Merry Christmas

If I were politically correct I would say happy holidays, but since I am not and have not been called politically correct, I'll stick to saying Merry Christmas.  For my two cents, call it what you want and don't worry about everyone's feelings.  If you want to say Happy Kwanza, go for it, Happy Festivus (I have never watched Seinfeld, but hey why not?).  People need to stop being so asininely offended over every little stinking thing.  So Merry Christmas, I am a Christian and celebrate the holiday in remembrance of the birth of Jesus Christ and I will do so without shame and without bothering to worry about offending everyone else.  By the way, Jews should say Happy Hanukkah without worrying that they have offended a Christian.  And if you want to say Happy Winter Solstice, good for you.  Anyway, on to the reason for making a post this afternoon.

On Christmas Eve my family and I watch movies together as we relax, cook, do whatever last minute stuff needs to be done before Christmas day.  Today we have watched Les Miserables (the 2012 edition with Jackman and Crowe).  We then watched what will be watched again for the next several years--Joyeux Noel.  As a professor of death, destruction, and mayhem, this movie was touching on several levels.  As a former airman, with several friends who serve as soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, this movie was even more touching.  For my two cents, this movie is worthy of Christmas classic status.

I hope some of my few readers might find this movie inspirational in a time where death, destruction, and mayhem seems to be the way of human life.

Merry Christmas.

and, on a self-serving, personal note, happy Anniversary Vicki.  (she has now put up with me for 14 years).

Christmas Beer Time

 

For my two cents, you can take all of your spiced up, fruited up Christmas brews and pour them down the drain.  My opinion does not mean that all addition of flavors to brews is bad, just that I do not prefer traditional winter/Christmas seasonal brews.  For the Christmas season and New Year's season I recommend to you Wolaver's Alta Gracia Coffee Porter.

The Alta Gracia Coffee Porter is brewed with coffee beans from the Alta Gracia region of the Dominican Republic.  The brewing process also includes a hint of vanilla--not sure of the origin.  If you are a coffee lover or an iced-coffee lover, I would almost guarantee (hey I'm a social scientist, everything is almost for us, since 5% error is acceptable) you will find this brew to your taste.  

The coffee is obvious when the aroma hits your nose, The head is thin and goes away quickly (a bit of a disappointment, as I believe a hardier head keeps the beer's best aromas up front).  Never really tasted the vanilla, but do get some dark chocolate and caramel notes on the finish.  So this joyous Christmas season, take a try on a bottle of coffee.

Bullpup Revisited

Ok, so I have given my two cents a few times on the issue of bullpup configuration versus normal automatic/semi-automatic rifle configuration.  But I am still somewhat mixed about my generally negative feelings toward bullpups when it comes to this one particular bullpup.  Yes, I am still somewhat interested in the Tavor.  Tavor having a U.S. operation here in PA creating these rifles for the U.S. market is encouraging me to continue looking and considering options.  Nice thing is that conversion kits to take it away from the pathetic .233 (5.56) cartridge exist and are reasonable in price relative to the rifle.  Maybe Santa Claus will put one in my stocking--not likely.  Maybe Mrs. Stanton will allow me to spend some money out of the household renovations budget--not likely.  Ok, so I will have to save up and then decide do I really want to break with my convention on bullpups.   But for my two cents, this is a good question to have to ask myself.

French Interventions in Africa

The following posting is from Andrew McFeaters.  McFeaters is currently studying in the GSPIA program at Pitt where he is in part focusing on security policy in Africa.  McFeaters is also a Marine, so I ask the readers to dismiss reality for a moment.  Yes, a Marine who can write in complete sentences sometimes, I know--it is a slight miracle.  

 

Since 2011, the French have been involved in four different military interventions in Northern and Western Africa.  Surprisingly, the Cheese-Eating Surrender Moneys have been successful, at least in considering their initial goals for the interventions.  The initial goal of each intervention was to push back the mostly Muslim extremist groups and secure their interests in each country.  While many reports say that their actions haven’t eliminated the opposition, but simply rebuffed them and pushed them into other countries, such as Niger, Nigeria, and Southern Libya, the first steps of the interventions have succeeded.

            The French don’t seem to be naïve enough to think they have “won” each intervention, and to ensure the security and governance situation in each country is in a position to succeed the French have left small amounts of troops and resources in each country.  Currently, the French have 1200 troops in The Central African Republic, with a promised additional 400 troops arriving in the near future, 450 troops still in the Ivory Coast, a token force in Libya, and near 3,000 troops in Mali.[1]  These forces main focus is to work with African Union, NATO, and UN forces still in the country to ensure the security situation remains under control and the extremist groups cannot further their footholds in the country.

            France has a long history of involvement in Africa, and their current level of involvement seems to be a continuation of past policies.  History is a vital part of these interventions.  Because France has been involved in Africa for hundreds of years, they undoubtedly have numerous national interests, as well as thousands of French nationals on the continent.  This makes the volatile countries in Northern Africa particularly important to the French, and a cessation of involvement in the African continent is unlikely.

            The French President, Francois Hollande, has sought to lessen the French involvement in the continent, but these campaign promises are eerily similar to statements by former President Sarkozy, among other former French Presidents and Prime Ministers.  Both men promised a smaller role in Africa, but these promises are easier to honor when French interests and citizens are not threatened.[2]  Speaking on the recent activity in the Central African Republic, Hollande stated: (If France) “weren’t there, no other army in this part of the world- Africa- would be able to launch such an operation to save lives and establish peace.”[3]  This statement can be readily applied to the other French interventions in past years, and due to this very reason, there is no reason to suggest French involvement in Africa will come to an end. 

What does the French Involvement in Africa mean for the rest of the World?

            As discussed above, the French have continued their role of intervening in the African Continent in the name of providing regional security and protecting civilian lives. The French have not typically acted alone in these interventions.  Often, the French forces act in conjunction with African Union, NATO, and UN forces.  Each of the recent interventions have been done through either UN or NATO (or both) mandates calling for action within the countries. 

These actions are mostly done in agreement with other global powers, but the French have taken key roles in each action.  This leaves the rest of the typically intervening powers (The U.S., Britain, Germany, and Russia, among many other smaller countries) in a unique position.  With the exception of on the African continent, many of the other military interventions have been led or greatly supported by the U.S., either through funding or troops.  So what does this mean for these other countries?

            The U.S. has seen its African Command expand greatly in the last 20 or 30 years, and this has been heralded by some African leaders but detested by others.  In my opinion, most credible leaders in Africa support the United States’ increased presence, but the “bad” leaders or states where the majority of the population is Muslim have not been overly happy. 

            The U.S. should look at the increased role of the French with a watchful, but hopeful, eye.  If the French are willing to take the lead and act according to international laws, this frees up the U.S. forces (and most importantly dollars) to focus elsewhere.  The U.S. can be relieved of combat leadership roles, and focus more on training and security roles, as well as allow a focus in other regions, notably in Asia, where the U.S. is still trying to figure out how to deal with China, among other issues.  As a realist, and most importantly (in my opinion at least) a pragmatist when considering international affairs, I think this is a best possible scenario for the U.S. and its national interests.  Only time will tell if this lowly first year grad students opinion is correct, but if I am I will loudly and vocally praise myself for my foresight and keen opinions on international affairs. 

---

[1] Associated Press. "France Tries to Rewrite Its Role in Africa." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 8 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.

[2] Lynch, Colum. "France: Mali's 'existence' at Stake." Foreign Policy. N.p., 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.

[3] Associated Press. "France Pushing EU to Fund Military Interventions." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.

Let the New Space Race Begin

The Chinese have "soft-landed" on the moon.  Read all about this remarkable feat here.  Does this event mark the beginning of a new space race?  The Chinese are also seeking to build their own space station by 2020 and selling satellites to other countries.  So how do these events affect relations with other space traveling states?  I recall reading something a few weeks back pondering whether or not the Chinese intend to start mining operations on the moon.  I do wonder how the world would react to such an act.

Ok, for my own two cents, this event does not portend a new space race of the 1960s style U.S. - Soviet space race, at least not at this time.  The feasibility of mining on the moon must have been studied and restudied by NASA.  Even if U.S. policy and agreements on the use of space made through international treaties prohibited such action, surely NASA knows whether or not mining the moon is possible, profitable, desirable.  This event does illustrate advancement in Chinese technological development.  Chinese technological development is potentially troubling if there is expectation of competition for technological primacy becoming a basis for inter-state conflict.  We should not, however, be alarmed by the fact that an economically and industrially advanced country is making strides in technologically advanced areas, which is simply what people do as they develop.  Hey, aren't we interested in seeing development in the world, isn't development supposed to be good?  I for one hope the Chinese rover returns some cool pictures and perhaps even something interesting regarding the lunar surface it traverses.

And for those wondering why I am putting out a second post on a Friday evening.  Hey, just avoiding grading finals.  

Let's Be Honest

Some may consider my comments here in poor taste, but let's be honest, how many of us are looking forward to seeing what Saturday Night Live does to the fake sign language expert from the Mandela memorial service earlier this week?  Thanks Ola for making me wonder about how SNL would cover this phenomenal gaffe at such an important event.  Check out the Daily Rehash video on the matter and see if you aren't wondering about SNL.  Of course, for my two cents, SNL should be better.  And, for those of you who are worried that making fun of things such as this gaffe is done in poor taste--see the second video below.

North Korea, Part II

I blogged earlier this week about the purging of Jang Song Thaek as part of a power play by the new leader Kim Jong Un.  Apparently in a more overtly feudal manner of dealing with one's potential rivals and usurpers of power, Kim had Jang executed yesterday.  The execution of Jang highlights three things.

First, the absolutism of family authority in North Korea has been put on full display.  Kim Jong Un has notified the country that the Kim family is still firmly in control of the government.  Jang Song Thaek had risen to number two in the DPRK governing hierarchy.  Jang had his own supporters and a history of power-seeking.  Kim Jong Un is reminding the country that he and the Kim dynasty are still in control of the country.

Two, I believe the execution is a signal that easing of market restrictions and liberalizing the economy will not occur as a systematic program sponsored by the government.  Jang was responsible for attempting Chinese style market reforms in North Korea and had close ties to Chinese business and industry.  The message of Jang's execution is North Korea will have market reform only when the public distribution system of the socialist state is failing and when it recovers the market still belongs to the state, not to any private holder.

Three, the execution illustrates Kim Jong Un is young, untried, untested, with little governing experience.  Kim Jong Il had nearly twenty years as a government and party official and a decade of military policy-making before he became the ruler of North Korea.  Kim Jong Un has about eighteen months before becoming the leader of the country.  No time existed for allowing Kim Jong Un to build his own reputation and governing persona under the watchful and powerful eye of his father.  So, Kim Jong Un was given power and has to prove he alone wields the power.  Kim Jong Un will make sweeping uses of power and we should expect more attempts to demonstrate his mastery of the leadership of the DPRK.  At least this is my two cents about the matter.

Caveat or Just (Insert your own word here)?

Hey, I actually did start this post in November, but never finished it, now I finished it.

I was just reading an article at ForeignPolicy.com about the al-Shabab attack on the UN compound in Mogadishu.  I was struck by one thing in regard to the June 19 attack;  the Ugandan peacekeeper's response.

"Ugandan peacekeepers arrived on teh scene about 30 minutes after the attack began, but they declined a request to enter the compound to take on the remaining al-Shabab militants, saying that was the job of Somali security forces."

I considered the potential that there are caveats that are made by states when they send their forces into harm's way.  Stephen Saideman has talked about caveats in Afghanistan and what they really mean for alliances.  In fact, he and David Auerswald have a book where caveats are probably considered; caveats like certain NATO allies not being allowed to do patrols after dark.  Now, the situation in Mogadishu is one in which there are UN personnel, but the security mission is African Union, and apparently there is a Ugandan contingent to that mission.  I am at this moment unaware of any caveats (based on reading about this mission in several publications) but they might exist.  For my two cents, however, I choose to put a different word in place of caveat--dereliction.  Your job as peacekeepers is to protect the UN personnel, so protect them.  Unless, of course, the caveat does exist and is just not really publicly acknowledged.

Apologia to my Few Readers

Sorry to take so long between postings.  November was an extremely busy month for me.  I'll try to post more frequently in the next few weeks.  In terms of extremely busy, please recall my blog a long time ago about watching leaves fall (read grading papers), well I watched a lot of leaves falling in November. 

Thoughts on North Korea

I am teaching a course on Asian Politics in the coming spring semester.  I focus primarily on comparative foreign policy in southeast and east Asia.  So China, the Koreas, Japan, and the ASEAN states get covered in terms of security issues, economic interactions, etc.  Realizing that I have spent a great deal of time reading about, studying, writing about China and ASEAN states, I decided this fall to read more about the Korean peninsula, demographics, geography, society, culture, history, contemporary political structures, and so forth.  As with most people it is the last book/article/information you covered that sticks in your mind.  The last book I read about the Korean peninsula is Victor Cha's* The Impossible State; North Korea Past and Future.  I find Cha's argument about why North Korea's government behaves as it does to be very compelling.  I also find it to be very telling about recent events in North Korea.

Cha argues that North Korean ruling behavior can be understood as grounded in the desire to exercise absolute control to maintain the Kim family's position.  Additionally, North Korean behavior can be understood as a desire to remain grounded in the first half of the Cold War.  The first half of the Cold War was the heyday of the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).  In the 1950s to early 1970s North Korea produced more heavy machinery, more electricity, and was generally much more economically viable than South Korea.  The Juche mentality was developed in the 1970s and reinforced in the 1990s as a means of controlling a population that was increasingly lacking food, electricity, modern technological development and conveniences as the reality that the heyday of DPRK economics and political clout ended with normalization of relations between the U.S. and China and the normalization of trade with a surging South Korea and China and improved South Korean-Russian relations.  North Korea's heyday fades as Chinese and Russian direct payments and loans fade away and North Korea's government refuses to alter economic policy to recognize the new realities of East Asian politics and economics.  The Kim administrations (Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-il) both worked harder after that point in time on control of the population and control of the agencies of government (primarily through a military first policy of income and food distribution). 

No how does this tie to the new Kim administration (Kim Jong Un) and current events?  In the late 1990s as an expedient means to deal with failure of public redistribution systems (remember that a communist/marxist/authoritarian state operates by redistributing the benefits/wealth of production to the population), due to lack of production in industry and agricultural disasters of the mid to late 1990s, the DPRK introduced some minimalist market reforms.  Leading this effort on behalf of Kim Jong-Il was Jang Song Thaek who was purged by Kim Jong-Il in 2004, but resurrected in 2010.  Why was Jang resurrected, well he does happen to be the husband of Kim Jong-Il's sister, Kim Kyong-hui.  Kim Jong-il used his sister and brother-in-law to help ensure ease of transition to the sudden emergence of Kimg Jong Un as the heir to the Kim dynasty in the DPRK.  Last year some analysts even speculated that the real power of the government was in Kim Jong Un's aunt and uncle and that he was possibly a public figurehead (a not too unreasonable analysis based on the very limited information we had regarding Kim Jong Un).  So now forward to the current situation, Jang Song Thaek has been purged again from positions of power in the DPRK (vice-chair of the National Defense Commission and department head Korean Worker's Party).  For my two cents this move is designed to consolidate the position of Kim Jong Un and who was the easiest target among those who could challenge Kim Jong Un's authority.  Well of course the easiest target is the one who was in charge of liberal reform of the economy that has failed (because it was not really liberal reform at all).  And so the effort maintain total control of the population under the thumb of the Kim family and the new leader Kim Jong Un continues and it targets anyone and anything that might challenge the belief that the DPRK should return to the heyday of the 1950s to early 1970s.