Kony 2012

Since we had such a good discussion in class I thought I might write my last blog on the subject. So most of us know that Kony uses child soldiers to gain prominence in Uganda, Congo, and Sudan. Kony wants to lead a nation based off of the 10 commandments.

I don't by any means agree with how Kony is going about trying to gain power. If he were an American citizen he would probably have a lot of support based on his beliefs. However in the country that he lives in, the situation better lends itself to "warlord" type leaders swallowing up villages and pillaging the land.

Now I don't think there is a very simple answer to this problem for a couple of reasons. First, these African nations can't be trusted with money and second, as Mrs. Garber said, there are sovereignty issues if we were to use military force.

On the first subject, Uganda, Congo and Sudan all have sketchy governments. If aid in the form of money were to be given to these countries, we could assume that it would be used elsewhere. So giving money is out of the question. NGOs however, they can spend their money however they want. If private citizens are silly enough to give money to an organization that will only spend 5% of the money given on the actual cause then that's their own fault.

On the subject of military force, we have sent "advisers" to help train the Ugandan Army. This is kind of a preventative measure you could say, since Kony isn't really in Uganda anymore, but if he were to return, we're hoping that they could defend the villages. We can't do much other than send advisers and help train because we have no business sending troops to this area to help catch him.

Please weigh in with any of your thoughts on the situation.

Iran's Nuclear Program

Iran has been developing a nuclear program with has recently gained steam. Do we think this is much of a threat? If so in what way?

People have argued the danger of Iran with a nuclear arsenal by saying that it will be used against Israel and then the United States as Israel's ally might be a second target. The counter argument to that has been that by attacking Israel, Iran runs the risk of hurting Palestinians. I find both of these arguments fallacious and feel that there is little to worry about in terms of Iran's nuclear arsenal.

Iran must realize that the United States has the most powerful military in the world. By engaging in a war with the United States they would be making an incredible error. The United States has the power to hurt Iran, and if this war were to occur, in the peace treaty there would surely be a clause about certain natural resources that the United States might want.

Furthermore, as I previously said, the United States if anything would be a secondary target. This means that if Iran used nuclear weapons, the United States would have time to react and issue a warning to Iran.

I think it's a similar situation with North Korea. In that case we would be a primary target, but North Korea realizes that the United States possesses incredible strength which North Korea does not. Essentially, because of the power that the United States has, for now, we don't need to worry much about the potential of warfare with nations that have nuclear weapons.

Too much for Soldiers?

Most of us have heard about the shooting that the US soldier committed in Afghanistan. This incident was unprompted and has caused a lot of questions about the mental health of soldiers. Soldiers are screened for disorders like PTSD or other stress disorders before their tours. But this system obviously is not totally effective.

It's difficult to pinpoint disorders like this because of the line of work these people are in as well as the fact that the brain is a complex entity. Friends of the soldier said that he was one of the best people they had worked with and everything must have just weighed on him at one time and caused him to simply snap. I understand that the pressures of war are incredible but that doesn't excuse his actions.

Only certain people should be able to go to war. I can imagine it would be hard to stomach taking another person's life, but there is no real way to test for it. The only solution would be to screen soldiers more in depth after their tours. This way, potentially hazardous soldiers could be taken out of the service.

This brings me to the next point, how many tours are too many? Soldiers can serve 5-6 or more tours. Obviously, that amount of time at war will have some sort of effect on a person. We see that many soldiers are returning with PTSD and in fact, more US soldiers have taken their own lives than have had their lives taken in the War on Terror.

How can we solve these problems? Should we have a limit on the number of tours soldiers can go on? Should we have more strict screening for mental disorders? It's very apparent that something needs to change, but finding a good change isn't easy.

Russia

As many of us know, Russia recently had elections and reelected Putin as president. What do we think this means for the future of Russia? Do you think that they will fall back into a one party system?

I believe that Russia is beginning to fall back into old tendencies. As we discussed it is part of their history to have a strong leader who serves alone. As Mrs. Garber said, for the past 1000 years or so Russia has been ruled by empires essentially and it seems like that's what they're reverting to.

Putin epitomizes the idea of a strong leader. He was in the KGB which associates him with the former regime. This to me is a bit odd since it has been a very short time since the fall of the old regime. But I guess in a way Putin symbolizes stability that the USSR provided

One issue with the elections that Russia held was the potential of voter fraud. In preliminary elections it was evident that Putin received much more of the vote than he should have. Also, there were numerous protests at the polls and the protesters were punished for their actions.

This exemplifies the meta-constitutional powers that Putin will most likely claim as president. He already limits media time for opponents and limits the media's ability to speak against him. With his new more powerful office, I believe he'll abuse the power and bring Russia back to a state similar to the USSR.

The Future of China

Recently I've been trying to read up/keep up with Chinese politics. Recently what I've read is that Wen Jiabao has called for both a lower economic growth goal as well as political reform to sustain the growth over a long period of time. As Mrs. Garber said, it's almost as if the Chinese can feel the ground moving beneath their feet.

First is the economic growth. China has been growing at about 8% of its GDP annually for the past decade or so. This year their goal was lowered to 7.5%, which is the first time in 7 years that the goal has been beneath 8%. When Mr. Jiabao announced this goal it came with a bit of backlash. The Chinese people have a rapidly growing population which needs to be supported by an equally growing economy.

One of the ways that China has been attempting to stimulate the economy through growing wages. If the population has more money to spend on goods and services then the economy can continue to grow. These increased wages are probably a result of the one child policy as the working age population is lower at the moment due to that policy so businesses can afford to pay their workers more. As the working population rises again, the wages might decrease again or just not adjust for inflation.

When Mr. Jiabao referred to political changes, he didn't mention specifics. But he said that political reform would lead to the sustainability of their incredible economic growth. This most likely means political liberalization and more capitalistic approaches for the Chinese people. Capitalism means choices in the economy, and with that people will want to have a choice in how that economy is run.

These reforms seem eerily reminiscent of the changes in the USSR that lead to its fall. As the Chinese government allows more political rights they will allow their people the ability to dissent. This dissension will eat away at the party's sovereignty and legitimacy. This should eventually lead to the downfall of the Communist Party in China. So, to sum things up, China looks like it will be falling out of its current ways and begin to Westernize in the next decade.

Reunification of Korea

Because of the change in power in North Korea do you think it'll become a more liberal state? I realize that it's deeprooted in their culture now that there is a lack of rights and such, but similarly to the USSR there is the potential for change in the hands of a new weaker leader.

I feel that if anytime now would be good to force North Korea into a transitional government and slowly re-assimilate both the North and South Koreans together. This would be a slow and possibly painful process, I understand that. But could that be a potential benefit to both North and South Korea?

South Korea is becoming more of an economic power and North Korea could offer more natural resources and labor which the South Koreans might not necessarily have. From the North Korean perspective, they could gain the rights they've been lacking for the past 60 years or so. Both nations could coexist or at least have a somewhat symbiotic relationship.

Right now for America at least, it doesn't seem like it is the top of the priorities as the new leader of North Korea is most likely going to lay fairly low for a while and our interests are invested mainly in the middle east. But "Korea" could be a powerful ally if it were to present itself as a unified state.

Piracy

ACTA seems to be threatening modern pirates just as much as SOPA and PIPA. It's an international agreement which would accomplish the same things as SOPA and PIPA which more and more nations are beginning to sign.

Also Canada had a bill introduced recently which is very similar to SOPA and PIPA. Why must we influence the world in such a way? Our influence on our northern neighbors reminds me of how we discussed our strong influence on Canada and we see it worldwide.

In Europe certain governments have refused to block certain websites like the Pirate bay because they feel that the free flow of ideas is beneficial and can come through the use of piracy. I do understand that piracy does hurt the producer in many cases, but how much? How many CDs are artists losing and how much money does that equate to? It's unclear.

America seems to be stirring up these causes domestically to possibly distract them and pass other bills like NDAA which got relatively no press. It seems silly that there is so little transparency in the current administration, it gets a bit annoying.