Month: September 2020

9/11 attacks tear apart the national security of the United States and indubitably split its  national security’s history in two eras; in post 9/11 homeland moved forward swiftly in order to restructure security affairs, law enforcement and intelligent services, during this period the U.S. has been shifting their fear for strength. Nowadays the U.S. has demonstrated capability to curb terrorist attacks as a result of enormous investments and improvements in intelligence, spent billions of dollars in security measures and offensive actions, military financial, cyber and other against terrorist attacks, those actions are really necessary from the government to offer safe and peace in some way for people, who remained 9/11 attacks with sorrow and outrage.

Despite of terrorist groups such as Isis and Al-Qaeda have lost their territory and have struggled during these years to bring back their warfare, new ways of terrorist attacks have been developing thus new concerns came up for homeland, and once again the U.S. must reinvent itself in how to fight against cyber-attacks, nuclear and biological weapons also devastating technologies that anyone can access so easy, unfortunately greatest advance in technology have seen how insane minds are using this valuable tool hurting international security around the world, maybe is a good moment to analyze which is the best way to take away this unfair warfare.

Currently the world has advance technological weapons, air drones, even there are already artificial intelligence, always creating new ways of destroy and keeping in wars that just bring poverty, deaths, starving and broken economies for major countries, what is coming up after that?  why mankind since its creation only matter how to destroy others? when this preposterous warfare is going to go to the end?

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 

Brose hand waved away ethical concerns in his article, devoting one sentence to addressing it and seemed to suggest that technological advances won’t fail to be adopted because of ethics but a “failure of imagination.” Failure of imagination is not often the problem when it comes to technological advances; failure to predict implications or harms caused occurs far more frequently. What his article did illuminate, however, are some of the types of morally questionable technology that may come out of the fourth industrial revolution.

Miller, in contrast, offered a thorough analysis of autonomy and morality in his discussion of new technologies. In the United States and Europe, these concerns are being taken at least somewhat seriously. Miller mentioned how US companies have refused to provide technology to the Department of Defense. More recently, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and IBM have paused or eliminated contracts with law enforcement agencies following the massive protests of racial injustice and police brutality. In February, the District Court of The Hague ruled an algorithm-based program designed to identify and monitor people likely to commit benefits fraud was a violation of European treaty on human rights and privacy legislation. The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office in Florida is under scrutiny after the Tampa Bay Times published an investigative report on their “Intelligence Led Policing” initiative described by criminologists as “morally repugnant.”

The shift towards greater responsibility and the ethical use of technology is important, but as Scharre points out, treating AI as a new arms race increases incentives to launch untested technologies without thorough understanding of their risks and limits the opportunity for oversight. While there are some safeguards in liberal democracies such as civilian oversight of the military and freedom of speech and press that allows dissent and scrutiny of new programs, adversaries such as China are not similarly restrained. As liberal democracies adopt stronger privacy laws and protection for citizens, authoritarian regimes are free to test AI and other technology on their own citizens that can be deployed into the international arena. Scharre’s suggestion that the US try to work with Russia and China to develop safety protocols is a good one, but the lack of trust between these nations makes an arms race still likely. The US and its allies, assuming it still has any, should come together to hold each other accountable to shared principles of privacy and human rights and pool resources to help detect and counter adversaries’ attacks in this new frontier.

Two days ago, America commemorated the 9/11 attack, the worst incident on the U.S. soil and its people since the Pearl Harbor disaster. The 9/11 marked the beginning of a new era, a new era whereby entire nations, whether weak or strong are no more safe, that is to say terrorism has become more and more frequent and has gained international momentum.

ISIS, Al-Qaida are spread throughout Africa, the Middle East and South Asia; and in recent years, they have claimed more lives because their increasing scope of operation, and also because of the proliferation of weapons after NATO destabilized Libya. In this article, the author is trying to draw the attention of the U.S. to the current successor of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri who took over in 2011.

He’s saying that America has been relatively indifferent to Zawahiri succession in power and that “al Qaida’s current leader is just as dangerous to the United States as its old one.”He pointed out the fact that ISIS surged out with more notoriety and violence because Zawahiri was criticized for his failure to consolidate the global jihad. But while people see an apparent weakness or failure of Zawahiri, this has actually advanced the cause of al-Qaida. Why? because “the Islamic State became a more immediate target of U.S counterterrorism efforts. As U.S. strikes against the Islamic State intensified, the cohesion of al Qaida’s affiliates and its allies improved.”

So, we can clearly note that what people could see a failure and weakening of al-Qaida, it is actually a blessing in disguise, and we must all watch out for it because the organization is still a major threat to U.S. national security and  international security. That’s the bottom line!

I have provided the link for whoever will like to read the full article.

Thank you!

https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/09/is-ayman-al-zawahiri-really-the-future-of-al-qaida.html

The readings for this week describe the development of artificially intelligent systems by the CCP. James Johnson’s article, in particular, stands out as the author highlights how the CCP is connecting AI technology with autonomous weapon systems, such as UAVs. This strategy is not unique. The military powers in many developed nations are pursuing these capabilities in some form.

What is unique, in the case of the CCP, is the fusion of military and civil sectors to support geopolitical ambitions. For example, the digital arm of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which extends far outside of China’s borders—across Africa, South America, and Europe—benefits the CCP  militarily and economically.

Written in July of this year, a Democratic staff report for the Committee on Foreign Relations illustrates CCP military-civil-fusion and the scope of their AI surveillance systems internationally. What is concerning here is the authoritarian nature of the CCP regime. Can we rationally deduce the AI system capabilities that China employs domestically will have different outcomes when similar AI systems are sold internationally?
This question extends far beyond telecommunication technologies, such as 5G.

As the line separating China’s military and economic ambition becomes increasingly blurred, How should U.S. executive leadership respond?  It appears that contentious rhetoric is a favored answer. Whatever opinions you have about Donald Trump, it pays to listen to the official statements from the President of the United States.

During two recent White House press conferences, the first on Labor Day  (listen from 10:40 to 11:13) and the other on September 10th,  (listen from  18:23 to 18:44), the President mentioned  U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. Additionally, during a series of interviews with Bob Woodward, between December and July 2020, Trump spoke of  U.S. secretive nuclear weapon systems. This is unusual for Trump’s rhetoric.

Why is President Trump mentioning U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities in recent White House Press press conferences and elsewhere?

Is Trump’s touting of U.S. nuclear weapons a response to the PLA’s increasing naval power, which now outpaces U.S. naval fleets in absolute numbers; or is he simply attempting to rally support from his base as we approach November 3rd?

In this week’s class session discussion of the concept of sovereignty and the United States allegedly trying to regain its sovereignty during the Trump administration,  I could not stop thinking about another discussion of sovereignty that was the running rampant in a certain recent current international event that shook the realm of international affairs: Brexit, the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union.

In an article from the Atlantic entitled The Problem of Britain Taking Back Control, by Tom McTague, McTague outlines that while Britain may be looking at regaining the said sovereignty that it once had before their membership in the EU, the pursuit of reasserting such could mean that Britain may have to be on the losing end in terms of a strong economy.

As discussed in class, we went over how the concept of sovereignty is hijacked by the concepts of nationalism and populism, the prime reasons fueling the country to vote Leave four years ago was fueled by these concepts hijacking sovereignty. The specific arguments that fueled the decision to leave the EU consisted of arguments of Brussels’ overreaching power and expanding bureaucracy with in the EU, the free flow immigration from Europe that of course was unwanted, as well as the idea of being in the EU undermining the national identity and culture of the UK. The article speaks about Boris Johnson and how he sought to stick to the script of preaching about how it is vital that Britain takes back control and by delivering a Brexit based upon the idea of Leave Means Leave by advocating a “Brexit model that prioritized sovereignty and maximum freedom from the EU”, different from his predecessor Theresa May who attempted to deliver it and Johnson quit the government based on her Brexit plan bowing to the EU even after officially leaving.

While Boris Johnson is committed to deliver this script of sovereignty and freedom in all spectrum’s of the relationship between the UK and the EU, McTague argues that there could be a challenge in delivering that what Boris has sought out to do. The argument that McTague reveals is can Britain, who is definitely not a superpower or even remotely close to its past days, currently a midsize power, be able to execute this doctrine of taking back control without suffering an economic loss or loss of prosperity to the point that the whole campaign was utterly in vain. While Britain may be bent on achieving this, there are questions on whether Britain’s economy can endure this or face calamity as the EU still wants to have an economic free trade relationship with Britain still that benefits both however that sees the EU wanting the UK to a binding level playing field which sees Britain main certain standards such as the environment or state aid or social conditions.

If one were the UK, they would see this as a stumbling block to its sovereignty as the EU wants to bind them legally with the help of the EU legislation on their side, which clearly indicates that Brussels also wants to have control which sees this as a potential deadlock between two entities and their interests. To the Brexiteer like Johnson, this seems like playing by the rules of the EU still despite breaking from the EU, which is not what the intent was. Johnson wants the EU to accept the UK rules or instead go to the WTO to to its free trade. This is a test to see whether the Brexiteer rhetoric of Johnson and a Brexit government will be able to break through the EU red tape or as McTague concludes with “desire for national sovereignty bumps with raw economic power.” This certainly will be an interesting contest to see whether a independent UK looking for its sovereignty will be able to play by its own rules or be subject to EU regulations where its efforts will prove to be a failure. If this effort fails by Boris and the UK government, then people will look back on this and back to the historic decision back in 2016 and ask “was it worth it”? I for one am interested to see whether this is true superficial yearning of the said concept or will it just be in vain at at the same time losing economically that could hurt the country for years to come.

 

Several of the readings for this week discussed how developments in artificial intelligence (AI) technology is a double-edged sword, promising to make so many aspects of human life more efficient, convenient, and secure while creating new forms of threats – and raising uncharted legal questions. Many of these readings noted China’s ambitious AI strategy.

When we talk about China and AI, it’s usually in the context of protestors in Hong Kong or the Uighur minority population. We think immediately of the PRC’s odious use of facial recognition technology to track and suppress activists and political dissidents, or to assign social scores to reinforce “good behavior” among its population. China and AI, in the same breath, usually bring to mind the violation of civil liberties.

But this recent WaPo article describes another use of Chinese AI technology that will have decidedly positive consequences for international security: AI technology in agriculture and facial recognition for livestock.

Orwell’s nightmare? Facial recognition for animals promises a farmyard revolution.

The practice of tracking individual farm animals has several purposes, most of which are about optimizing agricultural production. But facial recognition to track individual cows, pigs, or other livestock can also help to identify signs of infection and illness in their earliest stages. With advanced AI technology, we could detect swine flu, bubonic plague, and even coronavirus in animals and stem diseases before they destroy food supply chains or spread to human populations.  This technology could be tremendously consequential for global food security given that China feeds over 20% of the world’s population and, of course, would have positive consequences for global health. Imagine if signs of the novel coronavirus could have been identified by AI technology last year in the markets of Wuhan? It would have been a different 2020 indeed.

No one denies that AI technology has lots of positive uses, but China rarely gets good press in this area so I thought I’d highlight it.

According to multiple sources, scholars have noted the Trump Administration’s consistent attacks imposed onto Nicolas Maduro, his repressive regime, as well as his constituents following the debt default crisis in 2017 . Largely due to the death of former President Hugo Chavez and Maduro’s desire to extend his predecessor’s socialist agenda, much of Venezuela’s economy has spiraled into disarray. As a result of the issuance of financial and individual sanctions on most of Maduro’s closest allies, much of these restrictive mandates have included the revocation of travel visas into the US, the sanctioning of two Russian-related oil subsidiaries that transported Venezuelan oil, the blockade of funding sources towards US-deemed terrorist organizations in the Middle East (i.e. Hezbollah), and much more.

Ultimately, all of these US sponsored sanctions have been proven to be effective within the grounds of US Diplomacy; However, much of these sanctions have crippled the Venezuelan economy and has caused for much political upheaval and uncertainty for the next potentially democratic government to take its place. Although much of these sanctions aforementioned have not caused much of a dent in the overall economic output of the nation, a particular sanction, authorized under Trump, caused for the embargo of Venezuela’s state oil company to effectively collapse, not allowing gas to be transported into the US to be converted into gasoline.  It has been proven that Venezuela may have more reserves than Saudi Arabia. But in terms of output, Venezuela’s oil industry has collapsed. The country’s production of oil is at its lowest point in 77 years. With a crippled economy and an exacerbated migration crisis comparable to the likes of the Syrian War migration event, The US has not made matters easy for the potential regeneration of Venezuela’s economy.

A remedy to allow for the survivability and sustenance of the Venezuelan economy may involve detaching the state-sponsored aspect and privatizing production output under effective oversight by a delegation from The United Nations Economic and Social Council.

 

 

Sources:

Sullivan, Mark P. “Venezuela: overview of US Sanctions.” Congressional Research Service, May 8 (2019).

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-venezuela-key-events/

 

The world has recently seen the peace agreement and normalization in diplomacy between UAE and Israel. Many scholars and officials argue that the reason why this agreement came into place is that it was simultaneously agreed with the U.S. selling advanced weapons to the UAE which consists of F-35 fighter jets and EA-18G electronic warfare planes.

 

The Arms sale raises many questions concerning national security in the Middle East region. Will this deal shift the military balance in the Middle East given that Israel has been supported heavily by the U.S. in the region? The United States has reaffirmed that it is fully committed to supporting Israel and maintaining its military advantage in the region. The U.S. has always been known to have a special relationship with Israel being its main seller of weaponry despite the many inhumane usages. Similarly, the UAE also has a special relationship with the U.S.

 

The reality behind the U.S. selling advanced weaponry to the UAE and supporting a peace agreement between Israel and UAE is to counter Iran. The Emiratis, like Israel’s, consider Iran an avowed enemy[1]. Further diplomatic relations between all three countries are considered from my point of view a win-win situation. Regardless, Trump’s administration is pushing to sell advanced weaponry to the Emirates, the deal might be difficult to pass by congress, but these steps are considered urgent in Washington because the white house strategist perceives that strengthening Israel will benefit him in the re-election process from evangelical Christian voters. Finally, next month, in October the United Nations embargo on arms sale to Iran is scheduled to expire, this deadline has been specified by the previous Obama administration[2]. However, the Trump administration is taking the hard line to remain in place. The arms deal is crucial to the Trump administration because most probably the Biden’s administration will halt the deal.

 

[1]Mark Mazzetti, “Netanyahu privately condoned U.S. plan to sell arms to U.A.E” Sept 3, 2020.

 

[2]Reuben F. Johnson “ The dangers presented by Russian and PRC weapons sales to Iran” Aug 4, 2020.

Why do we meddle in places that don’t want to be meddled with? It seems much of the United States foreign policy is based on demanding other nations to act multilaterally while the US acts unilaterally. An article published today in the New York Times, “Joe Biden’s China Journey”, recalls a graduation speech Joe Biden made at Fudan University in Shanghai in 2001. Biden asks, “The students of Tiananmen Square, were they patriots or traitors to the People’s Republic of China?” The response he received from one of the students was simple, yet remarkably profound. The student answered, “The students of Tiananmen were heroes of the People’s Republic of China. Senator, change will come to China. But it will be we, the students of Newton, who determine the pace and the direction of that change, and not you or anyone else working on the banks of the Potomac.” 1

In that same trip in 2001, Senator Joe Biden, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, welcomed China’s entry to the World Trade Organization. While on his trip to China, Biden states, “The United States welcomes the emergence of a prosperous, integrated China on the global stage, because we expect this is going to be a China that plays by the rules.”1 Biden’s trip at the time was seen as a great success by bringing China into the fold- getting them adopt multilateral policies and to “play by the rules.” As the common saying goes, ‘keep your friends close, and you enemies closer.’ While I would not classify China as a true enemy of the U.S it is evident that Biden knows the potential of that is on the rise. As Vice President, Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping repeatedly to establish “a competitive relationship with China without it being a bellicose relationship, without it being a relationship based on force.”1 While I personally may be a bit of a pacifist, it seems like having a trade war evolve into a nuclear war is a futile path. I tend to agree most with one of Biden’s top advisers, Jake Sullivan, who says the United States “should put less focus on trying to slow China down and more emphasis on trying to run faster ourselves.”1

 The idea of not being first has become unacceptable to Americans, but I always question, does it really matter? Does a country having higher GDP numbers affect the lives of everyday Americans who simply want to make it to the end of the week and have food on their table? Does spending billions of dollars flying jets over boats in the South China sea put that food on the table? Fareed Zakaria points out in “The Self-Destruction of American Power: Washington Squandered the Unipolar Moment” that the American imperium is dead. It died when we ignored the Powell Doctrine and entered endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were supposed to be swift victories.2 Does anyone truly believe a war with China would be swift, let alone victorious? 

1. Wong, E. (2020, September 6). Joe Biden’s China Journey. Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/#publisher. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/us/politics/biden-china.html

Zakaria, Fareed. “The Self-Destruction of American Power: Washington Squandered the Unipolar Moment.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 4, July-Aug. 2019, p. 10+. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link-gale-com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A588990634/AONE?u=cuny_baruch&sid=AONE&xid=bc365eec. Accessed 6 Sept. 2020.