easy even on a relatively small regional scale such as ASEAN. If ASEAN countries want to continue to work together seamlessly, respective domestic laws and regulations need to be in sync for a common regional development; thus, even though AIPA may be far from being a regional parliamentary body such as the European Parliament, its role is still imperative. It has to anticipate future obstacles and respond to current difficulties by providing concrete and specific legislative recommendations that are clear-cut but still malleable enough to fit the different needs of its member state. At the end of the day, AIPA has so much more to give to ASEAN than simply as an advocate of good intentions.

About the Autor :

By: Rizkina Aliya & Ardy Nugraha

ISAFIS 2017