Nathaniel Haas

President Obama’s address to the nation on Tuesday night was a timely and timeless reminder that not only is the state of the union strong, but so too is Obama’s resolve to leave a legacy and craft a vision for the future of the Democratic party. On a host of domestic issues from the economy to education, the president smartly balanced his (perhaps too populist) calls for higher taxes on the wealthy with welcome reminders that the economy is recovering and gas prices are at record lows. He laid the groundwork for what will be a powerful case for Democrats to retain the White House in 2016.

Critics will undoubtedly attack the president for the partisan nature of the speech during a time when Democrats have complained about Republican standoffishness and political gridlock. Despite outlining a wish list of proposals upon which to work with Congress, Obama unleashed a record number of veto threats (four–the most any president has ever outlined in one speech to Congress). He also landed several jabs to Republicans on climate change and the Keystone pipeline, in addition to the ad-libbed “I won both of them” remark in reference to his two presidential campaigns, all of which turned Boehner a deeper shade of orange. Was the president being partisan? Undoubtedly. But the Obama camp has realized that motivating the base is perhaps more important than appeasing a Republican party that Democrats have appropriately given up on working with. The president’s tactic is smart, and reflects the correct belief that the next two years of Democrat policymaking will not be legislative in nature, but rather executive. For that, the Democrats need strong public opinion–not Republicans in Congress. 

Luodanni Chen

Economy, economy of the world, who is the most competitive of them all?

Paul Krugman’s 1994 paper “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession” pointed out the common trend for great economists and world leaders to forget about the concept of comparative advantage, and instead fixate on events like how China’s has overtaken the American economy. Comparative advantage is an economic law that proves international trade would only increase the size of the whole pie, and the world economy is not a zero-sum game. Trade is beneficial for both countries involved when they are trading goods and services for which they have the respective comparative advantage. For example, the US has the comparative advantage in manufacturing planes, and China in apparels. When these two countries trade, they are helping each other by avoiding the high opportunity cost of producing goods for which they do not have the comparative advantage. Through this process, each country gains access to more varieties of goods at fairer prices because of the exposure to international competition, among other benefits. Simple, good economics. However, Obama’s call for the “in-sourcing” of jobs excites the American people. Rhetorical hostility and hypercompetitiveness towards China is often both useful and necessary in US domestic politics. Nevertheless, Americans should see past the president’s political grandstanding and recognize the benefits of comparative advantage economics.

Luke Phillips

I have to hand it to him; President Obama delivered an excellent piece of oratory at his State of the Union address. Most pundits have been right to compare this speech with the president’s earlier campaign speeches–inspiring, uniting and supportive of the timeless American ideal of equal opportunity for all, and sheerly riveting in its rhetorical power. It was a beautiful thing to watch.

Unfortunately, the parallels with the president’s earlier campaign speeches go a step beyond mere beauty, and into purpose. And for all intents and purposes, this was a partisan speech. The president hasn’t exactly been an exemplar of bipartisanship in recent years (though, to be fair, neither has the Republican Party.) This speech merely repackaged the partisan policies of the last couple years to make it appear that the economic growth we see today is entirely thanks to the wisdom of St. Barack. There was no thoughtful discussion of the actual policies in question, nor was there much inspiring talk about long-term planning for the future (though the quip about staying on Mars makes up for the whole thing.)

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with the president. I’m glad he touched the right nerves in the body politic’s decaying corpse. I’m also glad he got the rhetorical strengths and values of the US correct. But, I didn’t see an honest discussion of actual policies and hard decisions; I saw a self-congratulatory orgy of back-pats and snipes. Although my belief in our president as a speaker has been rekindled, my belief in him as a statesman has been dampened.

The only thing worse than President Obama’s speech was Senator Joni Ernst’s Republican rebuttal. If President Obama was insincere, Senator Ernst was seemingly insane. If President Obama tried to cloak his partisanship with a silver tongue, Ernst made no such attempt and instead appealed to the partisan passions of half of the US. We have a lot of work to do to fix the political dysfunction of our ruling class. My fellow Americans, let’s get to work.

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

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: The State of the Union appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Background Information

This Thursday, a referendum will take place in Scotland for the people to decide whether or not to leave the UK and become an independent state. If the majority vote in favor, then the Scottish National Party (SNP) will make history by breaking the great Union that has been in place for three centuries. However, those planning on voting “Yes” should think twice; leaving the UK would be detrimental to Scotland’s future for several reasons, including the uncertainties of joining the EU

The Scottish government fully intends to stay within the EU after its proposed independence from the UK. In its recent white paper, the Scottish government laid out plans for the transition of its independent EU membership. It intends to start the process right after the referendum vote, involving negotiations with the UK government and EU member states and institutions. Even if the Scottish people vote “Yes,” Scotland will continue to be part of the UK until March 2016 when it becomes fully independent, which the Scottish government believes is enough time to become a fully functioning member of the EU.[1]

The EU is an institution bound by treaties; thus, an independent Scotland’s accession to the EU will need to go through formal legal channels. Typically, the law by precedence rule would apply. However, the Scottish situation is sui generis; no specific and exact EU laws are available for consultation. The Scottish government argues that Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union – the formal legal basis for accession of member states – is not suitable for Scotland’s case, because Scotland has existed inside the EU and applying EU laws since 1973 by association with the UK. Scotland would not need to apply for EU membership as any other applicant state (e.g., Albania, Turkey). Hence, Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union – “a Treaty amendment to be agreed by common accord on the part of the representatives of the governments of the member states” – would be the more suitable legal basis for Scotland’s accession.

Opinions from the EU Institutions and Member States

The European Commission has always stated that Article 49 would be the legal basis for any accession process of new member states. Recently, the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, reiterated this position, stating: “if part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU.” On this matter, the European and External Relations Committee (EERC) of the Scottish Parliament received an opposing opinion from the former European Commission Director General, Jim Currie, who stated: “I am not sure whether Mr. Barroso was speaking qua the European Commission or qua the current and outgoing President of the Commission, but the statement that he made was unwise. I also think that it was inaccurate, in so far as he said that it was virtually ‘impossible’ for Scotland to negotiate entry or re-entry.”[2] To resolve this inconsistency and obtain a clear answer, the EERC decided to write to the Vice President of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, on her portfolio responsibility for citizenship. In response to the EERC, Vice President Reding delivered a similar response as President Barroso’s and reiterated the fact that Article 49 would be the appropriate legal route.

The President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, also expressed a consistent ruling this past December: “If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.” Despite the rhetoric from EU officials, ultimately, the decision would depend on the 28 EU member states. Since they have the right to make decisions about accession processes in general, they should be entitled to the right of deciding which legal basis Scotland could take in joining the EU as an independent state.

An absence of consensus would leave Scotland’s EU bid ‘dead in the water’. To the dismay of Scottish nationalists, the UK would have a vote in deciding whether Scotland could join the EU and whether Article 48 or 49 should be used as the appropriate legal justification. When asked about the possibility of using Article 48 as the legal basis for Scotland to negotiate its way into the EU, the Secretary of State for Scotland,[3] Alistair Carmichael, quoted EU law and used several previous cases in the European Court of Justice to indicate that “if Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, and hence to leave the EU, one of the consequences would be a loss of EU citizenship.”[4] He continued: “we [the UK government]do not have a specific proposal to put to the Commission. We do not agree on Article 48. The view of the United Kingdom Government is that the only way to seek accession on membership of the European Union is through Article 49.”[5] The message from the UK government is clear: leaving the Union would nullify Scotland citizens’ EU citizenship, and force the new state to apply for EU membership like any other applicant state through Article 49.

Consequences

If Scotland were to become independent, the UK government, according to Mr. Carmichael, would no longer be negotiating on Scotland’s behalf its terms to remain a part of the EU.[6] It is clear that the Scottish government has very different interpretations of the Edinburgh Agreement from that of the UK government. By “respecting the referendum’s outcome” as was stated in the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK government’s legal obligation is to continue to function as the United Kingdom government. Due to Scotland’s potential departure, the UK would only represent the interests of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. “Respecting” does not necessarily imply that the UK government will continue to represent Scotland after Scotland has already chosen to leave the UK. On that note, the Scottish government’s plan to break free from the restraints of UK control while still having the perks of UK membership is naive.

One of the Scottish government’s arguments against the use of Article 49 is that “by virtue of having joined the EU in 1973, this is not the starting position from which the Scottish Government should be pursuing independent EU membership.”[7] Another argument against the use of Article 49 is that it would result in a period in which Scotland would be outside of the EU, because Scotland would first need to be fully independent and then become eligible to apply for EU membership. This prospect generates unwelcoming consequences because the rights of Scottish and EU citizens will be violated. Instead, what the Scottish government proposes with Article 48 promises to complete Scotland’s EU membership transition within only 18 months, so that if Scotland is officially independent from the UK in 2016, it would also be a new independent member state of the European Union.

However, in the recent history of EU enlargement, no country has ever completed its accession negotiations and finished the accession process close to that short amount of time. The Copenhagen Criteria and the full body of the acquis communautaire are very time-consuming to fulfill. Although some academics have declared that it would be easy for Scotland to pass those requirements because it has already been operating under those laws for more than 40 years, Mr. Carmichael stated Scotland would still need to make changes constitutionally to fulfill all 35 chapters of the acquis, “especially in those areas in which Scotland does not have legislative competence in its devolved Parliament… such as regulation of financial services sector, which is significant and very important to Scotland’s economy.”[8]

Clearly, the Scottish government would have to reach an agreement with the UK government about keeping the pound. However, this blatantly goes against the accession policy of any new EU member states, since all are required to adopt the Euro. On this matter alone, what the Scottish government proposes in its white paper deviates far from precedence and the positions of the EU institutions and the UK government. In fact, it would be unwise to challenge the already established regulations of the EU and test how far the UK government is willing to go in terms of continuing to represent Scotland after its independence, especially since the UK government is and will continue to be Scotland’s biggest ally in the EU and major trading partner in the world.

In relation to the EU, one of the most immediate consequences for an independent Scotland is its allocation of the EU budget. From a financial standpoint, an independent Scotland would be worse off since it would no longer receive a part of the UK rebate and counterintuitively it will be contributing to the UK rebate like other EU member states. The difference will amount to £2.3 billion (£900 per household) extra direct cost to Scottish taxpayers.[9] Further, since the independent Scotland would be contributing to the EU more than before and getting less in return, it would face an extra £500 million bill for its EU membership.

One of the other dire consequences would be the impact on the Scottish higher education system. The EU policy mandates its member states to apply no discrimination to students from other EU member states. The Scottish government grants its citizens free tuition, so students from other EU member states also don’t pay tuition to go to Scottish institutions. This rule no longer applies after the devolution in 1998 when “education and training” was listed as a devolved matter. As a result, only students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland currently have to pay tuition to go to Scottish universities. After independence and possibly becoming a new EU member state, however, Scotland would be mandated to stop charging tuitions for students from the rest of the UK in accordance with EU regulations. Based on the current number of students, the Scottish higher education budget would face a £150 million loss, in addition to losing major research grants from the UK government.

On September 5^th, poll-tracking data showed the “Yes” Campaign took over the lead (2%) from the “Better Together” campaign for the first time. The latest poll results from September 12^th ranged from a 7% “Yes” lead to 1% “No” lead. Regardless of statistical inconsistencies, the “Yes” campaign is clearly gaining momentum ahead of tomorrow’s vote, since the “don’t know” camp has decreased significantly from 12% to 6%. Tomorrow, we will know the final result in this showdown of nationalism against pragmatism.

Other Works Cited

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

The post Scotland’s Future with the EU appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In 1972, President Nixon – thanks to the wily diplomacy of his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger – cemented one of his more favorable legacies: opening Communist China to the West. (Despite his infamous reputation in the West, he’s still China’s favorite recent American president.) In fact, the Nixon-Kissinger duo was said to be the most talented ever to run American foreign and security policy.[1] As evidence of his vision, Nixon even stressed the importance of normalizing relations with China before his 1968 campaign because he was eagerly looking for a potential ally to counterbalance the Soviet Union.

The Chinese were secretive (as always) about their plans for connecting with the Americans, even planting a spy within the US intelligence community decades before Nixon’s announcement to visit Beijing. This human intelligence (HUMINT) operation turned out to be a highly successful, if not the most successful, Chinese penetration into the CIA known to date—and, out of sheer luck, catalyzed China’s policy toward the United States.

That spy was Larry Wu-Tai Chin, whose position as a Chinese language specialist in the CIA’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) offered China valuable insights into US policy towards China.[2] By using the intelligence Chin provided, China accordingly shaped its foreign policy toward the US and other nations to appear a less threatening communist regime.[3] Although Chin operated as a Chinese spy undetected for more than three decades, he was eventually exposed – along with many other foreign spies working within the US intelligence community — in 1985, “The Year of the Spy.”

In Chin’s defense, he claimed that he was passing documents in order to improve the mutual understanding between the American and Chinese governments. However, where his true loyalties lay is questionable. He became a naturalized US citizen, but betrayed the States. He also lied to China; without telling the Chinese he had retired from the CIA and lost access to top-secret documents, Chin translated open-source information and pretended they were classified so that he could still get paid.[4] By spying for China over the years, Chin was able to acquire 33 properties in Washington, DC and Las Vegas, while spending a fortune on gambling and prostitution.[5] For whatever reasons Chin had when he first began spying for China, it seemed at the end what drove his betrayal was money over patriotism.

Players

China’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) recruited Chin as an asset in 1944, the same year he started working for the US as a translator for an Army liaison office.[6] Chin’s career advanced quickly, and he joined the CIA in 1952. Although he was only working at the FBIS in Okinawa – an open-source intelligence center that monitors radio broadcasts from around the world – Chin had access to classified intelligence. He relayed both the names of US spies working in China and the names of their assets so that the MPS could arrest the assets before they leaked any more information.

After Chin became a naturalized citizen through marriage, he was offered a position at FBIS’ headquarters in Virginia. Although FBIS operated as an open-source center, many classified files would go through Chin’s desk every day. Before offering Chin a top-secret security clearance, a background check had to be conducted. The Agency was able to track down most of Chin’s adulthood, but nothing from his early years in Mainland China. China’s closed nature to foreign states offered Chin a perfect, natural protection from America’s prying eyes. However, this informational gap did not seem to bother the CIA—a grave oversight. Chin was also able to cheat a polygraph test before being granted a top-secret security clearance.[7] Chin later admitted he probably would not have passed the test if the questions had been asked in Mandarin.[8] Both the background check and the polygraph failings were weaknesses of the CIA recruitment process that played right into Chin’s advantage.

Another important piece of the puzzle was Yu Zhenshan, code name PLANESMAN. Yu was a senior intelligence officer in the MPS who was recruited by the CIA a year before he reported on Chin’s penetration.[9] Yu warned the CIA that a Chinese national working for the agency was actively spying for China. Because of Yu’s senior position, he had access to information only available to Chin’s handler in the MPS.

After PLANESMAN warned the CIA of a Chinese spy, the Agency conducted a fruitless internal investigation. Then, the case was turned over to the FBI’s Chinese Foreign Counterintelligence Squad. In order to confirm Chin was the spy, the FBI assembled a chronology of Chin’s trips to Hong Kong and crosschecked it with the intelligence PLANESMAN provided. After the confirmation, the FBI team had to gather prosecutable evidence. However, by then, Chin had already retired from the CIA; it would be nearly impossible for the FBI to catch him red-handed. The FBI team overcame this challenge by intercepting Chin’s phone conversations.[10] Although the intelligence proved insufficient for prosecution, it helped the FBI agents better understand Chin’s motivation and character. Chin was obsessed with sex, frequently engaging in phone sex with young women. He was also desperate to stay in touch with his CIA colleagues so that he could sell their secrets to Beijing in order to maintain a luxurious lifestyle.[11]

Impact on Policy and Related Ethical Issues

For China, Chin’s penetration into the CIA was extremely valuable. In addition to, among other items, National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) and classified documents released by the National Foreign Intelligence Board, Chin gained access to the Presidential Review Memorandum outlining President Nixon’s intentions to reestablish diplomatic relations with China.[12] Chin used the success of Nixon’s first trip to Beijing as his defense for espionage by claiming he had advanced understanding between the two countries.[13] Disregarding the fact that Chin committed treason to the US, the intelligence he provided to China was in support of the policy to reestablish diplomatic relations. Under the just intelligence model – an ethical framework used to measure whether intelligence operations are suitable – it was in China’s national security interest to penetrate into the CIA because China was assessing whether the US could be a partner in counterbalancing the Soviet Union[14] or a threat because the US was economically and militarily stronger than China.

For the US, Chin’s penetration had a mixed outcome. On one hand, Nixon’s Open Door Policy proved to be very successful. However, it is impossible to know the true value of Chin informing the Party about Nixon’s impending visit. On the other hand, the Korean War dragged on longer than it should have thanks to Chinese interferences. Chin had provided information to the Chinese that they used as leverage to negotiate forcible repartition with the Americans, and the Chinese took their time to secure a better bargain.[15]

Under the just intelligence model, it was in the US’ national security interest to penetrate the Chinese with PLANESMAN: the US-China relationship had just begun; there was an urgent need to better understand Communist China and how the ever-changing Chinese political atmosphere operated. As a result, the policymakers could use the intelligence obtained about China to make decisions on whether or not to deepen diplomatic relations. On the other hand, prosecuting Chin and igniting a tabloid-worthy spy scandal might generate unforeseen consequences including expulsion of diplomats, or worse, a failed trade agreement.[16] The US-China relationship was too delicate and valuable to jeopardize.

Lessons for Today

Since the “Year of the Spy” scandal, not only has the nature of spy craft changed dramatically through modern technology, but also the US-China relationship has evolved, teetering between rivals and allies. Yet, today, the mistrust between these two giants is shown more often in virtual spaces than in human operations such as Chin and PLANESMAN. For instance, in early 2013, a private US security company Mandiant, contracted by the US government, identified and reported hacking on the US by Chinese Army Unit 61398 located in the outskirts of Shanghai. The Mandiant report stirred a media frenzy, followed by an executive order issued by President Obama urging Congress to approve bolstering American cybersecurity for critical infrastructure. China denied the hacking allegations detailed in the Mandiant report, and also claimed to be a victim of American cyber-attacks. After the Edward Snowden revelations, China has banned both the use of Windows 8 on government computers, and the purchase of Apple products by government officials fearing American manipulation.

The planting of spies such as Chin and PLANESMAN were certainly operations motivated by national security concerns, but ones justified by advancing mutual understanding between China and the US. But then what could be the justification for cyber attacks today – decades after political and economic thawing – other than mistrust and political gamesmanship? Escalation and continued cyber bullying by both countries endangers a valuable and necessary partnership, one ironically catalyzed by the notorious Larry Wu-Tai Chin and President Nixon.

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

Other Works Cited

The post Sino-American Relations: Lessons from Old-School Spycraft appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Venture capitalism (VC), a business model native to the Western world, has recently gained traction in the Asian market and will only continue to flourish in the future. Thanks to the rise of VC, innovative ideas native to Asia are being discovered and supported, which may inspire the construction of new Silicon Valleys across the continent.

Consumers have frequently criticized goods and services produced in China as lacking in originality and quality. Since so many global companies outsource their production in China, the Chinese businessman’s mindset has been molded into copying whatever is trendy to make cheap knockoffs and quick money. Since the PRC government has blocked access to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, or video streaming sites like Youtube, the Chinese have come up with copycat sites. Since the Chinese Internet market was quite undeveloped at the turn of the 21^st century, the knockoff version of Facebook and Twitter – Renren and Weibo – quickly dominated the market and became almost as popular as their originals by the number of registered users.

Renren is now listed on New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) with a market capitalization of $1.22 billion. DCM, the renowned VC firm that invested in Renren during its early stages of development, currently manages funds of about $3 billion and has over 143 companies in its portfolio. Out of the 143 companies, 41 companies were founded and are currently operating in China, 16 in Japan, 80 in the US, and 6 from elsewhere in the world. Although US companies still occupy more than half of DCM’s portfolio, Chinese companies are quickly catching up.

Chinese companies have also received more global media attention than ever before. Jack Ma’s Alibaba Group, a tech company that has successfully evolved itself into an e-commerce conglomerate, has just changed its IPO filings recently revealing that the company would be listing its shares under the symbol “BABA” with the NYSE. This news has started a frenzy among the business people across the world. Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Forbes and even the Irish Times have written about Alibaba within this past week. Steve Schaefer, a Forbes correspondent, even went as far as saying Alibaba’s offering can maybe surpass Facebook’s 2012 debut as the largest tech IPO on the record, and challenge Visa’s hold on the title of the biggest US listing.

One of the most famous subsidiaries of Alibaba Group is Taobao Marketplace, the dominant online shopping website in China and beyond. Although Amazon’s service is global, its popularity and market share in China pales in comparison to Taobao’s. A sizable portion of the population, especially younger generations, purchases everything they need exclusively online. And even if they were to go shopping in a physical store, that would be only for the purpose of comparing prices. People would still go back online to purchase from Taobao, because goods are often cheaper there. Before Taobao was created, Softbank Corporations of Japan invested $20 million in Alibaba Group without getting any of its shares. Softbank made a bigger offer to Jack Ma, in return of getting 30% of Alibaba’s shares. However, Jack Ma was too smart to give his company shares away at the time. The investment turned out to be very profitable for Softbank, since it became to own 34.3% of Alibaba, and has gained 45% over the last year.

Modern China has been known for its cheap labor, but never before has it been known for organic economic innovation and growth. More young people are becoming entrepreneurs and many successful companies have been born from this unique kind of creativity, the kind that attracts capital and endless opportunities. VC will further encourage entrepreneurship among youngsters, and this is a hopeful sign of diversifying China’s economy to support sustainable development in the future.

Update: The featured image was changed on July 29th

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

The post The Rise of Venture Capital in China 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.