Kevin Woghiren

Unwavering is the adjective that best describes Iran’s nuclear ambitions; it also describes the United Nation’s attitude towards nuclear non-proliferation; Lastly, it describes China’s indifference to the entire situation.

After reports of Iran seeking to further enrich its uranium stockpile from about 3% to 20%, allegedly for civilian energy benefits, the United States and other Western powers, along with Russia, called for tighter trade sanctions. The US-led sanction against Iran has halted to a standstill with China putting its economic ties with Iran ahead of its political duties to the UN. However, lest we are quick to blame China for Iran’s continued ambitions, context is key to better understand the “nuclear” situation.

• Uranium is widely available on the commodity markets for trading “under UN supervision”
• 90%+ enriched uranium is weapons grade (nuclear bomb)
• Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear arsenal, many of which are poorly secured
• Corporations that trade in uranium contracts hold the physical assets of uranium
• Politically volatile countries such as India, Israel, and Pakistan refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without imposed sanctions by the UN

There is clearly Western paranoia at play here and I must agree with China that the sanctions are ineffective and unfair to a country like Iran who’s true intentions are not fully known. Nuclear Non-Proliferation is unrealistic, especially with the  known energy benefits from nuclear technology and the fact that political power is closely aligned with military power. The United States and the UN must first focus on fully securing Russia’s nuclear stockpiles, which are more of a threat to global security than Iran’s pursuit of advanced nuclear technology; secondly, uranium can not continue to be a profitably-traded commodity, with which investors and traders have physical access to. For example, after Lehman Brothers became insolvent, a majority of their uranium assets remained unsold as prices continued to decline. If Lehman Brothers were to be a smaller and less regulated company located in a different country with such assets, corruption would be inevitable as profits would easily be accessible to via black markets. As long as uranium continues to remain a for-profit commodity, a country, like Iran, will always have access to it.

The hypocrisy and favoritism that exists within the UN and among allied countries in regards to nuclear non-proliferation is perverted. Unless the US and Russia get serious about completely eliminating (not reducing) their nuclear stockpiles (which is highly unlikely), Iran has the right to further pursue its nuclear ambitions.

The past two decades have been marred with political unrest, violence, and scandals, but then again, that has been the story of the human experience. It would be faulty and absurd to think that the upcoming decade will be any different. However,  it would be premature and unfair to negatively categorize the upcoming decade with its past peers, so my positive theme for the upcoming decade: Green!

Despite the collapse of the politically-charged climate change summit in Copenhagen, there is still hope for the future of our environment. The Green Revolution is the new economy and it will be as revolutionary as the Internet was in the 1990s. Although carbon emissions taxes and carbon trading can be influential tools in reducing society’s carbon footprint, they are a barrier to economic growth, especially during an economic recession. There is clearly a market demand for energy efficiency and businesses and individual entrepreneurs are willing to act on this demand as long as the infrastructure and stimuli are provided by the government. If the environmental crisis is treated as a true crisis, then a significant stimulus should be planned, with OECD countries and cash-rich developing countries leading the way.

The other option is to wait for the political process to take its slow course. Specifically in the United States, politics has been a barrier to the alternative energy industry. The US government enacts alternative energy incentives on a temporary basis, which is very unattractive to long term investors and hurts the industry more than it spurs growth. Alternative energy can create jobs to both developed and developing countries and can be key in reducing conflict over other countries’ natural resources such as oil. A Green Revolution supported by stimuli is a feasible public venture and is necessary in order to bring the world out of an economic recession.

All over the world, everyone talks about the behemoth of a country, China, and its irrepressible economic growth. It is projected by the World Bank that China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will surpass that of America’s by the year 2023, and also by independent economists, that it’s annual GDP will sustain an unmatched 8% growth for the next several years. I have heard both sides of the argument for and against the “China” hype and I must say: nobody truly knows. As I was once told, “there is no China expert”.

After living in China for about four weeks now and gaining first hand experience of the culture and the mentality of the people, I do believe China is indeed in a “league of its own” and is a country too unique to be subjected to easy criticism. I have visited well over eight different major Chinese cities and have come in close contact with people of almost every Chinese nationality, especially from the ethnic minority groups, which is why I am writing this piece to display my view on China from a first-hand perspective.

As a westerner, I am usually prone to practicing ethnocentrism and judging other cultures based on Western ideologies and so it was hard to think about China, without a predisposed Western agenda. My approach to China is as such: the chicken or the egg? Which came first? Why not both at the same time? Does it even matter? What are the ramifications for either or both? If “chicken” is replaced with “economic progress” and “egg” is replaced with “social progress”, then my approach begins to get clearer. There is without a doubt in my mind that China is only going to continue to grow economically with its 1.3 billion population, eager workforce, infrastructure expenditures, and foreign investments; but, the socio-political environment is what can make or break the country (e.x. India’s troubled political past until just recently). Due to China’s vast socio-political problems, I will only focus on the social diversity and mentality of China.

Real contact with the world did not happen in China until the late 1970’s and as the world took advantage of globalization and a growing diversity within urban areas up to that point in time, China was already far behind socially (Still today, it is not uncommon for westerners in any Chinese city, no matter how commercially developed, to get stared at by the locals). The Chinese government has taken several steps to increasing diversity in China from its indigenous population to a globally diverse population by setting up cultural contacts with other countries to bolster mutual tourism and educational opportunities, as well as trade initiatives.

Most countries like America function very well due to an “open-minded” attitude towards diversity; the lack of this in China, in some parts more than others, is what will be China’ achilles’ heel if not improved upon exponentially. The “catch” to global diversity is that social progress is a must-have, as well as a supplement to economic progress. As new ideas come from a diverse body of people and economic prosperity achieves greater heights, a new demand for more social freedoms will be awaken in China and this is what the current one-party Chinese government fears the most. China is currently running on a “controlled chaos” model and if the Chinese government continues on its current path, while still wanting to prevent the country from social unrest…they simply can’t. The status change from a “developing country” to a ”developed” one can only occur if social progress achieves up to par with economic progress.

Diplomacy always comes at a cost, which is why I do not think that former President Bill Clinton’s charm and eloquence were the only key to securing the release of the two U.S. journalists from North Korea’s infamous labor camps. The release can be viewed as a success from an American standpoint, but did Clinton bring up an issue with the North Korean government about the other estimated 200,000 slave laborers stuck in their labor camps? 

My other question is: How much money or incentives did Current TV or the U.S. government put up for the negotiation?

Background info:

May 17

Two U.S. Journalists and employees of former VP Al Gore’s California-based Current TV are seized by North Korean border guards for illegal entry and conspiracy charges.

June 8

The two journalists are sentenced to 12 years of slave labor in a North Korea labor camp.

August 4-5

Former President Bill Clinton arrives in North Korea to meet with leader Kim Jong-Il to negotiate the release of the journalists

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il is a tough quid pro quo leader in need of some much needed funds to maintain his struggling communist country. He would not risk his Machiavellian persona for the illusion of a world without tension. There are many reasons why Kim Jong-Il must have gained from this transaction and two easily come to mind:

1) The two journalists have key insight into North Korea’s secretive labor camps in a manner that no outsider had access to previously, which translates into more scrutiny from human rights groups and possible lucrative book deals for the journalists.

2) There was no logic in sentencing the journalists for 12 long years (to send a strong message to the West) if diplomacy was all that was needed to secure their release. Five years would have sufficed if the journalists were not worthy collateral.

On the other hand, if he did release the hostages without any conditions, then that would be a clear sign of a new beginning with the West and Kim Jong Il’s regained sanity; the Obama Administration must seize this small window of opportunity for a change in tone.

The lead up to America’s July 4th celebrations have never been filled with so much global tension in recent history. The question on everyone’s mind: will North Korea provoke an international conflict? With an increased appetite for missile tests and a Japanese intelligence report suggesting an attack on U.S. soil around July 4, the world is certainly monitoring North Korea’s every move. Caution is wise but hysteria is unwarranted and this is why. Despite an alleged underground nuclear test in May and recent missile firings by North Korea, I do not think North Korea is foolish enough to fire a weapon beyond its borders. Chairman Kim Jong-Il is clearly a stubborn dictator vying for attention from the world. He is the leader of a country that can not feed its own citizens and relies on countries like China for sustenance aid, but yet he has the resources for advanced military developments. The only way that North Korea will abandon its belligerent attitude towards the West is through increased pressure from its largest trading partners and neighbors, China and Russia. The U.S. government should engage North Korea via Russia and China and not directly because tensions will only continue to mount. If you thought Iran’s Ahmadinejad really abhors the United States, let’s just say that Kim Jong-il wants for the U.S. what Ahmadinejad wants for Israel. Chairman Kim Jong-Il is leading North Korea into a self-destructive state and this is why he is a leader I love to hate.

In other news, U.S. unemployment numbers for June hit a 26 year high of 9.5% according to the Department of Labor. This is a 0.1% increase from last month’s figures, which indicates a slowdown of unemployment and jobless claims. For many, such as the Obama Administration and myself, this is good news. However, this is news I hate to love because I believe that by the end of the next quarter (September) the percentage rate should substantially increase to around 10% or greater if it doesn’t reach there by August. The reason for the surge in unemployment will come from the public sector as state and local governments battle budget deficits and fail to reach budget deadlines. July 1st signals a new fiscal year for many state and local governments and states such as California and Illinois have failed to reach a budget consensus, which will eventually lead to more layoffs and possibly a lot of bounced checks. One can only imagine where the unemployment rate would be today if Obama’s Administration had not acted quickly with its past stimulus plans.

The abbreviation, USA, may soon have a new disambiguation. Terms such as “United States of Africa” and the “United Strive for Agriculture” come to mind. Okay, maybe the latter term was a stretch but the “United States of Africa” may soon become a reality in the distant future. Tomorrow concludes the 13th annual African Union (AU) Summit in Sirte, Libya. The Summit is similar to the World Economic Forums or the G-20 meetings but it only focuses on Africa’s changing political and economic climate. The goal of the annual Summit is to foster a more united African continent that is self-dependent through a better agricultural infrastructure; Libya’s leader and AU Chairman, Muammar al-Gaddafi (pictured), introduced the idea of a “United States of Africa”, similar to that of the European Union (single currency, etc.), in the past and he is adamant on seeing that this becomes a reality during his lifetime. Not many people know about Gaddafi but his image is one of great transformation. To explain briefly, Gaddafi overthrew Libya’s monarchy in the late 1960’s to obtain power “for the people” but he currently runs the country as a dictatorship with some democratic and socialist aspects. Initially he was very much anti-Western and directly supported terrorism, but after a “change of heart”, international diplomacy and pressure, and some large financial transactions, he later adopted a moderate view of politics and he is one of the few leaders of an Islamic government that champions human rights, specifically women’s rights. He lives in modesty, unlike most dictators, and travels everywhere (and I do mean everywhere) with his all-female bodyguard team and a custom tent for lodging. I liken Gaddafi to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez because they are both leaders I hate to love. Chavez has donated millions of dollars worth of free heating oil to low-income American families via the Citizens Energy nonprofit program and Gaddafi led a bloodless coup to control Libya in 1969 and he is an unorthodox religious leader.

Happy 4th to all!