Month: November 2020

Mails in ballots that are received late are still counted in many states. In Washington state mail in ballot can be received as late of November 23, the day before the state certifies its election results. In Minnesota and Nevada ballots will be received until November 10, and In Ohio till November 13. And in North Carolina and Pennsylvania till November 6.

By December 6, is the last day to recount votes and settle any disputes it is known as the “safe harbor” date.

On December 14, which in law is the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December 14 Electoral cast their votes in states and by December 23 the certified electoral votes have nine days to get from their states to Capitol Hill.

By January 3, new members are sworn in 117^thcongress and take the oath at noon.

On January 6^thElectoral votes are counted in the house chamber by members of House and the Senate by January 20^thby noon. Inauguration day on January 20^thfor the president elect and vice-president taking the oath of office.

The European Union and many allies have announced that they are ready to intensify and cooperate relations with the next administration of the United States. President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said on Sunday. Whether the next administration will bring hope or will be a disappointment in other ways in too early to decide now.

This seems an apt moment to consider biological weapons as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to ravage the globe and the United States faces a record number of infections. The virus is known to have originated in Wuhan, China and some have advanced the – unsubstantiated and unproven – conspiracy theory that it was actually released as a deliberate act of bioterrorism by the Chinese government.

This Forbes piece examines whether the Covid-19 virus makes a “good” bioweapon from the perspective of medical and biodefense experts. It explains that an effective bioweapon is easy to access and manufacture; it is stable in the atmosphere; it is highly contagious; it makes a high number of infected people ill, and it causes mass panic. Also, users of the bioweapon have protections against it.

While Covid-19 spreads very quickly and widely – and it has certainly generated panic – it does not hold up as a bioweapon by other key measures. For one thing, it is not very stable in the atmosphere and does not survive very well outdoors or in sunlight, allowing for activities like distanced gatherings and outdoor dining. Covid-19 also fails the test for a “good” bioweapon given that there were no known protections for users of Covid-19 as a bioweapon at the time it emerged. Though several countries say they are on the brink of approving and disseminating a vaccine – and Russia claimed to have one as of late summer – there was no known vaccine or antidote back in late 2019/early 2020, making it fairly implausible that the virus was deliberately released as a bioweapon.

The article concludes that, while Covid-19 “has some desirable properties of a bioweapon, it would probably not be good choice for military purposes.” Nonetheless, the pandemic has reminded us of our extreme vulnerability and how unpredictable the results of a public health crisis can be. The ease with which such crises can spin out of control is part of the reason the U.S. stopped its biological warfare program in 1969 and focused its efforts on prevention.  The disaster that has been the United States’ Covid-19 response is an obvious argument for greater investment in defensive capabilities against killer pathogens, no matter their origin.

As North Korea increases its nuclear weapons supply, Northeast Asia becomes more unstable due to the fact that it changes nuclear balance, meanwhile the US and its allies have struggled to set arms control and encourage disarmament regions for decades, North Korea strives to get total control over nuclear weapons in the region.

Unfortunately, during Trump’s administration, the indifference to keep military pacts such as Japan and South Korea, diminished non-proliferation measures to contain nuclear weapons. Moreover, Trump has suggested that the US should remove the nuclear umbrella from these countries allowing Japan and South Korea develop their own nuclear programs. Although Trump and Kim Jong-un leader of North Korea met several times nothing new came up from these meetings, the US has not changed the status quo in the region and the nuclear umbrella remains in place, and North Korea is still focused on working harder on its own nuclear deterrent.

On the other hand, Japan and South Korea have bristled at Trump’s extreme burden-sharing demands and relations between the United States and China have significantly worsened. Currently the US needs to move forward on a number of stalled arms control and disarmament initiatives, and maybe now under Biden’s government is a new opportunity to advance and take urgent measures to halt proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There is definitely a high risk of nuclear proliferation in the middle East. Most of the time, countries driven by security fears, regional ambitions or sometimes nationalism are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. So, the FP is suggesting that the US must reiterate its position on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. To achieve that goal, it must apply a firm rule, “no spent reactor fuel reprocessing or uranium enrichment—by anyone in the region.”

There are concerns that Saudi Arabia is consulting with China to help the kingdom mine and process uranium. Given the monarchy of Mohammed Bin Salman is capable of atrocities, then there is going to be a security problem here with the Saudi’s interest in nuclear power. Even though they intend to create a domestic nuclear industry in anticipation of high growth in domestic energy consumption, the US must act decisively and never supply Riyadh with nuclear technology.

We are told that U.S. agreements for civilian nuclear cooperation are coming up for renewal with Egypt and Morocco in 2021, and with Turkey in 2023. Sp, the nuclear industry will try to keep Congress from imposing strict rules,  given both Democratic and Republican administrations traditionally support U.S. nuclear exports. But FP is suggesting that it is vital to maintain the rule of the gold standard for all three. Therefore, I must say that nuclear nonproliferation must be one of Joe Biden’s top priorities.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/15/to-prevent-proliferation-stop-enrichment-and-reprocessing-in-the-middle-east/

North Korea has highlighted many questions in regard to the efficiency of a lot of multilateral organization bodies along with legally binding treaties. A lot of concern has aroused around the fact that North Korea has been:1) able to acquire a nuclear weapon program under strong reluctant from all great power U.S, China and Russia. 2) the acquisition of the know-how from visits to more than 6 states and initial help from Russia and China that didn’t last for long leaving Pyongyang self-reliant and insisting on creating the bomb.3) the idea of how North Korea was able to cheat under being a member of the NPT and the limitations of the IAEA to effectively do its job. 4) the limitations of the security council and its inability to stop North Korea.

Walter Clemens has laid down in his book “North Korea and the world”, several strategies that have been already pursed such as sanctions, and have made negotiations more tensions and intransigent with North Korea. Also, some of the strategies that were proposed were new such as the “Hack and Frack”. North Korea’s geopolitics is crucial in Asia and also strategical to security of United States.

Diplomacy and negotiations are the only key in my point of view with North Korea. They already have the know-how and any forceful attempt would not be of benefit.

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.

I read an article today in the New York Times “As the U.S. votes, a frazzled world holds its breath.” While U.S. Presidential elections are always a matter of global interest, this particular one seems not only far more stressful at home, but also abroad. There were many in the U.S. and likely many among our friends and allies that did not expect the dramatic departure from standard U.S. foreign policy that the Trump administration has pursued. Republican leaders at the time told worried Americans and allies that they should relax, there would be “adults in the room” to curb his worst tendencies. This, of course, hasn’t played out the way they imagined.

Our allies in NATO now rightly worry a second term for Trump means the end of the alliance, and possibly of U.S. participation in multilateral organizations in general. Trump’s enamorment with dictators and rapport with authoritarians would likely lead to greater instability as the U.S. no longer serves as a check on dictators and would-be dictators and imperialists.

A few weeks ago, I read that Russia and China were waiting to engage with Iran to see what the outcome of the election might be. Since then, Putin made a statement saying he saw no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, which many saw as undermining President Trump’s new favorite conspiracy. When invited to explicitly support Trump after he suggested on a public conference call that Biden could not have “made this deal” with Sudan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demurred, saying “Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you is we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America. And we appreciate what you’ve done enormously.” The president appeared visibly deflated by Netanyahu’s statement.

One line in today’s New York Times article that I found interesting suggested that at least some in the Israeli government fear a second term for Trump could lead to a deal with Iran they would not like as Trump would no longer need the electoral support of evangelicals. I can see how this might be a consideration, but I wouldn’t anticipate Trump’s stance to change too greatly. And to be fair, he has (not really jokingly) suggested he should be eligible for a third term because Democrats were “so unfair” to him in his first. He’d want to keep evangelicals in his corner for that fight.

With the election happening in only 2 days, votes streaming in across the U.S., and unrest rising, I decided to write about it. Of course, Americans are preparing for the inevitable anger and the aftermath of the results – once again stores are rapidly being emptied, people are filling their gas tanks, and businesses are preparing to completely shut down as many board up windows and doors across the nation. In D.C., George Washington students are being warned and told to “be prepared” for the disruptions that will erupt post-election. The university emailed students with a list of supplies to stock up on for at least a week. It appears that no matter who wins, a surge of violence will inevitably come. According to NPR: “Several human rights and conflict resolution groups that typically monitor elections abroad, mostly in fledgling democracies or places where sectarian violence could erupt, are now turning their attention to the United States for the first time.” But while anxiety and tension increases and is almost palpable in the air across the country, other nations appear ready to distance themselves from the U.S.

Over the past four years, Europe’s opinion and trust in the U.S. has drastically changed. So low is their trust in the free word that in a survey conducted by Pew Research, many survey respondents place less hope in Trump doing the “right thing regarding global affairs” than Chinese President Xi Jinping. Though support for Biden to win seems to be the popular opinion across Europe, it does not appear as if his winning will undo the damage done to the U.S.’s reputation. WaPo reports “Europeans do not believe they can depend on the United States as they did before. They want to be ready to act, with or without Washington.” The article cites this administration’s disregard for the many eruptions of unrest across EU borders and how that forced them to deal with the issues on their own. This reality has shown these nations that perhaps they do not need the U.S. as urgently as they had once thought. As our allies gradually distance themselves, what will it mean for the U.S?

President Donald Trump has taken a “personalized” approach to North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-un. His emphasis on establishing a personal, businessman-esque relationship with the North Korean leadership parallels his policy towards a number of other strongmen around the world such as MBS, Vladimir Putin, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Presidential administrations of yore have distanced themselves from such behavior as so to avoid legitimizing one of the most brutally repressive regimes on the planet.

A critical pitfall of this approach is the appearance that the United States is treating North Korea as an equal negotiating partner. All the administration has received in return for its efforts are empty promises that North Korea will put the breaks on its nuclear program. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has labeled these moving-framworks-to-a-potential-deal-in-concept as major foreign policy achievements. In exchange, the United States has alienated key regional ally South Korea by canceling joint military exercises and insisting that South Korea “pay up” for the presence of the 30,000 U.S. servicemen on the Korean Peninsula. Trump has even floated the idea of reducing U.S. troop numbers entirely. The move mirrors the diminishing U.S. commitment to its regional allies across the globe that has been observed under the current administration.

In his article “China’s clear and present conundrum on the Korean Peninsula: stuck between the past and the future”, Xiangfeng Yang discusses China’s complicated relationship with its ally North Korea. The author states that although countries share deep historical ties, the erratic actions of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has eroded the relationship between the two countries. In my opinion, this development is something that could be used by the United States to further its interests in the region and perhaps improve its relationship with China. However, with his inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump threatens to push North Korea and China closer together.

In their article, the author discusses a debate occurring in China regarding its relationship with North Korea. The author describes there being two sides, one which consists of what they consider to be “conservative hard-liners” and the other side which consists of moderate intellectuals. The hardliners want China to continue to support North Korea against what they view as an increasingly aggressive and belligerent United States while the moderates want to work with the United States to deal with North Korea and other security issues in East Asia. By using inflammatory rhetoric, President Trump weakens the position of the moderates and strengthens the hardliners who would see American influence completely removed from East Asia. In order to foster cooperation on this issue, the President should use less harsh rhetoric when discussing China.