Author: MARIA RODRIGUEZ FERRENO

No matter how much I read and try to self educate myself about the Middle East varied topics (wars, uprisings, religious conflicts, interests, domestic and foreign relations, and much more), I am always left with the sensation that I don’t have the full picture or that I am missing the piece which will make me understand it all once and for all. But I never seem to find that piece either. As much as the challenge this region of the world poses on me, also the frustration of never fully understanding it embargoes me. 

I found this article on Foreign Affairs about why Washington keeps failing in the Middle East and I just couldn’t pass it up. Although this article didn’t do the full click on my mind (for me to understand the region in depth), it did explain some things that made sense to me and gave me a little more perspective on this region’s issues. It was also refreshing to read the opinion of an American “insider” (from 2013 to 2015, the author -Philip Gordon- served in the White House as Special Assistant to President Obama and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region) admitting the eternal failing of the U.S. trying to save the region and why Washington seems to never change its mind about it all despite the decade-long experience. 

One of the phrases in the article which caught my attention the most was that Washington (and the U.S. in general), institutions just as human beings, don’t always learn from the mistakes made and despite the outcomes continue repeating over and over the same mistakes. Again, this being said by a man who had power in the decision making not too long ago. The exact phrase was: “Americans also keep placing hope over experience when it comes to Middle East policy because of a persistent tendency to underestimate the degree of resources and commitment it will take to get rid of a hostile regime and stabilize the situation once it is removed”. 

After countless interventions, intentions to bring peace and democracy to countries of the region, diplomatic dialogues, and even economic and trade sanctions throughout the decades, the U.S. keeps repeating the same mistakes with the region. In my opinion, 3/4 of the times due to national American interests in doing so and the other 1/4 of the times because of a superhero complex. Nevertheless, and the end of the day, the consequences are always paid by the common men of the region there and here as well. 

As it is listed in the article, none of the times the U.S. intervening in some form and shape on the region, the outcome was better than before. Not only more extremist power took over the overthrown governments, countless local lives were lost (not to mention the American soldiers lives lost in conflict), the armed conflicts spread out to neighboring countries and so did the anti-American feeling of the locals and neighbors, devastation and overall hopeless circumstances, but in many cases the situations escalated to unmanageable ends such as internal security vacuums (which is define as “in the absence of security, people feel no alternative but to organize and arm themselves and to turn to kinship networks, tribes, and sects for safety, exacerbating sectarianism and internal rivalries and sometimes leading to demands for secession”). 

Having said this, I also give a little credit to Washington only because you can never please people entirely. Yes, we know the U.S. many times goes to “help” when its help is not requested, however: how many times we have also heard “the international community is not acting upon the circumstances and action is needed instead of words and dialogues”? And in all honesty, the international community is the U.S and to some extent Europe. So, sometimes the U.S. is an interventionist, and other times the U.S. does not react fast enough. In this sense, if we want the U.S. to stop minding other people’s businesses, then we also need to stop requesting their actions and help whenever we find it convenient (I know I am being naive but I do feel this way!). 

I sincerely recommend this article for someone like me who never fully understands the region and also for the more avid connoisseurs of the region. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria Rodriguez Ferreno. 

Link to the article: https://fam.ag/2HfPELJ 

While reading about if the UN needs mending nowadays, I came across an opinion/article at thehill.com that speaks about how the UN and some alliances will matter for the upcoming elections in the U.S. To my surprise and understanding, what I took away the most from this article is how broken the U.S. is and how the present administration is backfiring at different efforts and achievements made by the U.S in the last several decades. I even think the article became “too political” at one point for my taste when I wanted to read more about the UN and alliances affecting the country instead. Nevertheless, I decided to use this article because it did mention (and explained) how throughout history the U.S. planted the seeds for what we know today as pacific alliances worldwide, and by doing so the achievement of diplomatic relationships that would have been impossible otherwise. 

The title of this post refers to a couple of quite accurate sentences describing the current state of the U.S. where a lot is happening (social injustice, social movements, uncontrollable fires, an unstoppable virus killing people left to right, unemployment figures not seen in decades, an economy collapsing, and more). And the observation that stroke me the most was: “Decades after its founding, the United Nations is in need of serious reform. The Security Council is broken, and the General Assembly irrelevant”. Therefore, are both (the U.S. and the UN) broken and in need of mending? 

To answer this question simply, I think they are. The U.S. is longing for the golden years of hegemonic power and the UN is working based on an outdated system, and hence both need to fix, rearranged, and updated to the current circumstances of the world. Societies have changed and thus countries, but organizations and institutions do not always reflect these changes, but unless they readjust to new situations, their work is not only useless but their existence is pointless. 

The other strong argument made in this article speaks about the Trump administration breaking or pulling over from different alliances worldwide, which historically placed the U.S. in a privileged position. This isolationist behavior is not only making the U.S. losing diplomatic and leadership ground in the political arena, but it is enabling other powerful countries like China to call this empty spot their own and in doing so winning the favor of the world. My intention is not for the U.S. to go back and impose its presence and authority once again, but to create and use new strategies to gain back the lost ground with a more diplomatic approach (including with regions or countries where it saw no benefit before). This would be part of an updated and mended U.S. with a fresh globalist approach. The author of the article thinks that hope is not lost in regards to repositioning the U.S. in key global alliances due to the historical delivery of the U.S. of values such as democracy, freedom, open markets among many others. Many other countries share these same values and hence would be willing to unite forces with the U.S. In his opinion, the only threat to this global “repositioning” of the U.S. is Trump being re-elected for a second term. In contrast, he thinks that the biggest U.S. competition (China and Russia) has no genuine alliances, but rather short term and valueless relationships. In the end, the U.S. still has the hope to gain the global leadership ground back, but many things must be fixed, changed, or stopped. 

As for the UN, many people have lost hope and even interest in the work they do. Their resolutions are seen as piles of papers and words that don’t take anywhere, and the future of the organization and overall purpose are questioned. Even during our class, we have briefly touched upon the UN and its usefulness. Given that this week we will discuss with more depth about the UN, with this post of mine and the article I found to share, I hope to bring more light to this topic and understand some instances still not clear to me. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria Rodriguez-Ferreno. 

Link to article: https://bit.ly/3jScojd 

When thinking about international security threats and risks to institutions, most likely one of the top institutions that come to mind is the White House. Regardless of who is the temporary tenant in this house, it is an institution filled with symbolism and patriotism for Americans as well as for the rest of the world, and hence it must be protected at all times. 

An attempt to the White House feels like an attempt against stability and security to the entire nation. Therefore, my concern -not my surprise- to the latest report on Saturday that an envelope addressed to President Trump made its way into the White House with ricin in it. 

Ricin is a poisonous substance that with as little as a pea size has an almost immediate killing effect and, worst of all, there is no antidote to it. Hence, the death of the individual in contact with it is guaranteed. 

The FBI agents said that tracking investigations resulted that the envelope came from a woman in Canada and this is still under investigation.

Fortunately, the altered envelope did not get in contact with any human being, thus no one is at risk. However, is it that simple for an envelope to enter the White House? When coming from abroad, does not a piece of mail have to go through different filters when leaving the country of origin and entering the country of destination? Before reaching the White House, does not a piece of mail have to go through different scans and/or filters as well? To me, a regular person, sending a package via post office certainly feels an ordeal since I have to sign paperwork swearing I am not sending chemicals/weapons/guns/gels and even perfumes. Then, how a poisoned envelope can almost reach the President of the United States so easily? 

Many may feel happy about this envelope succeeding in its mission, but my concern goes beyond that. Putting a President under such risk is one of the ultimate international or national security threats of all time! It is certainly not an attack on one but to all! Either those in charge of the White House security do not take this situation seriously or I am giving this situation the superlative weight and importance it truly holds. 

This is exactly why I said before: “my concern, not my surprise” when reading this news yesterday. I am not surprised because in the last years we have heard of similar things and situations (either mail or people breaking into the House) happening quite frequently! Even unheard and silly cases of someone simply breaking into the House gardens by running alone. And then we think if one of the top institutions of the world can be broken in so easily or a poisoned envelope can make its way so close to the President of the Nation, what is left for us? 

In fewer words, if the White House -and the people in it- are so vulnerable to attacks (even silly and simple ones), what can we expect in terms of security? How safe are we in our communities and houses? This concerns me and makes me wonder about the security of normal people. 

Link to the article: https://bit.ly/2RLVpCZ 

Depending on how you see it, having oil crude in a territory may be a blessing or a curse for a country. Needless to say why it is a blessing, but it may also be a curse because of the foreign interest in having something to do with its production, distribution, management, and even the profits this crude produces. This may certainly pose an international security threat for the country, its neighbors, and allies as well. Having oil crude for Venezuela has meant a long period of prosperity, “petrodollars” and power in the region. But like the song says: those days are long gone!  This is despite Maduro’s wishes, as he thinks he still is what he once was and that the country is at the peak of its glory, and therefore that the world -particularly “el imperialista Estados Unidos”- are after the already exhausted Venezuelan oil. Just like a scared kid at night sees the bogeyman everywhere, Maduro thinks that the U.S. and Trump are trying to get him and his oil at any cost.

According to the article from aljazeera.com – Venezuela’s Maduro says U.S. spy captured near oil refineries – a former American marine was caught in the area with specialized weapons, tons of cash, and other items. Maduro’s affirms that this man was on a mission to detonate the refinery or attempt to it somehow. He said in public TV that thanks to this spy’s detention, a brutal attack on the Venezuelan production of oil was dismantled last Wednesday. 

So a single armed, with tons of cash, former marine posed a threat to the Venezuelan oil production and the country as a whole. Right! Then, how about the Russian ships and troops of soldiers that were seen on the Venezuelan coasts? Are they bringing cultural exchange to the country? I don’t think so. The one posing a threat to Venezuela, to the people, the region, and beyond is Maduro himself and his plans to perpetuate his endless power. He is the major international security threat and now he is getting “a little help from his friends” to continue with his macabre plans. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria. 

Link to article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/200912062436674.html