Monthly Archives: October 2012

Blood-Thirsty Iran

30 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Middle East, The Americas, War

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


The Iranian response to international economic sanctions has been extremely counterintuitive. Not only did Iran disregard the sanctions, but also it has increased its number of centrifuges and saber rattled the United States and Israel. While his citizens suffer from a currency depreciated 80% in just a few months, Ahmadinejad increasingly fervently strives for his goals of building a “nuclear deterrent” and “wiping Israel off the map.” Seems strange, doesn’t it?

Just recently, Iran claimed that it had gained images of secret Israeli nuclear facilities from drones that it had supplied to terrorist group Hezbollah running Lebanon. While Israel and much of the international community reasons that Iran could not possibly have such advanced technology, Iran’s Defense Minister assured that Iran does have such a drone and in fact also has much more sophisticated technology. In a similar instance last month, Iran claimed it was producing a missile-carrying drone with a 1,250 mile range. This claim, too, was widely refuted. However, the main issue is not whether or not Iran has this technology. The issue is why Iran is making such information public.

Could it be possible that Iran is trying to provoke a war with the United States and Israel? This frightening proposition seems all too likely. Surprisingly, there are great potential benefits for Iran for a joint U.S.-Israeli invasion of Iran.

This stems from the opposition of NATO nations to assist if the need arose. A war fought just by the United States and Israel would reflect poorly on the two nations as it would show that these countries act with impunity with no regards to the will of the international community including their allies.

Additionally, such a war could be the beginning of the end of the American Empire so to speak. After all, considering Iranian support from many key oil importers such as Russia, it seems that such a war would not be an easy victory. Although nuclear weapons will almost surely not come into place, a defeat would demonstrate the weakening of America’s military and the rise in international prominence of Eastern militaries.

There is not much that the United States and Israel can do to stop these effects other than refusing to declare war in Iran. True, a nuclear Iran would lead to a shift in the power dynamic in the Middle East. Though, a visibly weakened United States would shift the power dynamic much more negatively than would Iranian nuclear armament.

About these ads

Obama’s Three Pronged Foreign Policy Platform

29 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, Foreign Relations, The Americas

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,


The foreign policy debate went poorly for Obama. Polls placed him around equal to Romney on debate performance, but that simply will not cut it. In order to make up for the devastation of the first debate focusing on economy, Obama had to sweep the foreign policy debate by a huge margin. This is especially true considering that foreign policy is touted as Obama’s strong suit. Romney sabotaged Obama’s plans, though, by projecting a false level of similarity to Obama’s foreign policy platform and by purposely steering the debate towards the economy.

However, there may be a silver lining for Obama in regards to foreign policy. The foreign policy situations in the Middle East have lined up in such a way that Obama could make some key foreign policy decisions to revitalize his campaign.

Washington has currently reached the limit of sanctions in Iran. Already sanctions are crippling the economy and yet the result is that Ahmadinejad continues his nuclear armament while his citizens’ quality of life continues to dampen under these sanctions. In a recent poll from The Foreign Policy Initiative, 62% of Americans said that they would be willing to go to any lengths, including military action, to keep Iran nuclear-free. Obama should capitalize on this and launch a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

Syria has reached the breaking point. Although the majority of Americans currently oppose military intervention in Syria, this is largely because they have been fed rhetoric for months on why the situation in Syria makes military ventures like a no-fly zone more difficult than it was in Libya. Although the violence in Syria is much more intense than it was in Libya, the situations are relatively similar and it should be just as easy to launch military intervention. After all, by this point, even Russia and Iran have reduced aid to al-Assad significantly and the regime appears to be on its last legs. Thus, Obama should begin orchestrating a no-fly zone over Syria with cooperation from NATO allies.

Lebanon continues to be a major threat to Middle Eastern stability. Clashes between pro-al Assad forces and pro-rebel forces have leaked beyond the Syrian border and currently threaten the stability of Lebanon in the future. Hezbollah also offers a major obstacle to a Middle East Peace Plan involving a two-state solution. Military intervention in Lebanon will be the trickiest of the three as the United States does not have very strong grounds for such intervention. Though, Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia pulling for the U.S. to intervene in Syria would likely agree to reciprocate such intervention with assisting the United States in restoring order to Lebanon.

Throughout history, war has unified citizens and sparked nationalism. After all, even George W. Bush experienced approval ratings of over 90% just after declaring the War on Terror. Now, normally it would be completely unjustifiable for a presidential candidate to make a major decision that will impact the future of a country’s policy just days before an election. However, one key factor justifies Obama taking such action. Military intervention in Syria and Iran is almost guaranteed within a six-month timeframe anyways. After all, despite the most crippling of sanctions, Iran continues to pursue nuclear armament and Syria’s al-Assad regime has only increased the intensity of killing citizens. Lebanon seems relatively stable at the moment but its stability is being jeopardized in parallel to that of Syria albeit with a lag of about a year and a half. Thus, military intervention in Lebanon will soon prove vital as well.

Brokering a Middle East Peace Plan: Qatar’s Specialty

26 Friday Oct 2012

Posted by in Foreign Relations, Middle East, The Americas

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,


Qatar is a land of contrasts. It supports autocratic rule at home, but it financially and militarily supports other Middle Easterners protesting against their governments. It consistently works to strengthen alliances with European and North American nations while also pledging $400 million in foreign aid to terrorist group Hamas. It is precisely because of these supposed hypocrisies that Qatar should be the leading mediator in international conflicts, particularly in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the United States should be the broker of Middle Eastern peace. Obama himself iterated that in recent history, the U.S. has been the only force capable of bringing Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. Yet, Israel and Palestine are currently no closer to an agreement than they were when Obama took office. If anything, relations between the two nations are more tense. Palestine and Israel have not negotiated for over two years now.

Qatar would be a more suitable broker of peace than the United States for two key reasons. First, it has a direct stake in Middle Eastern stability. As an oil exporter, Qatar is heavily invested in ensuring peace and thus open markets for all of its importers and potential importers. A politically stable and economically prosperous Palestine and Israel would be a major benefit to Qatar.

Secondly, Qatar would be an ideal moderator for a Middle East Peace Plan because it is unbiased in the issue. As mentioned before, Qatar’s Emir recently made a trip to Palestine where he pledged $400 million in foreign aid to the Hamas group ruling the country. At the same time, Qatar has constantly maintained contact with Israel and established economic alliances with its leaders. Qatar is one of a select few nations that maintains strong alliances with both parties involved in this issue and would therefore be able to bring both sides to the negotiating table.

Perhaps Romney summarized it best when he said during the campaign trail that in regards to the Israel-Palestine issue, the United States can do nothing but kick the can down the road. The issue is that America and Americans are self-interested especially in foreign policy. Without any tangible benefits to themselves, Americans rarely devote time or resources to important international issues. The United States would not benefit from an Israeli-Palestinian compromise; they would only benefit from a one-state solution under Israel given their extensive alliance with and resources invested in Israel. Qatar, on the other hand, is relatively unbiased in this issue, has direct benefits to act, and has suitable resources to facilitate an agreement between both parties. It’s a no brainer.

The Patriots and the Tories: A Parliament for All

25 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by in Government, The Americas

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , ,


Since the Revolutionary War, the United States has proudly distanced itself from Britain in every way possible. From a new system of measurements to driving on a different side of the road to different spellings, the United States has gone to all lengths to defy the norms of Britain and the scope of its empire which, incidentally, is the majority of the international community. Yet, one regard in which the U.S. should seek to replace its systems with those of Britain is in government.

The British Parliament is a much better legislature than the U.S. Congress could ever hope to be because it avoids bipartisanship. A coalition model would improve U.S. Congress in two important ways: facilitating comprimise and the rise of third party candidates.

The United States’ political model as it stands today is an all or nothing system. Votes for third party candidates are meaningless as these candidates will never win for the time being at least. The only choice is the increasingly extreme Republican and Democrat parties. Although election results indicate that only about 5% of Americans support third-party candidates, the reality is likely quite different. In fact, the percentage of third party aligned eligible voters who do not vote is likely higher than this 5% mark. Many seemingly apathetic non-voters are actually aligned with third parties and do not vote because they feel that their votes would have no impact. Thus, such a system would both encourage greater political participation and ensure party representation proportional to popular sovereignty.

Including third party candidates in Congress would naturally facilitate compromise. At the moment, Congressmen overwhelmingly vote not by what in their perspective would be in the best interests of the country, but by what their party lines dictate. A coalition government would end this dreaded system because it would most likely deny either of the two big parties majorities. It would therefore force Congressmen of different parties to work together to formulate bills and ensure that Congressmen vote outside of their party lines.

Creating a coalition Congress may seem like a big change for the U.S. as it could fragment political representation. This would likely stalemate Congress temporarily until both parties could begin to compromise for the good of the country. Additionally, the two-party system has always worked well for the United States. It has managed to curb the power of either party which has been necessary because of the large number of stanchly aligned Americans. This is a consequence of a coalition government. After all, this means that even if one of the major parties adopted a platform that could be damaging to the nation, it could get representation of at least 30% in a coalition government due to the extreme right and left wing American.  However, these drawbacks are minor compared to the great benefits of third party representation and compromise that a coalition legislature would facilitate.

Mali: America’s Skeleton in the Closet

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Africa, Foreign Relations, The Americas, War

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,


Contrary to what Barack Obama and Mitt Romney said on Tuesday’s debate, the greatest foreign policy issue for the United States is not a nuclear Iran nor is it the United States’ own fiscal woes. The greatest foreign policy issue that the United States faces is an Al Qaeda jihadist coalition’s control of an area the size of France in Mali.

Barack Obama likes to stress the role that he played in combatting terrorism during his term. Specifically, he consistently brings up the example of ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden. Yes, this move helped Americans to gain closure over the 9/11 attacks. However, killing Osama Bin Laden did little to advance US counterterrorism interests. In fact, Al Qaeda, with its newfound power over Mali, is stronger now than it ever was under Bin Laden.

The United States’ assistance is particularly important to intervention in Mali precisely because United Nations’ action has thus far been extremely weak. The United Nations seeks to rest the Mali’s future on the limited resources of Mali’s Western African neighbors. Such a plan is doomed to failure.

The issue, of course, is that many of the NATO nations that would typically lead such an international response are recovering from the political turnoil from the recently ended Iraq war and the soon to end Afghanistan War. Granted, in those cases, Western intervention was not required nor was it requested. However, Malians and the international community as a whole is currently requesting assistance in ousting the Al Qaeda government and Sharia law.

The United States has the military resources to coordinate an effective intervention in Mali. Now, the question arises. What benefit will the United States gain from such a conflict. The answer is complex, but in short, the U.S. will have very few benefits from intervention in Mali. Al Qaeda is a large network that is expanding at a rate faster than the United States can combat.

However, the United States has a duty to relinquish self-interest and work for international interest. This is the natural task of economic and military superpowers; even Britain fulfilled this task to an extent through imperialism, although some question the motives of Britain’s imperialist history. The international community has continually requested the United States to work as an international police, a responsibility that the United States has fulfilled for the most part over the past couple of decades.

Yet, the United States’ responsibility to tackle issues of common international interest are in question this election. Throughout the debates, Romney and Obama have seemed to agree that they would should focus on benefitting its economy and devising a foreign policy based on issues that directly impact the U.S. Both candidates appear to be embarking upon an imprudent path based solely on self-interest. The international community witnessed and experienced the effects of that type of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. It would be a true tragedy if the United States resorted to the foreign policies of the Cold War simply for economic benefit.

From California to Washington: The Ceaseless Tax Conundrum

23 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Economy, The Americas

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,


California currently faces an issue that is applicable to the United States as a whole: the ceaseless issue of taxes. Governor Brown in California proposed a bill that will raise state taxes on those making over $300,000 a year by up to 30%. Under this bill, the top 1% of Californians by income would be contributing 50% of the state tax. Brown argues that without this bill passed, California will have to resort to cutting its school year by three weeks just to make ends meet. Keep in mind that California already has the highest state taxes in the nation largely in an effort to rebalance its $16 billion deficit. In terms of state tax, it seems positively ridiculous that the rich are being burdened to finance systems that benefit the poor. State taxes go towards systems such as public education, public healthcare, and social welfare that benefit the poor and middle class much more than they benefit the rich. This is why many states follow a flat tax system.

This same theory can be applied to the United States as a whole. Many stanch conservatives argue that the government should not redistribute income. I disagree, though. I believe that all Americans have a duty to contribute economically to the success of the nation at large and that the wealthy, since they are more able to do so, should be more responsible for contributing financially to the social institutions that benefit society as a whole. After all, no country has been able to retain post-Industrial economic development without vast social welfare systems. The fact of the matter is that the private sector simply does not produce better human capital for the masses through means such as research and education.

However, even under a flat tax system, the wealthy would be taxed much more heavily than the middle class and the poor. Though, their proportional responsibility for taxes would be less than it currently is under the United Staets’ progressive tax system. A successful flat tax would only be applicable for individuals with incomes above a certain threshold. For the purposes of this article, let us assume that a successful federal income flat tax could tax individuals on 25% of their income above $25,000 per year. Under such a tax plan, the middle class would still pay far less than the wealthy as they would have far less of their income eligible for taxation as opposed to the wealthy. Yet, such a system would increase the middle class’s responsibility for the systems that they, not the rich, depend on such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The United States prides itself as a nation built on self-reliance. Though some, most notably the working poor, may need government assistance and be unable to fund such systems, the majority of the United States, including the middle class must be held responsible economically for the government systems that they depend on.

Limits to the Power of the People

20 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,


80 million Americans watched the first presidential debate and 65 million watched the second. Given the overlap, it is reasonable to assume that at least 2/5 of eligible voters watched one of the two debates. This is up from 2008 when about 52 million Americans watched the first McCain-Obama debate.

Many potential voters who did not watch either of the debates have likely done research on the candidates and are on the right path to making an informed vote. Yet, the issue of popular ignorance in the United States is one that cannot be ignored. It is inevitable in a democracy that a sizable percentage of voters will be inadequately educated on the issues. Also, with the bipartisan system of the US, there is always the issue of voters aligning themselves with a specific party without understanding the views of the specific candidate on the issues that will affect them.

The conundrum in this issue has always been that restricting the voting populace artificially goes against democratic principles. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why democracy was not prevalent until the advent of education for the masses: without an informed populace, the system simply fails. This is why the United States and democratic countries as a whole must re-evaluate their concept of democracy. The idea of democracy is not that candidates adopt illogical platforms that appeal to the undereducated populace. This has been the case in the United States for too long. In this election, for example, both candidates have agreed on energy independence and keeping jobs in America (i.e. discouraging outsourcing) Yet, upon further examination, it seems that opening the United States to outsourcing would open it up to new markets that would benefit the economy in the long run. Additionally, energy independence would be very costly to the government, would raise prices for consumers, and would hamper America’s alliance with oil trade partners such as Saudi Arabia.

The best way to ensure that only informed voters hit the polls on election day is to create short tests for voters at each polling station that require voters to have a basic knowledge of each party’s stance on the economy, foreign policy, and social issues. The majority of the current voting populace would be able to pass these tests, but the truly uneducated voters would thus be prevented from skewing election results.

The Democrat party would likely be against such a policy as it would take away from their constituency. Their platform, of course, is most appealing to the working class poor who are most likely to be undereducated and uninformed of most policy decisions other than social welfare issues. However, there are ways that such a platform could be made equal for both parties. For example, such a test could be translated into Spanish for Hispanic voters who disproportionately side with Obama’s campaign. The U.S. government can also use mass media to create public service announcements disseminating unbiased information on both candidates. The goal of any democracy should be an informed electorate. Since that is impossible to ensure without intervention, democracies like the United States must impose voting requirements to make its voting electorate as informed as possible to end the power of popular ignorance.

Unraveling the Skeletons in the Closet: Guantanamo Bay

18 Thursday Oct 2012

Posted by in Government, The Americas

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,


Nearly 10% of Americans on death row are falsely convicted. This is, of course, after an extensive appeals process costing more than lifetime imprisonment. The United States is ever secretive of its military prison at Guantanamo Bay. While it is impossible to tell for sure, denying the suspects at Guantanamo Bay basic legal rights such as unbiased hearings and trial by jury means that the percentage of false convictions at Guantanamo Bay is likely around double the figure of false convictions of death row inmates, or around 20%.

Romney has argued in the debates of Obama’s false promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year of his presidency. Yet, Obama was committed to closing the facility; bipartisanship in Congress, however, halted such action. Conversely, Romney is not content with simply maintaining the Guantanamo Bay enclosure. He, instead, proposes doubling the size of the facility in order to hold the most heinous criminals.

In an advanced nation that prides itself on the best human rights record in the world, Guantanamo Bay is unjustifiable. The greatest irony is that the United States condemns the use of torture around the world particularly in Middle Eastern countries. The waterboarding practice in Guantanamo Bay of simulating drowning during interrogations is comparable if not worse than the torture practices used in much of the Middle East and Africa.

The detriments of Guantanamo Bay for the United States far outweigh the costs. The greatest tangible benefit that Guantanamo Bay offers the United States is national security. However, there is no reason that high profile accused terrorists cannot be placed in maximum security jails on life imprisonment without parole or be sentenced to the death penalty. Additionally, Guantanamo Bay supposedly helps to preserve American national security by inflicting torture on criminals. Bear in mind, of course, that most of the criminals held at Guantanamo Bay are Islamic extremists prepared to give their life for their struggle against the United States. Torture on these individuals proves ineffective. Confessions obtained under torture are usually inaccurate. Furthermore, given that roughly 20% of Guantanamo Bay inmates are likely falsely prosecuted, it is a crime against humanity to subject likely innocent individuals to torture without the due legal process. Even with the legal process, such treatment is unprecedented in the United States.

Closing Guantanamo Bay will be a long, hard struggle for either candidate due to the fairly equal distribution of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. However, Obama has shown a greater commitment to ending the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay and should thus be deemed the winner of both candidates on the issue.

Bin Laden is Dead and General Motors is Alive

16 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,


“Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Joe Biden’s line succinctly explaining Obama’s supposed successes over the economy and foreign policy could not be more misleading.

Yes, General Motors is alive. Under Mitt Romney’s plan, though, GM would still be alive and the taxpayers would have had to pay 3 billion dollars less to ensure GM’s survival. Obama’s economic stimulus undoubtedly saved thousands of American jobs. This line purposefully aims to steer away from the main issues of the presidential debate. After all, hardly any Americans would argue that Obama’s economic stimuli failed to save thousands of American jobs. The main issue is whether or not those jobs merited nearly 1 trillion dollars of extra federal debt.

Regarding killing Osama Bin Laden, Obama’s personal role in the affair was miniscule. True, Obama agreed to launch the raid on Bin Laden. Though, his security advisers had unanimously supported this course of action.

Moreover, the decision, on hindsight, was not necessarily a logical one. After all, the chances of finding Bin Laden in the Abbottabad compound were roughly 50-50. A failed raid in Pakistan would have been a disaster. It would have aggravated tense U.S.- Pakistani relations. Pakistan would likely have kept NATO supply routes closed which would have cost the United States billions of dollars extra in the upcoming years pulling out of Afghanistan. Of course, there was the 50% chance of capturing and killing the most villainous terrorist in the modern era. In hindsight, though, this decision was rather meaningless. Even at the time, it should have been clear to the White House that Al Qaeda is an organized group with a formal leadership structure and thousands of members globally. The death of the leader of the organization did little to quell the fervor of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is currently at large in Libya where it is suspected that Al Qaeda was behind the killing of the US ambassador to Libya.

Obama has had plenty of successes during his presidency. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama supported, for example, was successful enough to get Romney on board for the most part. He has managed a full troop withdrawal from Iraq and has drastically reduced troop presence in Afghanistan. In the upcoming presidential debate, Obama should highlight and properly explain his foreign policy platform and successes. Instead of appealing to the populist pride over Bin Laden’s death, he should focus on his past successes and the benefits of remaining neutral in the Middle East, supporting the Arab Spring countries, and retaining strong economic ties to all countries regardless of their foreign policy differences from the United States.

Obama, Romney, and Oil Independence: The Terrible Trio

14 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Elections, The Americas

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , ,


In the highly bipartisan U.S. presidential election, both candidates have somehow managed to find a common ground… on the wrong side of the issue. Both candidates have portrayed themselves as patriotic and identifiable to the middle class by arguing that they will bring jobs to America. This argument is populist and appeals to the majority of voters do not understand how globalism benefits them. In fact, outsourcing jobs is better for the economy as it opens the U.S. economy up to new markets and reduces prices for American consumers or, in other words, the middle class.

Nowhere is the detriment of economic self-sustenance more prevalent to the United States than in the energy sector.

Although the United States recently experienced a boom in shale gas production, energy independence would require a great increase in oil prices. Domestic energy independence would depend upon the United States resolving to more expensive alternate energy. This seems like a noble goal. However, with the recent global shale gas boom, it is estimated that traditional energy sources will last for over 200 years at current consumption rates. It is not time to wean the United States off of fossil fuels and it never will be. That is because the ‘invisible hand’ of the markets will help to regulate the energy sector. That is to say, once fossil fuels are depleted to a certain level, alternate energy will be more cost effective by the theory of supply and demand. Thus, it is not necessary for the government to regulate energy at this point; the private sector will develop alternate energy technology at such time that alternate energy becomes profitable.

One of the arguments for energy independence for the United States is that the Middle East is an unreliable oil source. However, the United States has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that it can revert to if it faces foreign policy woes in the Middle East. Moreover, relinquishing the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, as an oil source will have great diplomatic consequences for the United States. After all, Saudi Arabia, the United States’ sole Middle East ally except for Israel, has retained close ties with the U.S. only because of their oil treaty. If the United States decides instead to use domestic oil only, it will face a more volatile situation in the Middle East.

The presidential candidates must realize how energy independence does not benefit the United States. However, that does not seem to matter. As this election has shown multiple times, Obama and Romney are more worried about getting elected than they are about actually fulfilling their duties to benefit America.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers