Author: JORDAN BOLDS-LOCKWOOD

Claimed to be the Architect of Iran’s Nuclear Program, Iranian Nuclear Scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was ambushed and killed in the city of Absard, about 44 miles east of the capital Tehran. The ambush happened with explosives and machine gun fire, where he was rushed to the hospital and died there. While no immediate claim of responsibility, the Iranian Foreign Minister has pointed the finger at Israel as the prime suspect. The killing is seen is just as grave as the assassination of Qassem Soleimani  back in January. Iran has vowed retaliation as they threatened to  “strike as thunder at the killers of this oppressed martyr and will make them regret their action. “It seems that despite the lack of concrete evidence, Israel will be on the list for Iran to blame for this act of terror as they mentioned. This also can lead to further deteriorations in relations between the US and Iran as the final weeks of the Trump presidency are here and would leave a Biden presidency in a deep hole in regards to Iran.

Fakhrizadeh was regarded as the “main keeper of Iranian knowledge of its nuclear programme.” His face was never shown until April 2018 in effort to keep in secret as other Iranian nuclear scientists were killed, with suspicions of them being killed by Israeli assassins. He is hailed as a martyr in Iran, and was also according to Western and Israeli intelligence officials a key figure in an atomic bomb program that was stopped in 2003. In a presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Fakhrizadeh was a central figure in the presentation as he accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons and using its nuclear program for that reason. In his presentation, Netayahu said “Remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.”

This situation of course can possibly lead to a confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and Israel. This also could possibly put the United States in a bad light as Iran has accused the US of provoking Iran as best as they can before the Biden Presidency begins, which is doubtful at this point. This also can be just words alone as Iran vowed the same action when Solemani was killed and nothing happened. Only time will tell what will happen after more is revealed about this event.

Alejandro Mayorkas, President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security, is expected to tackle the issue of cybersecurity as he brings vast experience in that respected area. Mayorkas worked under the Obama administration as deputy DHS Secretary and during his tenure he contributed vastly in a deal with China that briefly reduced Chinese hacking targeting U.S. companies back in 2o15 as well as acting in increasing cybersecurity intelligence that government shared with industries.

With this pick to the DHS, the cybersecurity experts are hoping for Mayorkas to boost cooperation globally in the field of cybersecurity and to restore the good relationship between industry and government on cybersecurity that has been strained by the current administration. The experts also expect a key issue such as cybersecurity to be top of the list and not demoted to secondary like the Trump administration has shown, as it appears to  be clear that this time around cybersecurity will surely be a top priority for Homeland Security.

There will be many issues that Mayorkas and Co will be facing once they are in the DHS Seat such as the 5g infrastructure transition, the cybersecurity of elections, and of course protecting the US against foreign cyberattacks as some of its issues it has to tackle, including the low employee morale around the DHS currently too. However, it still has to be remembered that he has  another huge task in rolling back the immigration polices implemented by the Trump administration, but make no mistake cybersecurity efforts aren’t too far behind

I found this article from the Guardian to be quite interesting given we are discussing nuclear weapon ands related topics in class at the moment. What really drew my attention to this article is the entity which is supporting the UN Anti Nuclear Treaty and its perhaps what who we least expect to get involved in things such as this.

In the United Kingdom, the leadership of the Church of England is calling for the UK to join other 50 nations in the international treaty that seeks to ban nuclear weapons in hopes that it would bring about a peaceful future for all of humankind. The treaty is scheduled to be initiated in January 22 of the new year as 50 nations have approved of it. However the major nuclear powers of the world have gotten on board including the United States as they described this a “strategic error.” Also worth nothing in the article that my current  employer the International Committee of the Red Cross was mentioned in the article as the President of the ICRC, Peter Maurer, praised this moment as “a victory for humanity, and a promise of a safer future.”

The treaty is poised to play a pivotal role deterrent effect on the proliferation of nuclear arms. The bishops of the church of England stated “For so many of the nations of the world to speak clearly of the need to ban these weapons of mass destruction is an encouraging and hopeful sign.” They have called on the UK to join this effort as well as the UK has yet to sign it as a means of “to give hope to all people of goodwill who seek a peaceful future.” While they do that nuclear weapons will not go away overnight, they see this as a step “on the journey towards becoming a nuclear-free world.”

While reading this article, I think back to Isaiah Wall of the United Nations that is right across the street from UNHQ. I pass it all the time going to UNHQ to take care of work tasks and the wall quotes the passage from the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 2, verse 4: “”They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” While the dream of a nuclear weapons free world is still fresh in the minds of nations around the world and the UN, it is still far from reach given that all nations are yet to come on board with this concept. Who knows what significance this anti nuclear treaty will bring to the world, only time will tell. But just because of nuclear weapon free world is far from reach at the moment, does not mean its impossible to achieve and to have hope in it, just ask the clergy of the Church of England.

As the news surfaced around the world on the outcomes of the 2020 Presidential Election, which saw Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump, this outcome sent shockwaves around the world. These shockwaves were embraced with positivity as it appears that the era of Trumpism in America and its effect on the globe. As many world leaders congratulated the victory for Joe Biden, there are some world leaders that have yet congratulate Mr. Biden on the victory.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, North Korea’s Kim Jon Un, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, China’s Xi Jingping, and Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa are among a few names of world leaders that are holding back their recognition as Joe Biden being the President-Elect of the United States. It seems that the primary sentiment among these leaders are the fact that President Trump is going to contest and challenge the results off basis on voter fraud and ballot harvesting in the swing states like Arizona, Pennslyvania, Georgia, Michigan, and other states, despite POTUS having no evidence as of right this moment. There are some like Bolsonaro and Jansa that have associated themselves with Trump, that have seen him as an ally and not an adversary.

This is clearly what I am seeing as a legal challenge to the legitimacy of Biden’s victory as well as a hesitation and a sign of hostility toward working with a Biden Administration. Make no mistake, should Biden clear the legal challenge gauntlet posed by the President, there are three huge issues that he will have to face in terms of the world order: Russia, China, and North Korea. But no mistake, these leaders seem to not look forward to a change of power and seem to like the President, its only a matter of time to see whether its clear and present whether Biden will officially be the new President, and how that will effect the United States and relations with the world and its major global actors.

At this point, we can all see that the World will be watching the results of the 2020 United States Election to see whether President Trump will lead for another 4 years or will Joe Biden usher in a new era for the United States. One nation of course will be watching will be North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-Un. In an article from Nikkei Asia, North Korea and Kim Jong Un will watch and await the results of the election will determine where the relationship between the United States and North Korea, and South Korea included as well.

This time around, North Korea has been quiet with provocations and  military parades as all are aware the result will determine what happens in relations between the two nations.  During the Trump administration, he held the first summits with North Korea and being the first sitting president to set foot on the country, and talked about his great relationship with Kim but since then nothing positive has come into fruition, and its also important to not forget that North Korea still has its nuclear arsenal.

This election of course will see whether relations will be on brinkmanship or whether there will be a new blossom in talks. For Trump, he will be eager to improve relations with North Korea as well as keep an eye and look out for South Korea as South Korea is a prominent ally in diplomacy, security and trade. A Biden victory would see a new approach, but most South Koreans hope Biden would steer away from an Obama approach “strategic patience” which was deemed as ineffective, but regardless whoever is in the White House will have to deal with the the hermit Kingdom of North Korea and a way to deter them from growing into a threat into Asia alongside China.

This story was not of course popular as the historic peace deal between the UAE and Israel, but after this deal, Israel has asked the United States to remove obstacles in order to secure the F.22 Fighter Jets to the Isreali Air Force.  This request is following the agreement between the US and UAE for selling F-35s to UAE, a less advanced fighter jet than the F22 that Israel has been eying for sometime.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the PM  said that this was not apart of the peace deal signed last month in Washington. It is said that the F22 is the most advanced fighter jet in the world with its maneuverability, armament and range. The defense officials say that securing this aircraft would give Israal the advantage in the Middle East as they point out that the the evolution of the Middle East militarily requires them to keep up to date as other nations are ” investing huge sums to build some of the most advanced air forces and air defense systems in the world.”

This indicates clearly that despite the peace agreements we have been seeing regarding Israel and Arab countries, Isreal is not letting down at all in terms of defense and security and its determined to be on top militarily in the Middle East. You really cannot blame them as they are still seen as a illegitimate nation to some Arab nations and some even wishing for their demise, leaving them no choice to preserve their stake in the Middle East as they beef up their influence in the region as well as globally, and with President Trump backing Israel, I can see this move happening, especially if he gets reelected.

As the Syrian Civil War is still ongoing as much as its not in today’s headlines these days as recurring as they were at the beginning and climax of the conflict, it is still definitely worth noting and perhaps never forgetting about the stories of the atrocities and spilled blood on innocents on Syrian soil by the hands of the Assad Regime. It seems now that the horrors of the war crimes of Assad’s Regime are coming to light finally, as we see that a trial in Koblenz, Germany that is on day 3o of the trial, exposes the war crimes and the atrocities against two Assad regime officials, Anwar Raslan and Eyad al-Gharib. As witnesses began telling stories about how these killings have become essentially a day in the life of living in a war torn Syria under a bloodthirsty regime, that accounts get really intriguing and interesting as some unique witnesses testify.

One witness was in fact a Syrian undertaker, who is identified as Witness Z, testifies how corpses were brought from all over the place, including  multiple departments in Syrian intelligence services, military included, between 2011 and 2017 alone. Witness Z recalls how the there was “rivers of blood and maggots” as well as how the corpses have not only were unidentifiable but the stench of the corpses was really disturbing to the point it was in his nose while he took showers. Witness Z also recalled how he would drive these trucks that had refrigerated bodies of about 200 to 700 bodies to the cemeteries, citing how these cemeteries’ looked like military camps, and the bodies were dumped in 6ft deep and 16o to 330 ft long trenches in perhaps the most carless way ever seen. One may as why Witness Z was doing this despite knowing what he was seeing was wrong, simply put, he had no other choice but to do what he has been instructed to do.

The testimony of Witness Z a clear and present indication that there is not evidence of these mass atrocities coming to a halt. In addition, this is in no way any random acts of murder too as we clearly know this time around. For the Syrian refugees in Germany and Europe, this case proves why returning the refugees back to Syria may be a bit premature, despite calls for it. However the main issue and problem I see in this, is it is clearly evident that the Assad Regime has blood all over their hands and he has yet to be brought to justice, given the fact that China and Russia both back the regime, which makes it difficult for Rebel Forces and forces backing the Syrian Rebels to construct a plan to overthrow Assad and bring him to justice. As long as Assad has Russia and China backing him, it may be a while until we see him brought to justice, who knows when that will be. Only time will tell.

The UN General Assembly will hold elections for fifteen seats on the 47-nation Human Rights Council for three-year terms beginning on January 1 on the new year. However there are some questions that are arising about the eligibility of some potential candidates. In an article from the Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Watch has insisted that the likes of China and Saudi Arabia, should be voted on to the council by UN member nations due to the fact that they are two of the worlds most abusive governments when it comes down human rights as a whole. Russia in its war crimes concerning Syria also makes them an highly controversial candidate as well.

Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch, has stated that  “Serial rights abusers should not be rewarded with seats on the Human Rights Council” and not only has outlined that they are massive violators of human rights in their respected nations, but Charbonneau also goes further by accusing them of trying “to undermine the international human rights system they’re demanding to be a part of.” The Un Resolution 60/251 which formed the UN Rights Council, states that members required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and cooperate at all times with the Council. However the issue is recently the UN votes have been uncompetitive among the members which makes it easier for unfit candidates to get on the council according to Charbonneau.

It is very clear that China and Saudi Arabia have no business being seated in the council. As China has been called out by many for their actions in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, the suppression of information at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and attacks on journalists, activists, and so on.  Saudi Arabia on the other continues its efforts of suppressing dissent and activists, and has showed little efforts of accountability for the killing  of  journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Both China and Saudi Arabia have also been known for using their seats for “prevent scrutiny of their abuses and those by their allies.” Here I think the UN has to have more consistency in selecting who serves on this Council as allowing nations known for human rights violations to sit on the council would be hypocrisy and ultimate irony as its finest, as currently the likes of Venezuela and Qutar currently currently sit on the Council, and China and Cuba have held seats recently. This was one of the reasons why the United Nations left the Human Rights Council as Nikki Haley explained that the US will not be “part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.” However, if countries that have human rights violations continue to undermine efforts by the council by having seats but failing to reform their human rights efforts at home, then will efforts from the HRC be taken seriously moving forward and will the UN take a look in the mirror to examine themselves regarding this? Its safe to say that this clearly needs to have some reform in picking who serves on this council so their legitimacy can still be preserved before its too late.

Normally around this time of year, New York City is usually in a high state of business due to the United Nations General Assembly in town. Well, due to obvious reasons its quite different in 2020. For the first time in the 75 year history of the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly has been absent of political leaders, as the Covid-19 pandemic has made the UN General Assembly its victim alongside other events and more, as instead of of physical gathering that locks New York City down for weeks, the world leaders sent their speeches via prerecorded videos. One or two people for each of the 193 member states were permitted with mask wearing and socially distanced in the UNHQ, as the normal festivities of the UN General Assembly are placed on hold, for this years session at least.

However despite the new changes happening in this years session, it does not to any degree take away from the intensity that is normally seen when leaders of the world speak and clash with other world leaders. One perfect example of this is this past Tuesday, between the United States and China. In a recent article from the New York Times, a prerecorded speech from President Trump sees the President blowing his own trumpet about his own actions in the Covid Pandemic, and even further calling out China on the global stage by telling the UN to hold accountable as he put it “the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world.” He spoke about other topics such as isolating Iran, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and the peace deal between Israel and the two Gulf Arab, but the dominant aspect of the speech was blaming China for the covid pandemic even mentioning it as the “China virus” and covering up the virus.

President Xi Jinping of China followed with a prerecorded speech of his own, stating that the pandemic crisis is a shared one by everyone and denounces any politicization and stigmatization of this global crisis. In addition, he also took jab at the US according to a BBC News Article, that without naming the US, Xi stated “no country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself”, which coincidently China has been accused of also. Ironically both leaders fail to come into reckon with their fallacies as Trump goes on to state how the US will lead the charge against the pandemic by developing treatment, vaccines, and going further to say “We will end the pandemic, and we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation and peace,” which is ironic is because the US currently has far more confirmed cases than anyone else close to 7 million and over 200,000 deaths. Meanwhile President Xi describes his fellow China as “described China as a benevolent power that does not wish ill on anyone” which is ironic given China’s behavior in the South China sea, the detentions in Xianjiang, the issue with Taiwan and Tibet, and the political repression in the Hong Kong region. He also swiped at Trump at his isolationist approach to diplomacy and trade even describing what Trump is doing as “trying to fight it with Don Quixote’s lance” and failure to go with history.

The US-China faceoff took center stage if the GA session, as there clearly was clearly rifts between the two superpowers which has some concerned that such rhetoric posed by the two leaders will lead to a new cold war on the horizon, with the UN of course looking lost in this situation as two powers standoff to each other in a verbal war. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that this divide is a very dangerous situation that must be avoided at all costs between the two powers as it is evident many global consequences are on the verge of manifesting should things intensify.

My personal thoughts are that fuel is currently being added to the fire from both leaders in this case as both leaders had colorful things to say against each other that made it the center of attention for the assembly. The US is making efforts to stay the leader of the world order, however China is making its claim to be a superpower to rival with the US in every aspect. Trump and Xi’s showdown at the UN definitely will raise eyebrows on what’s to come for both nations, and the world following suit. Is another cold war truly on the horizon? It may be the case as relations between the two are stagnant and looks to be that it may get uglier depending on what goes on in the future. Only time will tell of course.

Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky, both who are with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, collaborated on a piece published in Time called  How to Reset U.S.-Russian Relations Today. In this article, Rumer and Sokolsky both give the evident notion of the continuous souring relationship between the United States and Russia today, that gives insight how the relationship has declined as each US Presidential administration came and went dating back to the days of the Clinton Administration. While the majority of the blame on this vexed relationship falls to Moscow, it does not necessarily mean the US cannot be exempt from criticism on its part as it too has had a role in why the relationship between the two nations are at at the point where it is at currently, and possibly could be a the point of no return if things do not improve.

One pro founding point that Rumer and Sokolsky point out is the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies had the same policies regarding Russia but of course produced different results. The polices that these previous three administrations were revolved on the ideas that “a refusal to accept Russia for what it was and insistence that it reform itself to better fit the image of what U.S. policymakers thought Russia should look like; and the view that NATO was the only legitimate European security organization, while expanding it ever deeper into the former Soviet lands.” Of course Russia would flat out reject this, but regardless of the stiff necked rejection of these polices by Moscow, the US went on with it anyway with it on and bold idea that Russia would sooner or later accept the notion that what the US is doing is good for them and uses an clever phrase known as the “spinach treatment” as Russia in this scenario are the children that “don’t like spinach, but should eat it because it’s good for them.”

Rumer and Sokolsky start off by examining the Clinton administration policies against Russia that stressed the need for democracy, reforms, and a free market system in Russia and a strong bond between Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. However, not seeing eye to eye on Russian reform progress, NATO expansion, and Kosovo deterred this relationship and both sides grew hostile of each other. Then came the Bush administration, with a commitment with Vladimir Putin that emphasized democracy, free markets, and rule of law which too was short lived by agreements over Iraq, NATO expansion and Russian democracy and went further downhill when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and claimed that the former Soviet territories off limits to NATO.

The Obama administration sought out a restart of the Russian- US relationship which focused on Russia liberalizing its politics and modernizing its economy, which proved unrealistic to the extreme and was even worsened with Russia invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea and followed by the interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The Trump administration sought out a restart too, but its efforts were tainted by scandals and investigations related to Russia. Despite the usefulness of sanctions, Rumer and Sokolsky argue that its become not just a policy tool, but a replacement for it which speaks volumes. At this point and time it is clearly evident that the US-Russia relationship is at a standstill and signs of improvement are nowhere to be found.

The overall point that Rumer and Sokolsky make in regards to this topic on US-Russia relations is that the US must accept the reality on who Russia really is and is not going to change who it is or what it does to suit US agenda and to continue such a policy which aims to change Russia to suit the US is dead and gone. The issue that they also point out at the end of the article is the issue that has plagued the US is that they were committed to an approaching that focused on transforming rather than pragmatic objectives which is why the US has failed in its efforts with Russia and the relationship is where its at currently. So with that being said, its time for the US to focus on the issues important and critical to the US, and to simply the US-Russia differences must be managed instead of finding solutions to perhaps problems that tend to be insoluble.

With this article I read, I think back to one particular reading that was assigned to us regarding Russia by Michael McFaul called “Russia As It Is”, which McFaul outlines the the same sentiment that Rumer and Sokolsky outlined in this article,  the only two differences I see are with McFaul is that he goes into details specifically what transpired between the two nations that has led them to the deadlock to this day and also in terms of handling Moscow, while both McFaul and Rumer and Sokolsky agree that we must face the reality that Russia will be Russia and will not change for anyone, McFaul goes even further in explaining ways the US still can confront the threat that  Russia still poses.

In my opinion, while I agree with Rumer and Sokolsky that the US has to manage the differences between the two, it is also vital we as McFaul argues also to monitor Russia and to make sure they are not undermining democracy in other places, especially vulnerable areas such as the former Soviet states. Not only monitor them geopolitically, but also in the cyber world and in areas of basic liberties and so on. Russia has its goals in mind, and it is to become a great superpower it used to be, and it will not stop until it becomes that, no matter the risk from what it looks like. Cooperation isn’t out of the question as it is still feasible,  however, it is pointless at this time to seek a transformation policy since Russia will always be Russia and will never change, that is at least as long as Putin is the Head Man in Charge at the Kremlin. But its clear that the Russia problem cannot be fixed, and whoever is next to lead the two respective nations, must learn from the past and seize the moment if there is an chance of mending a declining relationship.

 

Also if interested, there is addition report that Rumer and Sokolsky that dives further into US/Russia Relations and the whether or not it can be fixed for those interested: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy toward Russia: Can the Vicious Circle Be Broken?”