Globalization: Are You In or Are You Out?

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

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

China has been retaliating against South Korea economically for agreeing to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) with the United States. As BBC points out, China is South Korea’s largest trading partner. China has set up several trade barriers, such as stopping travel agencies from selling South Korea tour packages, banning the sale and distribution South Korean TV shows, and not allowing South Korean entertainers to perform in China. In addition, China has close down almost all of Lotte Group’s supermarkets. Lotte is a target for China as it has offered land for the deployment of THAAD.

In response, South Korea has filed a formal complaint with the WTO that China has been treating South Korean companies with unfair practices.

“The agency [Korean Agency for Technology and Standards] asked the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) committee to deal with three trade barriers imposed by Beijing as specific trade concerns. WTO member countries can request the TBT committee to review trade policies taken by trading partners as to whether they impede imports of certain goods.”

If the WTO finds that China has been impeding the imports from South Korea or makes a judgement against China, how will they be able to stop China from banning South Korean imports?

China’s bans does not seem to stop South Korea from cooperating with the U.S on the THAAD deployment, especially now with the threat of North Korea looming over the region. As Tony Zhao, a fellow from the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, shares with BBC:

“Threats of economic sanctions are part of coercive diplomacy, but they may not be useful in addressing the Thaad issue…These forceful measures would likely be seen as a sign of disrespect and a direct threat to South Korea’s interests – which could ultimately push South Korea to bolster its military alliance with the United States.”

The growing prospect of cyber warfare needed to be addressed urgently before such weapons broke down the entire edifice of international security, heard the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) as it considered other disarmament measures, before concluding its thematic debate.

source  The UN Economic and Social Council

A new benchmarking study of 19 of the world’s 20 leading economies found that the United Kingdom and the United States lead Group of 20 (G20) countries in their ability to withstand cyber attacks and to deploy the digital infrastructure necessary for a productive and secure economy. The index also found that several major economies–Argentina, Indonesia, Russia and Saudi Arabia–do not have cybersecurity plans and do not appear to be developing them. The index is at www.cyberhub.com .

Politicians (especially Trump and his administration) talk a lot about helping workers who have been adversely affected by global trade. But, this article argues, they rarely offer solutions. This article argues that the loss of these jobs are largely due to automation and not free trade, so those jobs are not going to come back regardless of changes in trade policy. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made this disturbingly inaccurate statement about the automation of work:  “It’s not even on our radar screen … 50-100 more years.” Further, this article argues that all players (schools, businesses, state governments, etc.), not just the federal government, have to address the problem seriously and come up with solutions.

Researchers found that in 2007 alone, about 762,400 people around the world died prematurely because they were exposed to pollution emitted to make goods used somewhere else. By outsourcing jobs to other countries with fewer regulations and more pollution, US workers have avoided a lot of premature deaths. About 102,000 premature deaths of citizens in other countries were the result of pollutants emmitted during the production og goods and services used in the US. The US ranks second on this list, Western Europe ranks number 1.  http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pollution-trade-deaths-20170331-htmlstory.html

A recent report by the Department for International Development (DFID) discusses the potential benefits and constraints of the use of technology for civilians and humanitarian organizations in Syria. DFID conducted a qualitative research study which analyzed the use of mobile technology in Syria. They compiled their findings from interviews with Syrian-based respondents and aid workers.

Smartphone ownership and internet access is still widespread among civilians despite the conflict. Eighty-one percent of Syrians own a cell phone. Social media apps help civilians and refugees communicate with their families, but also allows them to connect with humanitarian organizations. Additionally, humanitarian organizations use technology to communicate with and provide services to aid beneficiaries.

Despite internet disruptions and security drawbacks, international organizations are strategically using technology to help address the worsening humanitarian crisis in Syria. Technology is especially helpful in inter-agency coordination and the exchange of information.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t the warm and cuddly type. She famously winced when President George W. Bush decided to massage her shoulders during a G-7/8 meeting. And she got along ok with him. She made almost no effort to disguise her contempt for/revulsion toward President Trump during their joint press conference a couple of weeks back. While Ms. Merkel clearly likes her space, she isn’t going to let the Brits walk away from the EU easily–or cheaply– as this piece in Business Insider (summing up a piece in the FT, which has a paywall) explains neatly.

See you Monday at the Grad Center to hear Anne Applebaum. You can read her latest columns here. Well worth it.

Due to North Korea’s recent actions, some in Japan is advocating Japan to gain the ability to launch offensive attacks. This is a rare attitude in Japan, as most Japanese are pacifists because the aftermath of World War II. Japan is forbidden by their Constitution, written by Americans after World War II, to have an army to attack. Its military forces are only allowed to act in defense to a threat. The Japan-U.S Security Treaty provides for protection for Japan from the United States. Interestingly enough, the bilateral treaty makes several references to the the U.N charter and the Security Council. Such as Article V in the treaty:

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

According to the article, “Acquiring strike capability might be legally permissible under international law, but it will be difficult to sell to the Japanese public.” It seems the international law binding Japan to be unable to act on the offensive, is its own Constitution and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

If Japan has the capability to launch offensive attacks, it is almost certain that China, North and South Korea, and other countries in the region will have issues.