yourcaopp-blog

[yourcaopp-blog]

i wasn’t feeling so gucci mr stark so i drew some meme cats

[yourcaopp-blog]

For decades now, the United States has maintained an active role when it comes to foreign policy and intervention. The country is always ready and willing to assist conflict-riddled regions. By doing so, the U.S. upholds intervention or the aspect of interrupting the domestic or territorial affairs in another nation using diplomatic or military influence. However, the usefulness and meaning of sovereignty as a crucial principle for defining the international political order has labelled foreign intervention as a debated and controversial issue for the past centuries. This essay explores the United States’ foreign assistance in war-ridden countries and its consequences by examining the recent confusion and neglect of the Arab world by America as highlighted in an article by the Economist.

According to the Economist, it came as a shock when France, instead of the United States, took the initiative to resolve the political crisis that faced Lebanon. France made it possible for the former prime minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, to renounce his resignation following a 2-week house arrest in the Saudi capital. France then negotiated for his return to Beirut amidst criticism from America. The confusion and neglect of the United States of the recent global crises may be attributed to the current president, Donald Trump, who has not shown any concern for the Saudi-led battle that has laid Yemen into complete waste.

Donald Trump’s ascension into authority coincided with that of the radical leaders, King Salman and Muhammad, his son. The Saudi leaders have abandoned and discriminated the Al Saud’s in favor of an aggressive foreign policy. Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Hariri, came under siege for outing Saudi’s pressure techniques and terming them as reckless because they can ruin the delicate sectarian balance in the Arab region. Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears to be siding with the Saudi initiatives to the extent of supporting their military invasions in poor nations such as Yemen and Syria. However, he also seems to be losing interest in the Saudi conflict thus presenting conflicting perspectives regarding the specific role and position of the United States on the matter.

For decades, the US presidents have been faced with various dilemmas surrounding foreign intervention. Some like Trump and his predecessor, Obama, choose to stay out of the way to allow conflicting regions like Syria to solve their crises on their own. The neglect is often criticized by different nations because the general expectation is that the United States should provide supervision and assistance to the regions facing political instability. Other leaders like George Bush and Reagan took an active role in solving international challenges, but at the expense of the nation’s reputation and resources. Hence, it is possible to understand why the current presidents choose to assume a subtle response to foreign intervention and policy.

Foreign intervention, as highlighted earlier, has also brought a lot of controversy surrounding the principle of sovereignty. However, many political leaders, activists, and scholars argue that noninterference and sovereignty should not stand in the way of global interventions meant to safeguard the victims of massive human rights violations. Different cases across the decades have advanced the controversy of sovereignty and the normative claim, such as the 1999 Kosovo Battle, the 1992 intervention in Somalia, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Bosnian civil conflict (Silverstone 10). Additionally, the United States is accused of having vested motives or hidden agendas when it intervenes in international issues. The controversies have led to reforms in the country’s foreign policy. In this particular case of the Arab region, it is evident that the confusion and neglect of the United States is enabling autocratic leaders to destabilize policies that could potentially harm the sectarian relations and other critical functions that the region plays in international trade, relations, and politics.

[yourcaopp-blog]

Nuclear Weapons in North Korea

Over decades, North Korea has been burdened by starving population, an alarming level of poverty, lack of resources, inadequate capital and infrastructure investments, limited military capability and isolation from the international trade. Perhaps this is the reason it has concentrated on the nuclear issue to improve its national security. This has proved successful with time, but the threat to international relations and politics are profound. This paper explores the threat of North Korea nuclear weapons on international relations and politics by reviewing the Fox news article “Korea's latest ICBM has potential to reach Washington, Seoul says” on 1st December 2017.

According to the details of this article, the Ballistic missile fired within the week has a potential of reaching the targets located 8,100 miles away, and this means that Washington DC would be within that reach. It is noted in the news that the missile by the name Hwasong-15 is larger with the capability of delivering larger warheads compared to the previous ones tested on Korean soil. In fact, Kim Jong claimed that this missile could strike the mainland of the United States of America. The editors also note the South Korea and Seoul concern over this new threat and are encouraging president Trump to continue strengthening sanctions and pressure on South Korea in an attempt to frustrate its nuclear ambitions.

Many countries around the world have recognized the threats of nuclear weapons and have signed Nuclear Weapon Ban treaty which is aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons and eliminate it. In light of this consideration, continued testing of nuclear weapons by North Korea is a threat to this treaty. The Atomic threat has also tested international relationships, especially between China and United States. For instance, China being a traditional ally of North Korea find its hard to convince it to abandon the weapons. This has also complicated relations between US and china with the latter getting even more worried about the results of missile defence system created by South Korea. USA-China relationship is also put at the balance by the fact that the latter believe that the USA is using north Korea as a pretext to have more influence in the region. Other countries allied to South Korea and the US are likely to take their own measures in case this situation turns into a global disaster. Overall, international relations stand at balance especially because all countries acknowledge the magnitude of the tragedies that come with a nuclear weapon.

It is also important to note that these threats will also change the global politics. For instance, politics in counties thought to be targets of Kim Jong will have to think of the best strategies that will not put its citizens and other countries at risk. Other countries such as South Korea and Japan have to allocate a significant portion of their budget towards empowering their military in case of the attack. The politics in the country of China will also change as the country tries to assess the implications of the likelihood of instability considering in case of attack and how it will affect it as the superpower in Asia. Politics in North Korea will also change to accommodate the reality of the sanctions that are likely to be put by the UN Security Council. Admittedly, conflict in Korea might be disruptive enough to cause World War III due to the security guarantee offered by the US. This alone is likely to change the politics of all the countries in the world as they explore the best strategy to protect themselves.

To this end, it is clear that the news of North Korea testing one of the most massive missiles is something that should attract global attention considering the implication on international relations and politics. Being superpowers, China and U.S are mostly affected by the continued threat by North Korea. Military intervention does not seem like the best solution considering the massive destruction caused by the nuclear weapons but indeed, an urgent solution is needed to prevent the situation from escalating to a global disaster

[yourcaopp-blog]

Trump Administration Defends Cuba Embargo at U.N., Reversing Obama

In his article titled “Trump Administration Defends Cuba Embargo at U.N., Reversing Obama,” Rick Gladstone writes about the new turn of events in the international relations between the US and Cuba. According to the author, the US has objected to the annual UNGA resolution which deplores the trade embargos placed on Cuba by the US. The decision by the Trump administration to toughen the embargos against Cuba is a different approach and attitude from that which his predecessor, Barack Obama, had taken towards Cuba.

The sour relations between the US and Cuba dates back to 1962 when the US imposed trade sanctions on Cuba following a decision by the then Cuban President Fidel Castro to confiscate and domesticate properties or assets belonging to American companies. However, the decision by the US seems to have isolated it from the rest of the members of the UN General Assembly who think it is a high time the embargos were lifted so that normal international relations between the two nations may resume. According to the author, those who oppose the continued imposition of embargos and sanctions on Cub argue that the  ostracization of Cuba by the Americans for decades now has not worked and hence the need to lift the ban on trade with Cuba.

From this article, it is evident that the renewed tensions between Washington and Havana may harm both the US and Cuba in terms of international relations. Moreover, it does not augur well for international politics since it represents political differences between the leadership of Cuba and the USA. International relations as a field or branch of political science mainly entails how nations relate to each other. From the article, it is clear that there are not much of good or warm relations between the US and Cuba. The strained relations could have serious impacts on both countries in terms of trade and politics. For instance, with the continued sanctions against Cuba, the country is likely to be isolated from the US and the rest of the world thus adversely affecting its economy. Further, the US is likely to be affected in that it will continue to lose the economic opportunities that its companies could get from Cuba.

Moreover, from the article, it is clear from an international relations perspective that the US foreign policy in relation to Cuba and many other countries will continue to change depending on who is the President. Whereas the former President Obama took a totally different approach or attitude towards Cuba, President Trump is taking a negative attitude towards the country. This means that future administrations are also likely to take different actions on Cuba. The flip-flopping of American foreign policy and international relations is not good as it may undermine efforts to end the old and discredited cold war mind wars between the US and other nations.

One of the reasons the US imposed the trade embargos on Cuba was to compel the leadership of the country to promote democracy and uphold or protect human rights. Up to now, Cuba has made tremendous strides towards ensuring that basic freedoms and rights such as the right to vote in a democratic election are respected. Hence, it is no longer justified for the US to continue imposing the economic sanctions on Cuba. As Gladstone notes,  the continued imposition of the sanctions only serves to further isolate the US at the world stage and hence the need for the US to reconsider its position on the relations with Cuba (Online).  

The economic opportunities that are lost as a result of the sanctions are not only hurting Cubans but also Americans because of restricted and limited trade between the two countries. Even though the American Ambassador to the UN, Nikki R. Haley, has said that the US is not bothered by the isolation both at the UN and at any other level, the truth is that these meaningless and misguided sanctions will serve to further isolate the US more and hurt its economy. It is also a dent on the image of the US  from an international relations standpoint as it portrays it as a nation that does not promote positive interactions with other countries.

[yourcaopp-blog]

North Korea Nuclear raises new problems.

One of the latest news items, in the New York Times, concerning international politics and international relations, is about North Korea provoking its neighbors to reconsider the use of nuclear weapons. From the article, North Korea is in a race to design a weapon that might threaten the U.S cities for the first time. As a result, its neighbors are confused on whether they should build their nuclear weapons too. North Korea’s advancement in terms of its military competences has thrown the military strategies of several countries across the globe into a tailspin and doubts have emerged on whether the U.S will be able to maintain control over the development of nuclear weapons

The article argues that daily arguments have emerged in South Korea and Japan (both in public and in private) over the use of nuclear options to defend themselves if attacked by North Korea. This has emerged because of worries that the U.S. might slow down in defending the nations if this action might aggravate the launch of a missile from North Korean to the U.S. About sixty percent of the South Koreans are in support of building a nuclear arsenal, and about seventy percent of the population requires the U.S. to reestablish tactical nuclear weapons, which are aimed for  use in case of a  battlefield; notably such weapons were withdrawn about twenty-five years ago 

However, in Japan, the support for nuclear weapons is publicly minimal bearing in mind the fact that it is the only nation that ever suffered the effects of a nuclear attack. Even so, many experts believe that Japan’s attitude might quickly reverse if both North and South Korea have nuclear weapons. Other nations like Australia, Taiwan, and Vietnam are also debating about whether it makes sense for other nations like North Korea to arm themselves with nuclear weapons while they are campaigning against the use of such weapons. This has created fears that North Korea could stir a nuclear arms race since neighboring nations feel threatened and would like to build theirs as a means of protection. Just as by Henry A. Kissinger, who is a nuclear strategist since the Cold War, argues, if North Korea is allowed to continue building nuclear arsenals, then the strategy shall be copied by the rest of Asia 

Although Japan is in possession of a long-array of the missile technologies, the country is keeping its promise — of not building nuclear weapons. However, with this threat from North Korea, they might be at ease. Although Moon Jae-in, the South Korean president, has remained calm in his opposition to nuclear arsenals, public opinion is in favor of building nuclear weapons. The public is arguing that the country cannot depend on protection from the U.S. Following North Korea’s successful testing of ballistic missiles that have the capacity to reach U.S’s mainland, South Korea’s opposition party made a request to the U.S. to reintroduce the development of nuclear weapons. Woo Yoo-Chul also argued that since the U.N Security Council failed to control North Korea’s actions, they would be forced to withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty 

This has shown that as North Korea gets closer to striking the U.S, South Korea is becoming more nervous about being abandoned by U.S. The view of many South Korean people is that they only solution is building their weapons. On the other hand, Shigeru Ishiba, who is a former minister of defense, argued that Japan should debate about its nuclear policy, bearing in mind the threat posed by North Korea . However, Japan’s public opinion is greatly opposed to nuclear armament.

[yourcaopp-blog]

‘the calm before the storm’ President Donald Trump said to the media after he think Iran has broke the Iranian Nuclear Deal, White House’He’s not joking’

President Donald Trump has addressed in front of the media that Iran has broke the Iranian Nuclear Deal and they will restore the economic sanction against Iran. President Donald Trump is very confident that Iran has broke the code and will let the congress decided whether it’s 100% or not. Administration Department will give an official report every 90 days about whether Iran has obey the deal and the 15th of October is the date. President Donald Trump’s foreign ministry department held an emergency conference on the 5th and told the media President is very confident that Iran has broke the deal and the whole world would see about that. Later that night after President held a high class dinner with his top military administrators he personally told the media this ‘this will be the calm before the storm’ when media wanted to know more he just refused to give further information. On the 6th foreign ministry spokesman Sanders were asked by the media what does President Donald Trump meant by that, and she replied  ‘President Donald Trump has made himself very clear, of course he will not lay out the plan to our enemy, it’s a very serious international affair. I think North Korea and Iran are still very dangerous countries, and President Donald Trump is a person who won’t stop seeking ways to protect his own people.’ President Donald Trump think Iranian government support terrorism and is spreading violent and chaos in the middle east area. He has criticized Iranian government and Iranian Nuclear Deal during his election, he said he would renegotiate or abrogate the deal. This year President Donald Trump has pressed Iran for testing the ICBM and suggest to extend the economic sanction against Iran. Iranian government insist they have been completely obey the Deal and has never broke any of the term, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made the announce that the Iranian government has obey every terms of the Iranian Nuclear Term. If President Donald Trump insist that Iranian government has not obey the Deal, congress will decided within 60 days whether they should restart the economic sanction against Iran, thus will cause the end of the Iranian Nuclear Deal and will increase the tension in the middle east also will cause a negative effect against the North Korean government’s nuclear problems.

[yourcaopp-blog]

Ex United State’s President Carter want to go to North Korea to ease up the peninsula tense situation but President Donald Trump rejected him.

Since Kim Jong II has ordered to test a ICBM without any pre-noticed, President of the United States Donald Trump has ordered the 7th fleet to go to the gulf of peninsula to show military deterrence and try to everything possible to contain the situation. It’s been a few month but it’s not working at all. This time even China and Russia are not happy not to mention South Korea. China took really quick reaction, they cut off the natural gas and oil supply line to North Korea and winter is coming so they hope Kim Jong II would at least have some kind of respond. Ex president John Carter is very concerned about this tense relationship and had asked President Donald Trump whether he would like him to go to North Korea to ease up the tense environment just like he did in 1994. Ex President Carter has officially invited the North Korean Diplomatic Office to meet the they haven’t give any response, so he even went to the white house to talk to President Donald Trump and asked him to send out a diplomatic envoy to solve this in a peaceful way. But President Donald Trump told him that and the Peninsula problem is not a Ex President of United States’s business, LEAVE HIM ALONE. Carter is not asking he will be representing United States he simply want to go to North Korea to talk to Kim Jong II and set up a official meet with United States, I think it’s very kind for him to think about that but President Donald Trump didn’t care. Violence is not always the best way to solve the problem. If there is any conflict between the peninsula, even a small border conflict between North and South Korea, later it will evolved into a country-to-country war stage conflict. If that really happened, there will be another Korean civil war just like in the 90s. 

[yourcaopp-blog]

The positive and negative sides of Thaad system in South Korea

It’s been a long time since South Korean decided to deploy the THAAD Missile Defense system inside their territory without any concern of Chinese and Russia government. It’s a very reckless move because North Korea is just 100 miles away from the capital of South Korea. It’s been a big topic when Park Geun-hye is still running the office, unfortunately she got kicked out of the office because of the bribing. After the new president was elected he said he will put hold on the THAAD System but now there are more and more THAAD system missile trunk been deployed. Of course Chinese and Russia government are angry about it. After it’s deployed that means our nuclear missile won’t be able to get into atmosphere if there is really a war going on in the future. Even unlikely there will be a war and we hope we won’t have any, that still means our nuclear counterattack won’t be 100% functional. It’s good for South Korea because it 100% can intercept North Korean missiles, even we are not 100% sure they can fire a nuclear missile or ICBN. The most effective weapon for North Korean to use is the artillery, because the distance between Seoul and Pyongyang is about 100 miles. North Korean trying to build the ICBN because they are dreaming to bomb US and we all know that’s impossible. Thus the economy of South Korea is falling to the ice point. 90% of E-Mart and Carrie-four has been closed in China and South Korea is losing billions of dollars every month. There is never been a problem for a Chinese to find a job the problem is how would a South Korean Company to restart its business. Not to mention the people in South Korea are protesting THAAD, they almost marching every month to protest the government to deploying THAAD. Although the government said they will deal with it but they are doing exactly the opposite. Now it makes US is strongly allied with South Korean but an enemy not only to North Korea but also Russia and China. Deploying the THAAD system strength the relationship between South Korea and US but weaken the bond between China and Russia, also it’s killing its economy.