Fifty Shades of Trump and North Korea

We all know what a man with a big pick-up truck is trying to compensate for. When it comes to Trump and Kim Jung-un, the argument is similar. The question is who’s got the biggest weapon of mass destruction. Trump makes sure everyone know he’s got the biggest pick-up truck by calling his opponent “Little rocket man”. And wow, doesn’t “weapon of mass destruction” sound sexy and manly? It is hard at this point to take nuclear weapons seriously anymore, and this is what we must worry about.

It’s almost as if we’re living in a video game called Cold War II. In this game you can be either “Dotard” or “Little Rocket Man”. Both characters hate each other as much as they love themselves. If you are into the apocalypse or think all that matters in the world is yourself, this is a perfect game for you. All you need to play is a little red button! But be aware, you can only play the game once. When it’s game over, it’s GAME OVER.

But most of the time it feels like we are witnessing a play called “my toy is bigger than his”. Diplomatic manners and especially diplomatic language are long gone. As Trump tweets that it is a “waste of time” for his chief diplomat Rex Tillerson to attempt negotiating with Pyongyang, what are the solutions he prefers? One can only hope that Trump and Kim Jong-un are enjoying so much this confrontation they will never actually take action. The pleasure is in the battle of words or teasing through nuclear trials, and action would end that pleasure. In the meantime, the two egos are like two peas in a pod. There is also no room for error or escalation because escalation would mean destruction. In the midst of this cat fight, the rest of the world is looking, laughing or shrugging away. The most threatened, however, is not North Korea or America but Seoul and Tokyo. If Kim Jong-un decides to attack, he only needs a missile each to hit these two major cities.

Maybe it’s the Olympics? After the Obama administration who was extremely cautious when it came to foreign affairs, the confrontation between Trump and North Korea drops like a bomb (quite literaly). As the Obama administration carried a view on foreign affairs where American international intervention does more harm than good, Trump brings America back at the center of the international news. In a similar way, Kim Jong un uses the “mentally deranged” threats of Trump as a justification to strengthen its nuclear power, not decrease it. If these were the oOlympics (and not foreign affairs) it would be the Olympics of the leviathans. Who will press the red button first?

No! Its a dog fight! As Kim proclaimed, “A frightened dog barks louder”. Given that the question always rises of whether Trump is a bully or a coward, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that he’s more of a poodle dog walking around with his tail between his legs than a husky. In other words, he is a coward not a bully. The more this dog fight goes on, the less he is actually taken seriously. It is scary when even Kim Jung-un which not many people take seriously as a politician, calls Trump “a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician”. The bets are open and only bitcoins are accepted.

Actually, it is only reality TV. Just sit back and relax. Get comfortable and enjoy the popcorn. There is really no need to be dramatic. At the intersection between House of Cards and the Kardashians, this new Fox produced show is rather explosive. It was never really about weapons, only about media attention. The two charismatic leaders of the world have succeeded as entertainers (if not as politicians).

But, seriously. Kim Jong-un claims he is doing tests only in preparation to protect himself from America. He knows that attacking first would be self-destruction. The question then is how far would Trump go? Trump might be able to go very far, but he is not yet a dictator so as long as he does not make decisions alone the reality is that he cannot go any further, except keep on tweeting. It’s just international affairs and it’s going to be ok.

Manifold Countries & Natural Resources Rents by Nancy Stanley

NEW YORK, Oct 18 —The 2015 World Bank reports that the total natural resource rents (% of GDP) vary vastly between Germany, Russia, and Liberia. Germany, the most developed country of the three, retains just 0.068% of its GDP in total revenue from natural resource extraction. The Western European country has maintained a stagnant percentage of total rents from natural resources since 1970 (refer to graph) and will most likely continue to do so, as its economy depends minimally on natural resources.  The Russian Federation, the world’s largest nation, reaches further with 10.307% of its GDP from total natural resources rents in 2015. Since Russia was included in the World Bank statistics in 1989, their data has varied far more than countries such as Germany, taking an all-time low in 1998 (during the time of the Russian financial crisis) and an all-time high in 2000 (the same year when Vladimir Putin took office). Since 2000, the Russian Federation has decreased their natural resource rent percentages from 21.656% to 10.307%. Taking the size and distribution of people within the country into consideration, Russia is the second-largest producer of oil and largest producer of natural gas in the world. The federal semi-presidential republic appears to be trending downward in this regard. Finally, at a drastic high, Liberia reaps 46.441% of its GDP from total natural resource rents despite being the smallest country of the three. The data from Liberia is undeniably the most diversified, too. In 1994, the country hit an astonishing 82.589% of GDP in natural resource rents (the highest of any other country in the world during that time), yet nearly halved that percentage to 46.441% by 2015. The instability and unpredictability of Liberia’s data corresponds to its developing economy, as it is most-likely dependent on these natural resources for revenue. While this abundance may offer financial support to the country, the reliance on the environment for things such as rich deposits of oil and minerals often worsens matters such as poverty, inequality, and deprivation. 

As a whole, these three separate and very different economies reflect the diverging ways in which separate governments utilize their assets to support the state’s GDP. Germany’s economy is diversified, Russia’s a lot less so, and Liberia’s almost not at all. Further, this means that these high levels of dependence on natural resources also “reflect an atrophied or even non-existent non-resource economy. So, in effect, they are very vulnerable to global price swings” (Moran). 

Also Cited: 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20051101-1.pdf

Should government keep some information secret? by Sumesh Shiwakoty

By Sumesh Shiwakoty

NEW YORK, OCT 11 -- In U.S. politics, there is an ongoing debate about government keeping information secret. It is hard to choose a side in this discussion because right after you choose a side, it leads you to more debates about mass-surveillance and invasion of privacy by the government. This is because the government agencies conduct all these activities through a secret channel. Those who say the government should keep some information safe argues that mass-surveillance and invasion of American citizen’s privacy have helped law enforcement agencies to detect terror threat and keep the country safe. Thus, they claim that the act of keeping such information secret by government agencies far outweigh the cost of citizens losing their privacy. Other who says the government should not keep information secret argues that citizens should not lose their right to privacy and information for the sake of security. However, one thing that is missing from this debate is that to what degree the mass surveillance has helped the government to stop terror attack and to what extent government should keep information safe.

The New York Times reports that in the duration since the National Security Agency’s data collection programs became known to the public, the intelligence community has failed to demonstrate that mass surveillance has prevented any major terrorist attack. It has also been argued that during the Paris attack of November 2015, most of the terrorist involved were already under the radar of intelligence officials. However, they were still not able to act and prevent the attack. Thus, citing these facts, many argue that government mass surveillance program has not actually helped to prevent terror attacks as many politicians and policymakers suggest but rather has helped corporate America to get private information about the American public.

Another important point that need to be discussed is not that if the government should keep some information secret but the debate on how secret that information should be and who should have access to those information within government. It is true that government should keep some information secret for the interest of national security. However, democracy will die if only few handful people of government agencies will have access to classified information. Therefore, no matter how sensitive the information is, all three organs of government: executive, legislative and judiciary should have access to those information, and all that information should be released for public knowledge after a certain period when that information no longer possess any direct security concerns. This way we can keep government agencies liable while addressing security concerns.

“Never Forget” or “Forgive, Forget and Move Ahead?” by Sumesh Shiwakoty

By Sumesh Shiwakoty

NEW YORK, SEPT 10 -- “It was a usual Tuesday morning. I was on my way from JFK airport to Brooklyn carrying passengers on my taxi when the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center”, remembered Malkeet Singh Khalsa, one of the several visitors visiting the 9/11 memorial on the eve of the 16th anniversary of that gloomy day. “Within few minutes, there started chaos in the city. People started screaming and running. That was a crazy day.”

Khalsa’s words scrambled as he added, “Coming here today, and seeing all the people showing homage gives me a feeling that no matter how much extremists try to threaten us, we Americans can always bounce back.”

To the question of how that tragic event touched his life personally, he became silent for a while and said that he never felt like an outsider in America before the 9/11 event. He shared the story of his parents who came to the United States from India to escape the violence after the India-Pakistan partition and while growing up in the New York City, he always felt that this country is his home.

“After that event, it was hard to drive taxi wearing a turban,” he said. “People will assume that I am a Muslim and you can feel what is in their heart through their eyes. That was just a hard time. I am glad that time is over”. 

Nearby an old couple was taking their selfies trying to capture the falling of water in the background. “What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you come here?” After staring at the falling of water for a while, the husband replied, “Coming here reminds me of just one thing, and that is all the innocent lives that were lost after that tragic event. Innocent lives on both sides. Actually, the loss is more to the Arab world than to us, and on both sides, the one who paid the price were innocent people like you and me”.

His wife interrupted: “How can such a massive building collapse simply because of the crashing of a plane. Didn’t a plane also crash into the Empire State building back in the 40's? I think there is something more to the 9/11 that we will never know.” Her husband responded, “I don’t buy those conspiracy theories. If Guantanamo and Abu Gharib can make it to media, if DNC (Democratic National Convention) and Podesta (John Podesta) emails can get leaked, then I don’t think the 9/11 can stay secret till this long. If there were truth to those conspiracy theories, someone would have leaked it a long time ago”.

A middle-aged man named Austin Elliot from Chicago said the day should also be a reminder that politicians were able to use the fear and anger generated by 9/11 for other purposes. “It’s crazy how the Bush administration was able to persuade Americans to go to war with Iraq although the Iraqi had nothing to do with the 9/11.”

Why The Government Is Only Allowed Certain Secrets

NEW YORK Sept. 26th- In a 2014 TED talk response to Edward Snowden’s case, the NSA deputy director Richard Ledgett confessed that “there are things that we need to be transparent about: our authorities, our processes, our oversight, who we are”. This may be one of the only agreeable things he said in a long televised conference call, but it is key. When it comes to transparency, and especially of the government, the former should be fully transparent in terms of process. This almost seems like an evidence when considering the definition of democracy. The people need to know what they voted for and how those to whom they gave power to are exercising it. However, when it comes to information, the government has a need to keep some information secret. This being for the public interest, not against. Snowden showed us that the government collects huge amount of data, especially through internet. This process of collecting (even stealing) data, should have been transparent. However, knowing that the government collects all this information, do we really also want to demand for the government to have all information public? Beyond the security argument, it seems that complete transparency contradicts the “right to privacy” which Snowden defends in his TED Talk. There would be no more privacy if the government was completely transparent. Between internet and reality TV, the right to privacy is already long forgotten. Especially after the Snowden case, we simply assume, and almost accept that the government knows everything about us. But if we want to fight for our right for privacy, then we cannot also demand for the government to not hold any information secret. And how would we limit transparency to simply the US?

Acknowledging that the government should keep information secret does not entail being against whistleblowers.On the contrary, whistleblowers, when playing their role in an intelligent way with the right process, releases crucial information which works towards holding government accountable. With whistleblowers such as Snowden ( and not Assange) it is also a matter of making the process more transparent. In Snowden’s case, the information given to the Guardian served as proof of the government’s actions but it was not about making the collected data public. This is what we need to fight for, not complete transparency. 

---