In January 2014, North Korea announced that the annual Pyongyang Marathon would be open to amateur foreign runners. (In previous years, the event was only open to elite foreign runners.) Pyongyang seemed to be finally opening up to the rest of the world by hosting a public sporting event—a potentially fun and sportsmanlike way for foreigners to see North Korea. Even Americans, North Koreans’ greatest enemies, were allowed to register in a seemingly apolitical gesture. There were, of course, restrictions for all foreign runners, including a three-hour time limit for the full marathon and mandatory lodging at state-sanctioned hotels. To get into the marathon, runners had to register via a North Korean tour agency like the China-based Koryo Tours, a standard procedure for all tourists traveling to North Korea. The 2014 event was quite successful by North Korean standards: over 300 participants ran the 42-kilometer course through the nation’s capital. 

The anticipation for the 2015 marathon on April 12 was even higher. The North Korean government opened up several hundred spots in the race for foreigners and even disseminated a bizarre promotional video to a remixed version of A-Ha!’s Take On Me. Over 400 tourists registered for the race through Koryo Tours alone. That is, until the North Korean authorities banned foreigners from entering the country due to the Ebola scare. Beginning in October 2014, North Korea restricted its borders and quarantined all foreigners for 21 days. The race was not exempt from these constraints and all foreigners were banned from joining.

According to North Korean propaganda, Ebola is a deadly virus created by the US military to promote its interests abroad and undermine North Korea. With this mindset, it comes as no surprise that North Korea set up harsh restrictions against all foreigners, including those from countries with no exposure to the virus. In early March, the government finally lifted the travel ban and allowed foreigners to continue with their marathon tourism plans. However, the damage was already done. Although some runners had expected stumbling blocks during the registration process and adopted a “go with the flow” attitude, other runners canceled their reservations and race registrations. One tour group, Uri Tours, extended their registration deadline to March 20, but flights out of both Shanghai and Beijing were almost completely full. The only available flights were through Air Koryo, a poorly rated North Korean airline. Tour companies, marathon runners and spectators all got the short end of the stick because of North Korea’s politicized reaction to the Ebola virus. Ultimately, Pyongyang was able to recover from the drama; by April 12, the race had enough registered foreign runners (650) to set a record for its short history.

However, the North Korean government has bigger problems to worry about than the success of its marque marathon. The Pyongyang Marathon fell during a sensitive time; the DPRK’s relationship with the rest of the world has been particularly rocky since February 2013 when the country launched its third nuclear test. Since then, Kim Jong Un and his government have continually threatened their opponents with military force. The 2014 UN report on human rights abuses in the country added even more pressure; in October and November, the UN repeatedly recommended that the North Korean leadership be referred to the International Criminal Court. As expected, the government reacted negatively to these accusations against its supreme leader, calling the report “political fraud.” Furthermore, in March, the US and South Korean participated in joint military exercises, a practice that always elicits an angered response from the North Korean leadership. The military exercises are a display of the heavy military presence at the southern end of the DMZ and a reminder of exactly what North Korea is up against. Unfortunately, the military exercises sparked violent retribution. In March, a South Korean man attacked the US Ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lipper, claiming to be fighting for North-South reunification. The North Korean government called it “just punishment for US warmongers.” North Korea used similar language during the Sony hacks that involved the film “The Interview.”

The Pyongyang Marathon might have been a success for the country’s tourism industry, and even a sign of a thawing relationship; however, the race did not reveal any fundamental changes in the North Korean regime. It remains authoritarian and dependent on the propagation of a perceived conflict with the US and its allies to preserve domestic stability.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Mind Games at the Pyongyang Marathon appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

A streamlined public transportation system is an important element of any modern city’s infrastructure. Metro and subway systems reduce traffic, cut emissions and connect populations. Look to Asia for prime examples of such systems; Japan is home to 82 of the world’s 100 busiest train stations and famous for its timely and clean trains; Seoul’s metro system is the longest in the world and equipped with Wi-Fi and 3G data access in all train cars; other Asian cities, such as Hong Kong and Guangzhou, have garnered worldwide acclaim for their clean, spacious, and high-capacity subways; even in Pyongyang, North Korea, the subway system is a well-used piece of infrastructure.

On the other side of the continent, city governments within India are working to build public transportation systems on par with those systems in East Asia. This is an important step in the success and development of India—its population is set to overtake that of China within the next 20 years, and it is only reasonable that its infrastructure and public transportation systems are up to standard as it continues to grow.

In part, it is a burgeoning consciousness of environmentalism that powered the recent surge in the construction of public subway and bus systems in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stressed the eco-friendliness of India’s expanding subway networks, especially of that in New Delhi. Today, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a large institution, servicing 2,500,000 people or more each day, but Modi has even bigger plans for the system. The government has begun construction on a number of new stations in Delhi to further improve the flow of the DMRC and to reduce Delhi’s pollution from cars and industrial sites. Together with other growing Indian metro systems, the DMRC will be a major feat of infrastructure upon completion with at least 6,000,000 daily passengers. While the numbers might pale in comparison to the tens of millions using subways in large cities across East Asia, India’s progress in public transportation reflects well on the government’s environmental policies—to have 6,000,000 people forgoing cars is no small victory. The DMRC has also received attention from the UN as the first public transportation system built under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. On the surface, everything seems to be going smoothly for the Delhi metro system.

Modi and his ministers, particularly Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu, have touted the environmental benefits of the DMRC, projecting the image of an eco-friendly government and urging Indians to be more environmentally conscious. For Modi’s government, the developing subway systems are proof that the government is playing its part in reducing emissions. Naidu has even repeatedly encouraged ministers and government officials to use the Delhi Metro every Wednesday; Naidu rode the Metro to the airport, although it is unclear whether other ministers have followed suit.

In conflict with their domestic rhetoric, Indian leaders sing to a very different tune on the global stage. In anticipation of the UN climate summit in Paris in November 2015, the Indian government has declared it will not create a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. India, after all, is a developing country, and Modi believes that his government’s main priority is to reduce poverty and grow the economy, not to reduce the country’s carbon footprint. India’s greenhouse gas emissions have been a point of concern for developed countries in Europe and North America, but the Indian government has insisted on honoring its own priorities. There is, then, a disparity between India’s environmentalism abroad and at home.

For Modi, this inconsistency is purposeful and strategic. Encouraging environmentalism at home shows that he cares about the health of Indians and cities’ livability; cleaner cities are conducive to a healthier, happier and more supportive population. The growing infrastructure, particularly the DMRC, also employs a great number of people, from construction workers to engineers and suppliers. He has not only created jobs by promoting green life choices; he even runs the metro system at a profit. Modi has capitalized on environmentalism at home, using it as a social and economic tool. His approach to the international stage stems from the same motivation: business development. While domestic environmentalism provides some form of revenue for India, cooperating with developed nations to cap emissions does not. India’s economy relies on industries like mining that will be stunted by environmental restrictions imposed by the international community. Modi cannot afford economic stagnation. Partaking in an emissions cap agreement will put India at a disadvantage, and it is simply not in line with Modi’s business-centric platform. By refusing to join in an environmental agreement, Modi also demonstrates to Indians that he values Indian interests above all else, a potent nationalist message.

To date, Modi has focused heavily on internal business and government interests. But, at what point do his international responsibilities outweigh his domestic duties? As a leader of one of the world’s most populous countries, Modi’s choice has global, lasting consequences. If he cooperates with developed countries, then India’s international image would improve and people around the globe would benefit from less pollution. But if Modi stands his ground, he could build India’s economy further. International leaders claim that the world cannot afford more emissions from developing countries like India, but Modi believes that India cannot afford to limit itself in the middle of its economic boom.

Modi has managed to balance economic and environmental interests regarding the construction of the DMRC; his next challenge is to find that balance on a global scale and place India on the same platform as powerful developed nations like the US and China, economically and environmentally.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Public Transportation and Modi’s Environmentalism appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

50 years ago yesterday, the first American troops landed in Vietnam to launch the Vietnam War, one of the longest wars in US history. For the US, the war had countless repercussions, including the death of 58,000 Americans, the passing of the War Powers Resolution and the popularization of the pacifist movement. It left a lasting legacy on US foreign policy; but, in Vietnam, the war wrought devastation on a greater scale. Estimates of Vietnamese civilian deaths range from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. Additionally, the country was ransacked by chemical and conventional warfare. After the war, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in Asia, with a bleak economy and dispirited population.

Refugees

With the fall of Saigon, the lives of South Vietnamese sympathizers were jeopardized while the government established its absolute authority. In an effort to eliminate capitalism from Vietnam, the government persecuted the South Vietnamese upper and middle classes. Some families were killed while others had their money confiscated and assets frozen. In response, hundreds of thousands left the country by any means possible, creating a global refugee crisis.

Fleeing Vietnam on fishing boats, so-called “boat people” established ethnic communities in California, Texas and other locations, but not without hardships. Vietnamese refugees were often attacked by Thai pirates, killed by storms at sea and exiled without food or water on islands in the Pacific. Eventually, the UN granted the exiled Vietnamese refugee status, but many had already suffered immeasurably on their journey.

Ethnic Chinese, particularly the Hoa people, were hit the hardest by the crisis because they made up a large percentage of the businessmen and bourgeoisie in Vietnam, the communists’ primary target. As the government filled freight boats with ethnic Chinese refugees to be sent to China, the Vietnamese government actually extorted the equivalent of thousands of US dollars for each refugee. However, the Chinese government was not open to this persecution and the forced influx of immigrants, and closed its borders to Vietnamese refugees. China and Vietnam’s communist ties could not ease the tensions surrounding immigration, and the Sino-Vietnamese border conflict broke out four years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The Cambodian-Vietnamese and the Sino-Vietnamese Wars

In the wake of the Vietnam War, Vietnam experienced two closely linked conflicts, one with Cambodia (then called Kampuchea) and the other with China, called the Cambodian-Vietnamese War and Sino-Vietnamese War respectively. Although all three countries were communist, there was a strong sense of rivalry among them. Vietnam viewed itself as the lynchpin of the Southeast Asian communism and was therefore obligated to exert some form of control in communist Kampuchea. However, Kampuchean leaders were not keen to the idea of Vietnam controlling the entire region. When internal conflicts in Kampuchea led to the ascendance of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge regime – a brutal government that created chaos and violence in Kampuchea – Vietnam invaded.

For the Vietnamese, the war in Cambodia proved to be much like the Vietnam War was to Americans, a justifiable effort that turned out to be more complex, time-consuming (14 years in total) and tragic than expected. For example, many Vietnamese soldiers believed in their cause – freeing Cambodians from the Khmer Rouge – but oftentimes Cambodians reacted negatively to the invasion. One Vietnamese soldier remembers, “American soldiers thought they helped Vietnam…We were the same in Cambodia.” Vietnamese soldiers did not receive the appreciation they expected in Cambodia, especially after Vietnam attempted to occupy the country following the Khmer Rouge’s fall. Even today there is lingering bitterness against Vietnam in Cambodia.

Similarly to the US’s experience during the Vietnam War, public approval of the Cambodian-Vietnamese War decreased by the day in Vietnam. Today, the war is a memory rather left forgotten, a blemish on the Vietnamese government’s history. The Cambodian-Vietnamese War was physically and psychologically scarring for Vietnamese soldiers. Veterans returned traumatized, yet were not greeted as heroes in Vietnam—another parallel between the Vietnam War and the Cambodian-Vietnamese War.

China reacted negatively to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia; the war, combined with Vietnam’s treatment of ethnic Chinese immigrants, caused the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army to attack Vietnam. Both governments claim victory in the Sino-Vietnamese War, yet neither celebrates it openly because of the large death toll each country suffered; in just weeks, thousands of Chinese and Vietnamese were killed and the Vietnamese countryside was destroyed.

Today, relations with China have not improved. The two countries have maritime disputes that intensify yearly regarding each country’s Exclusive Economic Zones. In 2014, China installed an oilrig in Vietnam’s claimed maritime space, sparking outrage and protests throughout Vietnam. In response, Vietnam purchased Russian Kilo-class submarines to patrol their waters for any Chinese ships.

Unlike Vietnam’s relationship with China, its relationship with the US has gradually improved in the past two decades, beginning with President Clinton’s 1995 initiative to normalize relations. Since then, trade between the two countries has blossomed with 134 times more trade in 2014 than in 1994. The US recently also lifted a 40-year embargo on lethal weapons to Vietnam, a move that is seen by both the US and Vietnam as a strategically prudent move for Asian security. Leverage against China seems to be a top priority for both the US and Vietnam.

In recent decades, Vietnam has done much to move on from the pains of the Vietnam War and its aftermath, including ending the age of the “boat people,” introducing economic reforms and becoming a part of the developing Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to the Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California, Irvine, people in Vietnam are generally happy with their lives, the economy and the government. Among those surveyed, 90% have confidence in their government and 91% express happiness and satisfaction with their overall situation in life, more than in many developed countries.[1] Modern Vietnam is a far shot from the Vietnam of 1979 and has only become stronger as it moves away from the shadow of the Vietnam War.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Other Works Cited

The post The Vietnam War’s Legacy in Asia appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

When the United Kingdom (UK) granted Scotland the chance to vote on a referendum for independence earlier this year, people around the world were surprised and eager to see how the Scottish people would vote. After all, Scotland has been part of the UK for several centuries, and it was the first time that Scottish independence looked like a realistic possibility. Although Scotland voted to stay with the UK, the movement offered a glimmer of hope to other separatist movements across Europe, and also highlighted some of the major contentions between Scotland and the UK. The results of the referendum revealed that the Scottish people value the benefits of staying with the UK more than those of independence, but the conflicts with the UK the EU are significant and concerning.

Throughout the referendum debate, Scottish leaders highlighted a number of problems that their government has experienced in interactions with the UK. The leaders have now proposed some actions to improve the relationship. For years, the Scottish government has been “accidentally” excluded from talks in London on a range of topics from foreign policy to nuclear proliferation, a significant issue for Scots. The UK government has blamed this problem on a lack of solid communication; therefore, the Scottish Affairs Committee has recommended legal measures to solve the problem, including increased transparency of internal negotiations.[1] This would guarantee a stronger Scottish voice in debates where Scottish interests were previously ignored. Many Scots, for example, are concerned that the UK stores nuclear weapons in Scotland against the will of the local citizens, and they hope that these measures will give the Scottish people more control of their own land.

Other lawmakers are concerned about Scotland’s diminutive position in the EU. Today, Scotland has difficulty communicating its interests in the EU because its status as part of the UK requires that it must always defer to the UK, even if Scottish interests conflict with those of UK. This practice is understandably disconcerting to Scots. As a result, many Scottish politicians have pushed for a formal vote in the EU. Unsurprisingly, London has continually swept the issue under the rug.

However, considering rhetoric from UK leaders during the voting period, many pundits believe that Scotland’s situation post-referendum is conducive to improving representation. Prime Minister David Cameron expressed how “heartbroken” he would be if Scotland voted for independence, and in a rare political statement, the Queen warned Scots to reconsider their desire for independence. These UK leaders, among others, had scrambled to make nice to Scotland, promising better relations and more consideration for Scottish interests if Scotland would just remain in the UK. If, Scottish leaders are sincere about improving their representation at home and abroad, then they must capitalize on their current position. The UK is seemingly more cooperative at the moment, with fears of segregation still fresh in their minds. Scotland’s time is now – it will be hard pressed to find a better situation in which to make demands.

Nevertheless, Scotland faces numerable challenges in the near future. While it is true that Scotland’s referendum scared UK and improved Scotland’s position in the debate, the hard truth remains that UK has the upper hand. UK is one of the most powerful countries in Europe, and its interests are almost always more respected internationally than those of Scotland. Not only is UK favored in the EU, but it is also an important and powerful global actor. The same cannot be said for Scotland.

The UK might be willing to make some concessions to Scotland, but ultimately its amiability will only go so far. For Scotland to expect complete cooperation with the UK is very idealistic and, unfortunately, unlikely – the UK will probably not sacrifice its own interests for the interests of one of its unhappy member states. While some measures, like a push for improved regional representation in the EU, may come to fruition, other more radical suggestions, like legal contracts requiring more Scottish representation in the UK, are a tough sell. It will take more than a referendum to convince the UK to break tradition. David Cameron has even been constantly reminding Scots that the vote is valid for at least a generation. He has made it clear that the UK intends on holding Scotland tightly for a long time.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Other Works Cited

The post A Hard Break: Scotland’s Struggle for Power appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In 2014 the Australian government launched a shocking and bizarre strategy to tackle their immigration problem. The campaign strategically aims to discourage immigrants from even thinking about coming to Australia rather than trying to stop them at the border. The campaign’s tagline, “You Will Not Make Australia Home,” has been translated into 16 languages and targets immigrants without visas arriving in Australia on unauthorized boats; thousands of immigrants from the Middle East attempt to enter Australia in this manner each year. The campaign has been the pet project of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to halt the influx of immigrants by emphasizing the futility of such journeys and strengthening maritime patrol units. Abbott’s plan has been quite effective – only one boat has made it to Australian shores in the past year.

The problem with Operation Sovereign Borders, as it is called, is that it is almost exclusively directed towards immigrants seeking political asylum from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka because they do not have “valid” visas. All of these states are experiencing disturbing humanitarian crises, from political unrest and persecution in the Middle East to a brutal civil war in Sri Lanka that resulted in the death of more than 70,000 Tamils. Despite their refugee status, the immigrants are not allowed into Australia under any circumstances because they do not hold valid visas and instead are sent to detention camps in Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. In 2001, Australia offered economic aid to Nauru and Papua New Guinea if the two states would house Australia’s asylum seekers. Today, about 3,000 refugees are detained in these two camps.

Even with its use of harsh rhetoric Abbott’s government has cited numerous benefits of the program. The policy does, of course, secure Australia’s borders. The government has maintained a much firmer grasp on immigration, successfully managing the decade-long immigration crisis. For a number of years, immigrants have unsafely entered Australia, posing a security and economic risk to themselves and to Australians, which is why the campaign targets refugees. There has also been a sharp decrease in the number of undocumented boats in Australian waters, a major selling point for the campaign. The smugglers’ ships are incredibly unsafe; almost 1,500 refugees have died on their journeys to Australia. As the Australian government boasts, the operation has prevented any more deaths on the sea. In its own way, Operation Sovereign Borders is solving a humanitarian crisis. Many conservatives worldwide have applauded Australia for taking such a strong stance against illegal immigration, but the backlash against Operation Sovereign Borders is just as significant.

By refusing asylum to refugees, Australia is violating the UN’s laws on refugee immigration and political asylum. A number of institutions, including the Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International, have criticized the policy for decreasing Australia’s international responsibilities and threatening human rights. In most countries refugees are allowed to apply for asylum; yet, in the Australian detention camps it is nearly impossible to do so. In fact, life in the camps is reportedly so difficult that some detainees have gone insane or died from infections.

Human rights proponents have also chastised a recent Australian arrangement to transfer thousands of refugees from Nauru to Cambodia. In return for housing the refugees, Cambodia received $35 million in aid in addition to the $69.5 million already pledged by Australia. This agreement is very similar to the measure signed by Nauru and Papua New Guinea in 2001, but it allows the refugees to resettle in Cambodia, rather than just stay in detention camps. Australia sees this as an act of kindness towards those struggling in the Nauru and Papua New Guinea detention camps. However, Cambodia has its own human rights issues, and according to human rights organizations is not fit to welcome even more victims.

Australian domestic protests in favor of the refugees have only strengthened in the past months. For example, the viral website “Sorry Asylum Seekers” argues that Australia, a wealthy and democratic nation, has the resources and responsibility to house refugees. Undeterred by such objections, Abbott has insisted that Australia’s domestic security outweighs its duty toward refugees.

Abbott and his Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, have deflected threats from the international community for the time being, but their plan is not sustainable. Policy groups recommend the implementation of temporary protection visas (TPVs), which would allow the government to process refugee applications without sending applicants to other islands. Reaching such an agreement would require Australia’s two leading political parties to work together, a formidable mission.

If Australia wants to resolve its immigration problems, then the time is now—there are no undocumented refugees reaching Australian shores and the military has “stopped the boats.” With its borders protected, Australian leaders can hopefully find a policy that protects its domestic interests while providing a haven for victims of unsafe political regimes.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Stop the Boats: Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The investments in the real estate market, particularly in luxury high-rise apartments and even the cities developed around the complexes, made sense for the Chinese on a number of levels. Homes, including the apartment complexes and the surrounding shopping malls, were investments for the next generation, spaces where grandchildren would flourish in a future, resurgent China. Home ownership in China is a sign of stability much as it is in the US, but with higher implications of familial honor and duty. Buying a home implies responsibility not only for oneself, but also for the entire family. Thus, the housing market was not just a source of economic strength, but of social prestige as well. Investors also perceived a demand for new luxury apartment complexes because of the growing economy—after all, industry in China was booming, always demanding more workers, and cities were growing as millions migrated from the countryside to the cities. These people needed places to live, so developers began construction on hundreds of thousands of high-rise apartments, sometimes planning brand new cities around these units. The investors bought and bought and bought, because they believed that the developments were solid investments. But as developers continued building, and people continued investing, China developed its own housing bubble.

Housing Bubble. A housing bubble occurs when housing prices become dangerously high due to increased demand and a belief that prices will never fall. The term might raise any American’s blood pressure, yet in China, the fear of a bursting bubble does not bother many. Most investors do not see an economic meltdown anywhere in the near future. Additionally, the Chinese government is on guard in the wake of the American housing bubble burst. When the government observed the development of the bubble, it rushed to do damage control by first limiting households to purchasing only one or two apartments to control the inflating prices of real estate. However, within three years, prices were dropping too low and the CCP lifted the restrictions to balance the market again. Now, most economists agree that the Chinese housing bubble is not nearly as dangerous as that in the US, nor would a Chinese real estate market crash wreak as much havoc as the American crash. So, rather than bursting, the housing bubble seems to be deflating. Economic crisis (hopefully) averted, the Chinese people can move on, right?

Wrong. The massive complexes built during the surge in real estate investment still stand completely empty, and sometimes there are so many vacant apartments that the area is literally a ghost town. No one moves into the apartments because they are simply too expensive. While some might be advertised as “affordable,” almost no lower or low-middle class citizens can pay to live there. And with housing prices in Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai at an all-time high, ranging from $4,000-$5,000 per square foot (for reference, luxury apartments in New York City go for $2,100-$2,500 per square foot), migrants from the countryside cannot afford any of the new housing options.

People who once lived in the newly developed areas have been displaced during and after construction. They must leave the cities to find affordable housing, undermining the Party’s plans to maximize urbanization for the next several decades. There is also environmental damage, as wildlife habitat is often destroyed and significant amounts of resources and energy are used to build homes that remain vacant. It is easy to pass off the bizarre ghost towns as “dystopian movie sets,” but they present a very real problem for China. For the health and prosperity of its cities and people, China must approach the housing problem immediately, especially with other economic problems, such as a shrinking labor force and decaying GDP growth rate, looming in the future. Rather than continually building luxury apartments, there should be a push for affordable housing for blue-collar workers. If unaffordable housing continues to dominate the market, then China’s labor force will be forced out of the very cities they are building (in some cases, they already have). China’s urbanization plans are also in jeopardy as people slowly move out of, rather than into, cities. If China wants to truly urbanize its population, then it must provide housing options for all income levels so that its cities can grow in a sustainable manner and its real estate market does not disappoint its investors.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Housing Bubble: Why China Should Be More Worried About Its Ghost Towns appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While most of the world has their eyes fixed on the crisis in Crimea, a Balkan nation southwest of Ukraine is currently experiencing one of the most tense and transformative moments in its short history as a nation. That country is Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), which holds ethnic and political tensions that mimic those in Ukraine.

BiH formed out of the Bosnian War, a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed due to ethnic intolerance between Serbs, Bosnians and Croats after the nation declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1992. That 3-year war severed the nation in half—literally. The country now has two wholly independent and decentralized governments operating within its borders, that of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and of Republika Srpska (RS), each with its own parliament, president and flag. However, they compose, in the eyes of the international community, one state.

Ethnic Bosnians and a minority Croat population reside in FBiH, while a Serbian majority lives in RS under the notoriously corrupt, yet popular, president, Milorad Dodik. The two entities have been in a perpetual struggle as both try to recover from their bloody civil war and the economic downturn of the 2000’s. In fact, BiH is one of the poorest countries in Europe and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Western world. The dire economic situation is not, however, the most troubling aspect of BiH. The ethnic divisions and the ensuing political turmoil are of greater concern to Europeans and the West more broadly.

Although the Dayton Peace Agreement – the treaty that ended the Bosnian War – was designed to alleviate tensions in BiH by allowing the two governments to work together while maintaining at least some form of autonomy, the treaty did little to resolve the ethnic tensions that have plagued Eastern Europe for centuries. During the war, Bosnian Serbs under Ratko Mladic systematically killed thousands of Muslim men in Srebrenica, a tragedy painfully remembered by Muslims in the region. Dodik, however, despite Mladic’s trial in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has not expressed regret for his war crimes.

Instead, he has only increased divisions between the various ethnic groups by campaigning for RS’s independence from BiH. Dodik and his party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, have loudly touted the superiority of RS and its Serbs, claiming that “Bosnia is a rotten country” that doesn’t deserve to exist. Many Bosnian Serbs sympathize with him, too. A growing percentage of Serbs have expressed desire to separate from FBiH, probably due to the desperate economic times and the government’s wasteful use of money, but also because Dodik has intensified the talks of independence.

Unsurprisingly, Dodik’s words have made leaders in FBiH and other onlookers uneasy. The delicate system established by the Dayton Peace Agreement looks to be crumbling, with the ethnic tensions encouraged by Dodik evermore reminiscent of those that triggered the Bosnian War. Eastern Europe has had its fair share of political turmoil in recent months. Ukraine has demonstrated just how difficult and harmful political unrest in a poor Eastern European state can be, especially when ethnicity is a main point of contention. While BiH certainly does not have the political power, population, or resources of Ukraine, the conflict is still extremely significant to Western nations and warrants the concern of their leaders.

But why should those in the West be concerned about a poor and small state like BiH? The answer is simple – Russia. Putin has long been a supporter of RS, while organizations like the European Union and NATO have continually encouraged unity within BiH. Leaders in FBiH often push for BiH’s acceptance into NATO but the RS government always resists, an unsurprising fact considering Putin’s strong distaste for the organization.

If Dodik wants independence for RS, then he has found the appropriate ally. Putin’s encouragement of Crimea’s secession, through rhetoric and military engagement, indicates that he is willing to go against international law and help those who support his same interests. RS is explicitly anti-NATO, an organization Dodik calls corrupt – which is ironic because he has continually attempted to bribe its member states – and emphasizes the ethnic differences among Serbs and Bosnians. Putin is apparently very sympathetic to ethnic separatist groups, so it seems likely that he will endorse RS’s efforts if it does fight for independence.

The implications for Western Europe are numerous. If leaders in FBiH call for NATO military assistance, which does looks like a possibility, then the West will face an important decision: leave BiH alone, a mistake made during the Bosnian War, or fight a Russian ally.  Putin’s influence will only spread and his desire to form an anti-NATO group will strengthen.

With Scotland’s vote on independence yesterday and the situation in Ukraine more volatile than ever, Dodik’s efforts come at a critical time. Hopefully, Dodik will introduce more peaceful arrangements or be voted out of office before conflict strikes Eastern Europe again. BiH, its people and the European community cannot risk nor afford another Bosnian War.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Putin’s Next Project: Republika Srpska’s Independence appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

President Juan Manuel Santos has agreed to peace talks with the FARC and the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, ELN), a smaller terrorist guerilla force, in a major step towards long-term stability in Colombia. These talks in Havana, Cuba, are seen as a welcome change after former President Álvaro Uribe’s tough stance against the FARC (an internationally recognized terrorist organization), which revealed no solid advancements toward peace but destabilized the FARC’s military power. The talks have been complicated since their beginning in November 2013 by violence from various paramilitary groups on both sides.

Resolution is not only paramount to the Colombian people, but also critical for Santos’ political career. Leading up to the June presidential elections, Santos based his campaign on promises of peace and an end to the FARC. Many Colombians, including some victims of FARC attacks, have expressed faith in Santos’ policy of negotiation, but if talks go downhill, Santos risks dramatic drops in approval and loss of power to the more conservative Democratic Center party (Centro Democrático), led by former President Uribe and his protégé, Óscar Iván Zuluaga.

Although the president’s efforts to establish peace in Colombia are appreciated by many, his measures are not sufficiently bold or thorough. Thus far, the discussions in Havana are of a decidedly political, rather than social, nature. Government delegates have focused on the politicization of the FARC and the “interests of democracy” rather than the cultural and economic reforms – including land reassignment and farming reforms – requested by attack victims and the majority of Colombian citizens. Moreover, the land reforms demanded by the people have taken a back seat to the economic interests of the business elites – Santos’ supporters – who own and control much of Colombia. Although this plan may encourage business and economic growth (another major element of his platform), these peace negotiations may only lead to another form of violence, this time from frustrated citizens instead of from the FARC and other militant groups. By putting his political needs before the desires of the people, he may have jeopardized the stability and safety of his country.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Politicized Peace in Colombia appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Today, the US enjoys quite a high degree of soft power globally, particularly in Asia. The infiltration of American values and culture into the East is evident in the success of American pop music icons and Hollywood films, as well as the appeal of elite American universities. Interestingly, the US government invests virtually no resources in soft power in Asia, excluding humanitarian aid—it almost never funds the cultural items exported to Asia.

The idea and implementation of soft power has become extremely important to the small nation of South Korea. In the last decade, Korean pop culture has experienced an international boom through Korean dramas and “K-Pop.” Koreans are so invested in this new soft power that it has its own word in Korean, hallyu, which literally translates to “Korean wave.” PSY of his “Gangnam Style” fame is the epitome of this phenomenon. Under the current president Park Geun Hye, the Korean government has more than doubled its financial endorsement of Korean pop culture abroad and has expressed hopes that hallyu will lead to strengthened cultural friendliness and economic partnerships. The long-term effects of hallyu are yet to be seen, but the growth of K-Pop fandom on virtually all continents has the Korean government excited.

In comparison to South Korea, China has invested even more resources in its soft power, but with disappointing results. Xi Jinping, the president of China, launched the campaign for the “Chinese Dream,” a rebuilding of the nation’s culture and reputation. Through this campaign, Xi is striving to counteract American cultural influences. The Netflix drama House of Cards proved to be quite popular among Chinese viewers, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was quick to paint it as a demonstration of Western corruption and greed. However, the show maintained its strong following. Another product of Hollywood, Transformers: Age of Extinction, became the highest grossing film in China ever, surpassing the previous record holder, James Cameron’s Avatar. In comparison, Chinese artists and films see marginal success in the US. One such artist is Jia Ruhan, a classically trained Chinese singer akin to Celine Dion. The CCP scouted, trained, recorded and promoted Jia with the expectation that she would reach stardom in the States. Yet, you have probably never heard her name or purchased her album, which is unsurprisingly “in line with the image of the Chinese government.” Starlets like Jia are consistently drowned out by news of China’s dodgy actions, like the backlash from the Beijing Olympics, and the political nature of Confucius Institutes, academies established to promote ancient Chinese values. Oftentimes, because of the CCP’s obvious interest in popular entertainment, other Asian nations see Chinese soft power as propaganda or thinly veiled political hard power. Rather than improving China’s image and accelerating the Chinese Dream, Xi Jinping’s brainchild has soured the impression of China in a number of Eastern nations.

Which country, then, has an effective soft power policy in Asia? It seems that India is the nation that best understands the intricacies of soft power. In order to harness, but not control, India’s soft power worldwide, the government funds Bollywood film festivals, art exhibitions and Hindi conferences around the world. These are designed to simply spread awareness of Indian culture, not to promote its policies or generate content as the CCP desires in China.

While the cultural soft power of India has certainly increased in strength and visibility, the government has also utilized humanitarian aid and economic relief to add another dimension to soft power. In Afghanistan, India rose in popularity when it sent economic, rather than military, aid to stabilize the Afghan government. Major financial donations to the UN Democracy Fund (among other funds) also promote a modern and generous image of India. In fact, polls show that many Southeast and Central Asian nations think India is a better partner than China because it is less aggressive.

This financial facet of soft power, unlike Bollywood and Hollywood cultures, is indeed state-run. Despite its political nature, it is critical to the success of a country’s soft power. In the case of the US, South Korea and India (among others), the state does not have influence over pop culture, but, because it recognizes the benefits and necessity of soft power, it uses money to boost its image abroad. For instance, the US gives billions of dollars every year to natural disaster relief and foreign aid. While those numbers might compose a mere 1-2% of the federal budget, the international perception of the US is still improved as images of American officials providing vital aid hit the press. India and South Korea also embrace their roles as donors to the international community. India has one of the world’s fastest-growing foreign aid budgets, while South Korea recently joined the Development Assistance Committee, a prestigious subset of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. All of these nations have effectively used their economic strength in conjunction with cultural soft power to improve the global image of both the people and their government.

Soft power, then, is ultimately a balancing act between the government and the culture of a nation. China’s approach is generally too overbearing, if not threatening. The CCP’s mission to control cultural soft power actually damages its international image, especially when combined with its reluctance to give foreign aid. The United States, on the other hand, allows its cultural soft power to independently run its course in addition to supplying humanitarian aid. As other states look to grow their own soft power, they should follow the leads of India, the US and South Korea. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), for example, is looking to promote Southeast Asian culture around the world. They would be wise to foster a soft power policy that gently blends economic aid with culture free of an overt political agenda. With social clout and generous economic assistance, governments can then pursue hard power foreign policy goals with less resistance.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post How the US, Korea and India Beat China In the Battle For Soft Power appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Biz Peabody

Nationalism: long thought to be one of the strongest forces in the world. The exact definition of nationalism is the amalgamation of feelings, principles and efforts in the name of patriotic pride for one’s nation or country. The psychological concept of nationalism has always been present in humans, because we’re “programmed” to identify with our groups – our “herds” – who we work with to ensure our survival as individuals and as a species.

What we’re witnessing as these two crises in Gaza and Ukraine unfold is a phenomenon that is becoming clearer as the world globalizes: the clash of nationalism and technology. In the past, the only way for a nation to defend itself was through large-scale war against other nations, but technology is allowing smaller entities to assert themselves on the global stage. In the tragedy of 9/11, it became clear that large-scale war was no longer the paradigm. A group – Al-Qaeda – was able to wage war on the hegemon – the US – and the hegemon was forced to wage its “War on Terror” on an ideology.

In a similar group-against-nation dynamic, the war between Hamas and Israel is driven by nationalist sentiments, and so is the war fought between Ukraine against its pro-Russian rebels. Aside from the tragedies these two conflicts have created – most recently pro-Russian rebels shooting down commercial flight MH-17, and the 500+ deaths in Gaza and Israel – the conflicts reveal that it is becoming easier for smaller and smaller groups to assert their own brand of nationalism on bigger and bigger entities. Diplomatic efforts to end these conflicts, therefore, must begin focusing more on the global, collective good and less on emphasizing “peace talks” between warring nations. Continuing to simply call for peace between nationalistic entities only underlines differences between groups, which in turn strengthens nationalistic mentalities and further separates peoples.

Jason Tse

Two major crises could not come at a more inopportune time. Now the United States faces trouble on three fronts: the ISIS crisis in Iraq, the MH-17 disaster, and the war in Gaza.

I wrote in a recent piece for Glimpse about how rapprochement with Iran was expedient for our interests in the Middle East. In the US-Iran engagement, Russia had always positioned itself as a close partner with Iran, able to sway Iran to a favorable agreement similar to China’s promises on North Korea.

But, the MH-17 disaster complicates things. Facts are still surfacing, but with the US Intelligence Community confirming that the weapon systems used to shoot down MH-17 were moved quietly back to Russia and Putin’s public attempts to shift blame onto Kiev, it is almost certain that Russian-backed and armed rebels shot down the plane.

This leads the US to a new dilemma: choosing which foe represents the larger threat: Russia or Iran. While it is clear that Russia must be held accountable, the US should take care not to completely back the bear into a corner. At the same time, greater action against Russia, which seems likely considering the global outrage, would signal that a rapprochement with Iran is no longer merely expedient to fighting the ISIS crisis, but necessary now that Iran’s partnership (or at least being out of Russia’s orbit) is required to address both ISIS and Russia. This unfortunately gives the Iranian hand a significant boost as the Americans and Iranians return to the table for extended negotiations.

Luke Phillips

I don’t have too many thoughts on either crisis boiling up this week, not the one in Gaza or the one in Ukraine. I do have thoughts, however, on what the American and overall Western reaction will be to each.

If the timeline of the Ukraine crisis up to this point is any guide, then I think it can safely be said that there won’t be very much in the way of policy innovation in the wake of the tragedy of MH-17. Sure, a few more impassioned speeches will be made in Brussels and Washington about heavier sanctions on Moscow, and much energy will be expended in the time-tested act of finger-waving. But no one in the European Union or US has the political will to make truly meaningful actions against Putin’s Russia, and I don’t necessarily think they should. MH-17, for the tragedy it is, is not particularly important. But, if Russia’s actions began to directly threaten the Baltic States or Poland, then we might see some shuffling of feet in the West.

As for Gaza, that’s even easier. The fight will go on for a few weeks or months, Palestinian and Israeli apologists will absolve themselves and accuse the other side, and one happy autumn day the flag of truce will go up. Give it three years, maybe less, and there will be peace talks in America again. Another few years and they’ll be back at war. However, shifting geopolitical dynamics in the broader Middle East might alter the equation somewhat. In particular, if Iranian-American relations normalize, and the US distances itself from Israel, the Jewish State may be compelled to engage in more vigorous diplomacy. Conversely, if the massive war underway in neighboring Syria and Iraq spreads into Jordan, a more security-paranoid Israel could take aggressive measures in Gaza and even the West Bank to forestall the violence from penetrating its borders.

Time will tell. Prudence is all we can ask of our leaders, restraint all we can ask of those abroad.

Abigail Becker

Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in November 2013, the fighting in Crimea has unfortunately involved many civilians. Because of the nature of the fighting, the death of more innocent people is not surprising. What distinguishes the attack on MH-17 from previous conflicts is the international nature of the event. The crisis in Ukraine has, of course, been an international headline from the start, but for most people beyond the Ukraine/Russia border, it has remained a distant threat. The crash of MH-17 shatters that feeling of safe separation. Almost every continent was represented on the flight, and a number of countries issued statements of sadness and anger. The Netherlands, which lost 193 citizens, has been particularly vocal, and rightfully so.

To make matters worse, the rebels handled the aftermath of the crash with an unbelievable lack of tact and decency. The bodies of the victims were hidden for days after the crash in train cars and the crash site was kept on strict lockdown. Unsurprisingly, there has been no apology from the rebels, Putin or the Ukrainian government. All parties have instead chosen to play the blame game – though most everyone agrees the Russians and rebels are responsible. The botched handling of the victims’ bodies has only increased tensions and polarized the opposing sides. This is no longer a crisis between a state and rebels—it is a conflict between the rebels and Putin, and angered people around the world.

Luodanni Chen

Let’s talk facts. The 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine began on February 23, 2014. During the past five months, two Ukrainian military planes have been shot down in the region: one in June and one just three days before the attack on MH-17. The plane crash in June has been identified as the work of pro-Russian separatists. The large Ukrainian military transport jet was shot down using a shoulder-fired missile when the jet was trying to land at an airport in Luhansk. One month later, another military plane was shot down when it was flying at 6,500 meters. This distance is well beyond the range of shoulder-fired missiles. Ukrainian officials speculated that a more powerful missile had brought down the plane, and the missile was perhaps fired from territories within the Russian Federation. A powerful anti-aircraft weapon that is capable of doing such damage is called the Buk surface-to-air missile. The Buk missile system was developed by the Soviet Union and was in service since 1979. Buk is “capable of detecting air targets at ranges of up to 160 km and hitting them at full altitude range at a distance of over 30 km,” according to the Russian Defense Ministry information. Obama has already confirmed the use of surface-to-air missile in the MH-17 disaster on July 18^th. By connecting these dots, Putin has his fingerprints all over this. What is his next play and how will the international community respond?

Kshitij Kumar

Both the Gaza crisis and the Malaysian Airlines tragedy have resulted in unfortunate, devastating civilian deaths. These were 800+ individuals (400 noncombatants and counting in Gaza, 298 on MH-17) that had no say, no involvement in either conflict. They were casualties of crossfire, and whether their deaths are labeled accidents or unfortunate necessities resulting from the use of civilians as human shields, the loss of innocent life is unjust and disturbing. While the technology of war has evolved to allow high precision targeting and supposedly minimize collateral damage, clearly, this is not what is happening. To add insult to injury, the deaths are being politicized! Headlines earlier suggest that the remains of the dead of the Malaysian aircraft are pieces in an international political ‘game’; a Wall Street Journal article suggested that the very election of Hamas in Gaza forfeited civilians’ rights to be safe from war. The sanctity of life no longer seems to have any value; those who have lost loved ones are apparently not even allowed to mourn.

Yes, there is a bigger picture to look at—there is a greater good (everyone has a different opinion as to what that constitutes) to consider. But in these physical and verbal battles between nations, groups, passions and beliefs, it is imperative that we remember the humanity of those lost—as well as our own.

Update: Kshitij Kumar’s portion received minor corrections 

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: Crises in Gaza and Ukraine appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.