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.  

Rubber Duckie

So, the rubber duck made famous in the Rubber Duck Project of artist Florentijn Hofman, has arrived in the U.S.  First stop, Pittsburgh, PA fifty miles from the house, so I had to go see it yesterday.  Kinda got all Bert and Ernie nostalgic for a moment, thought it was interesting that real ducks were swimming around the big rubber duckie. 

 Today, posting this pic made me think about the Ducks of Minerva.  I think a good post was made there today about the "taboo" of chemical weapons use. 

Logic Behind Using Chemical Weapons

One the blog, Political Violence @ a Glance, Barbara Walter gives a Friday Puzzler.  Today the puzzler is:

Given Assad’s extensive conventional weapons capabilities, why use chemical weapons? What’s the logic behind using them?

My first thought on the matter is signalling.  Non-conventional weapons use sends a signal to the opponent targeted by the weapons use.  The signal here is that the massive conventional arsenal that will destroy urban centers does not have to be used.  Weapons of mass human destructive capacity can be used instead to kill and seriously incapacitate opposition members.  The second part of the signal to the opposition is that Assad has the will to use internationally unpopular weapons, not being deterred by statements from international leaders about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons.    Of course, the second part of the signal also has some consequences, namely what will the international community at which Assad thumbed his nose do as a response to the use of chemical weapons? Of course, I am also not considering here the rationality of the decision to send the signal.

Some Observations About....

Ok, so I haven't blogged since June.  I took the summer off from blogging.  But I am back, hopefully I still have something to say on occasion.  Observation #1: I really did not miss blogging, so maybe I am not really good at blogging and maybe I should just quit blogging altogether.  Nah, I just focused on my research and reading this summer and did not take the time to share my thoughts with the world.

So what are the topics most prominent in our minds these days.  Observation #2:  we really did not get that upset about finding out the government was really listening to our conversations.  Oh well, I have been saying that the government is listening for years, Snowden just confirmed it with his admissions.  And then, Observation #3: my opinion, personal opinion, about Snowden is worth as much as anyone else's opinion.  My opinion is that he should have stayed to face the music here in the U.S. running just make you look less courageous.

Observation #4:  I was right, I told you so, etc.  Syria, well, I said over one year ago to expect this one to be ugly because Assad is not going quietly into the night.   But this does bring me to Observation #5: strange world when I wake up and Sec. of State Kerry is more "hawkish" than I.  I mean, which of the following represents Kerry:

or,

Ok, the difference might not be as dramatic as these clips, but...

Final Observation:  I bet most of you reading this have no clue how many people were trapped at the airport in the capital city of the Central African Republic when they ran there for looking for shelter from violence in the CAR last week.  You also probably do not know the name of the capital of the CAR.  

NSA, Privacy, Government Intrusion, Necessary Security--My Head is Exploding

Before I start giving my thoughts on the news about NSA intercept and storage, my words alone and not those of any agency or department or other pieces on the issue (remember that the word collection has specific meaning--just ask the head of the NSA), I believe that full disclosure is in order.  One, I served in the U.S. Air Force, my father served in the U.S. Air Force, and my grandfather served in the U.S. Army Air Force, service and dedication to the freedoms of our people and our country runs deep in my family.  Two, I am an unashamed civil libertarian who believes that both Republicans and Democrats have sold this country down the tubes (at an alarmingly rapid rate of increase in the last decade).  Three, I consider most of the residents and citizens of the U.S. to be either numb-skulled or so terribly apathetic that they have no clue that the country has been sold down the tubes over the last several decades.  Cue the sheepdogs, oh wait, the sheepdogs are now led by the wolves, and the sheep are in real deep trouble.

The known human security denigrating events of the last twenty years (I'll go back that far, earlier is just adding material and wasting space in argument), civil violence, gun violence, terrorism, real wars, fake wars, economic stupidity, economic collapses, drug abuse, drug violence, etc., is staggering in scope.  Of course, human development has aided in the staggering amount of knowledge of these events by the generation of rapid, digital based, communication formats.  My point being that the knowledge of these events is based on the ability to communicate rapidly, that similar events did occur prior to the advent of rapid, digital media formats, but that without the advent of digital communication the population remained largely unaware of these events.  If we do not know about these events are we in any less need of protection and security against the ills of these events?  I answer no.  We are in need of protection against the ills of these events--thus we have the sheepdogs (police, investigators, government agents of the various alphabet soup collection, militias (at least so goes the militias' own claims), soldiers, sailors, airmen, and even Marines (are you happy McFeaters?)). 

But what happens when the wolves get to be in charge of the necessary civilian leadership of the sheepdogs?  Now we get leadership that thinks it is a good idea to usurp the freedoms (privacy is a freedom) of the people--who being numb skulls and highly apathetic--have done nothing to get rid of the wolves.  Instead, the people have sat back allowed the wolves to run the sheepdogs and now the sheepdogs are infringing on our freedoms in the name of security.  Is it a necessary element of security to grossly infringe on the rights of free people, people for whom many others have shed sweat, tears, blood?  My head aches, my heart is heavy, good thing I can turn my eyes to the heavens and read Psalms of ascent. 

So, anyway, my two cents worth is that "We the people" being mostly sheep are in deep trouble.  The wolves are actually running the sheepdogs, and those they would call wolves are still wolves.  Does this make any sense, if not, it is because it should not make sense.  When did "We the people" quit actually caring and doing our part of the duty to ensure that wolves did not become the leaders of the sheepdogs?  No necessary security requirement is fulfilled by the intercept and storage my emails and telephone conversations.  No real security against the ills of human security denigrating events has been created by the actions of our government post 9/11--it is all theater and sham.  And what have "We the people" done--nothing, we are become sheep.