Globalization: Are You In or Are You Out?

THAAD Anti-Missile System Is Now Operational in South Korea

I feel that Trump doesn’t have a clear strategy to deal with Korea peninsula nuclear crisis. On the one hand, he said he would seek to make Seoul pay for the controversial defense outfit, causing both confusion and anger among allies in the South. On the other hand, he is breaking the US government tradition that no direct dialogue with the North Korea. He said he is willing to have a direct talk with the North Korea. The consequence of such a chaos may be beneficial to Kim Jong Un — when he bargains with big powers, he may raise more excessive “requirements”.

http://time.com/4762751/thaad-south-korea-north-korea-missile/

Criticism of Beijing’s North Korea Policy Comes From Unlikely Place: China

It seems that in Trump-Xi Summit in Florida, the US and China agreed to pressure the North Korea. This deal between two main powers even reversed Trump’s claim that “China is not a currency manipulator.”

The interesting thing is that, yesterday Russia vetoes UN statement on North Korea’s missile tests, which even China is in favor of. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/asia/russia-un-veto-north-korea/)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/china-north-korea-war.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FXi%20Jinping&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection

Is China challenging the United States for global leadership?

This article in the Economist thinks that with increasing power China is leaning in and trying to exert its global influence. However, the author believes that selling its own model or talking of “guiding globalization” does not mean China is going to abandon the existing global order or overturning American leadership across the board. China still wants to play the game within the existing system. “It is neither a revolutionary power bent on overthrowing things, nor a usurper, intent on grabbing global control.”

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21719828-xi-jinping-talks-china-solution-without-specifying-what-means-china-challenging

Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad

It seems that the UN security council can hardly make an effective resolution on chemical attach in Syria because of Russia and China. Also, the US, currently, was unlikely to change its posture toward Mr. Assad “because of ‘political realities in Syria.'”

The EU is under pressure either. “Today’s chemical attack was a direct insult to the #EU.” There had already been debate about whether EU’s supplying reconstruction funds shall be conditional as “a significant political transition, or at least power sharing in Syria”.

Faced with various types of domestic issues, western countries have show no strong willingness to intervene in Syria issue and it makes all their dilemmatic condemnation looks powerless.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html

How Trump and China’s Xi could stumble into war

When we look back to history, hot wars take place when the shifting balance of power happens. Under Trump’s administration, it seems that the US –“the world police” want to withdraw from its “deep” intervention in a series of international affairs. However, the rising power, China or other countries may not be ready for taking that responsibility. Also, Trump shows heavy dissatisfaction about current China-US trade relationship.

Although sino-american relation is highly inter-dependent, the danger of war probably increase under today’s situation. “The danger is that amid the structural stress caused by China’s rise, and exaggerated by Xi’s and Trump’s clashing visions, inevitable crises that could otherwise be contained will result in outcomes neither side wants.”

If one side misjudge its competitors’ strategy, the world war may take place. The catalyst might be Taiwan or North Korea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/31/how-trump-and-chinas-xi-could-stumble-into-war/?utm_term=.ff1707ad1c84

‘We Have to Be Realistic’: Nuclear Powers Sit Out U.N. Talks Aimed at Banning Nuclear Weapons

“U.N. talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons, but the big powers — US, Russia, China and other nuclear-armed nations are sitting out a discussion they see as impractical.”

U.S. Ambassador argued that a treaty would end up disarming nations “trying to keep peace and safety,” while “bad actors” wouldn’t sign on or comply. For example, North Korea might been seen as “the bad actor”.

Again, international politics is Realism. You get the power and you can make the rule.

http://time.com/4714710/united-nations-nuclear-waeapons-ban-boycott/