Early this week, the Venezuelan people have risen up against the dictator Maduro and pro-government forces (it should also be of note that this soon to be civil war is still raging with no clear winner at the time of this writing).
Yet it should be interesting to note that while there have been uprisings and revolutions against monarchies and communist tyrannies, there is not one example of a capitalist nation being overthrown by a majority of the people (of course every nation has its anarchist and communist but this is not what this article is about). The greatest example of this is is post world war two Germany. Specifically pro-capitalist and free West Germany and the "pro"-communist slave state of East Germany. If socialism/communism was really the wanting of a majority of people, then people from West Germany would have been flocking to East Germany. However as we all learned in history class, the East put up a wall to not keep its western counterpart out but rather to keep its own people from leaving. It should be revealing that if a country has to put a wall up to keep their people in then that nation is no longer free. And in all of history there is not an example of a capitalist nation trying to keep its free people from leaving in prutisit of their own well being. Capitalism is that of the individual and socialism is that of the collectivist, where individualism does not matter and which one can be taken out in order for the "good" of the group. -Jared Zimmerman
0 Comments
A few days ago marked the 70th anniversary for perhaps one of the most important alliances in the 20th and 21st centuries, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO was a direct response to the "iron curtain" that was the Soviet Union. Everywhere there was a Soviet or Communist presence there was NATO. For example it was NATO troops that kept South Korea free and NATO's arms that supplied Afghan freedom fighters from counting their resistance to Soviet occupation. After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5, the article that declares that an, "attack on one is an attack on all" and many member nations joined the US led coalition in both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While the threat of communism has mostly been won, the threat of Russia, China and terrorism remain every high. In fact NATO is currently training Ukrainian forces to fight off the Russian invasion that embarked in 2014. NATO is also currently supplying the South Korean and Japanese militaries (in Japan's case it's their "defense force") against possible war with North Korea and China. However NATO is mostly an anti-terrorism organization currently. With all member nations sharing intelligence on possible terrorists in their respective countries. All in all, NATO needs to stick around and step up is role in the protection of individual freedoms around the globe. -Jared Zimmerman With President Trump having been in Hanoi, Vietnam with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un for the past couple days it is necessary to say that the idea of Kim Jong-Un simply stopping his nuclear program because President Trump asks him to is ignorance of the highest degree.
The only reason North Korea is even on the world stage is because of its nuclear program. Without it the Kim dynasty is nothing and would be quickly disposed of by their own people. Besides the word of North Korea is utterly worthless and the Kim dynasty has been running circles around the US since we've opened up talks in the last century. The proper policy of dealing with dictators is strength. Internal reform in any dictatorship is almost unheard of throughout history and the free worlds response to such atrocious countries has been one thing, force. This is how we dealt with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union (proxy warfare) and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to handle North Korea is by increasing our military presence in the region, stronger sanctions by not only the US but also our allies. The US must also pressure NATO to focus not only on Russia and terrorism but also on North Korea and Chinese aggression. The US must also pressure North Korea's master, China and one of their largest trading partner, Iran. The way to deal with the Chinese is through India as India is the only US ally that is in close proximity to China with the capabilities of to deal with the Chinese. However Pakistan is a threat to India and India does not have the military strength nor the infrastructure to fight a two front war. This means it is necessary for the US and NATO to pressure Pakistan (through sanctions and a military presence) to stay out of it. When it comes to Iran, things tend to be more simpler (or as simple as can be when it comes it global politics). In fact the US hardly needs to get involved as a Middle Eastern coalition against Iran is already forming which consists of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and a few other countries. Iran is undoubtedly much like Iraq in the early 2000s and that being said it is necessary to learn from our mistakes in Iraq to make sure that they don't repeat. This can all be summed up with what John F. Kennedy stated in his inaugural address, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." - Jared Zimmerman Since the United States has pulled out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, most (if not all) our European allies have followed suit in limiting business to Iran. This has lead to the isolation of Iran, turning Iran into a sort of North Korea in terms of ostracization.
This forced isolation is a good thing as it keeps the radicals (indeed Iran is a radical nation) from, "infecting" for lack of a better term, mainstream society. This isolation has also stunted Iran's nuclear program as Iran is no longer getting the necessary materials needed to make atomic weapons (though they are most likely still trying). However Iran is also no longer getting raw materials to help rebuild its collapsing infrastructure. This lead many Iranian youth to protest the dictatorship of Iran a couple of months ago. As this infrastructure continues to disintegrate more protests if not open rebellions are almost certain to take place and the West must be ready to aid these groups (though this is a matter for another day). Another plus to the US pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal and Europe turing it's back on Iran, is the more or less forced relationship being built between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Twenty if not ten years ago someone were to say that the Jews and the Arabs would be working together in the Middle East most of the world would laugh. Yet here we see the age old idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" being done to the benefit of not only the Middle East but also to that of the United States. Instead of American troops having to be sent there (a threat to lives and taxpayers) we see Israeli and Saudi troops working together in the region against Iran. Overall it would appear that everyone (save Iran) is benefiting from the US pulling out of the deal. - Jared Zimmerman President Trump ended 2018 on a sour note (at least on the foreign policy scale) by beginning to plan the withdrawal of all American troops from Syria and half of our troop presence in Afghanistan. This is foolish foreign policy which will lead to more Iraq's and a possible nuclear taliban.
Whether or not you agree with President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq (I do but that's a discussion for later) the invasion wasn't what established ISIS. It was President Obama's premature pulling out of Iraq which created ISIS. How? Well when you overthrow a nation's government AND then leave, someone's going to take the position of top dog. Look at Europe for example. When Nazi Germany and its allies were defeated, the Soviet Union and her satellite states took power. Whether we like it or not we are in the business of nation building, especially in the Middle East. A direct consequence of lowering our troop presence in Afghanistan is the possibility of the taliban becoming more active in the region. This is especially troubling when it comes to Pakistan as our troop presence in Afghanistan has helped lower terrorist activity in that nation. However if/when we pull out then this allows a power vacuum to occur (much like what will happen in Syria and what did happen in Iraq) and since Pakistan does have nuclear weapons it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the chances of the taliban gaining nuclear capiolotes increases dramatically. All and all if we pull out we will have to return. Hungary and Ukraine.
These are two countries that are very rarely talked about in American media, much less used in the same sentence. However the growing rift between these two countries are starting to embolden one of our historic enemies, Russia. The major cause of conflict between Hungary and Ukraine has to do with the 1920 Treaty of Trianon which saw the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and left half of Hungary's population stranded throughout Eastern Europe. 156,000 of these ethnic-Maygars are in Western Ukraine. Recently, Ukraine just past a law stating that secondary schools (middle-high schools) must teach in Ukrainian. This of course has angered Hungary as Hungary has been in the process of trying to reach ethnic-Maygars across Eastern Europe since 1930. Hungary has in response barred Ukrainian admission into NATO. This has all played out right into Putin's hands and as Russia has recently sized three Ukrainian ships this is much cause for concern. If Eastern Europe continues to be divided then Eastern Europe will return to being nothing more than an extension of Russia. Now is the time for the United States to make both countries come to the table and work out a deal. How? By threatening to take back all financial and military aid given to both countries. The West must be a united front against the Russian bear and if we start arguing amongst ourselves the West has already fallen. With growing Chinese aggression not only in trade but also in military form the United States needs allies in the that are in close proximity to China to help keep them at bay.
India currently claims that China occupies 14,000 square miles in the Aksai Chin along the northern border of Kashmir and during the summer of 2017 Chinese forces attempted to build a road through Indian territory to Bhutan. The Chinese countered that it was Chinese territory and all Indian forces need to withdraw. India has also been a vocal opponent to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which is more or less Chinese funding for Pakistani infrustruce with the goal of modernizing Pakistan. Of course a modern Pakistan is not in the interest of India which gives the US a perfect opening to get India at the table. However why India? India is the only nation that has had anti-Chinese rhetoric and be directly connected to China. India is also one of the few nations to compete with the strength of the Chinese military (due to its multiple conflicts with Pakistan) and is one of the few nations with nuclear weapons. An alliance with India would also allow the US to give weapons (even more so than we already do) to the Indian military rather then send even more American troops when we are already engaged in the Middle East, especially with the growing threat of Iran. And it would allow the West to hold the Chinese feet to the fire when pressuring Beijing on its construction of military bases in the South China Sea and its aggressive invasion of the Arctic and Africa. In other words if the United States were to miss this opportunity we would be nothing but foolish. -Jared Zimmerman The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), a forum between China and all states of Africa ended yesterday. The goal of these talk, for China to begin competing against the West in Africa and most likely the Middle East. During these talks the Chinese are setting themselves up as the "savior of Africa" in which they are trying to persuade the African states to subjugate themselves to the Chinese State (in reality the Chinese Communist Party). In fact this can already be seen in Kenya, Ethiopia, Angola, Djibouti and Nigeria which have had their entire railway system funded by China.
The danger of this is of course Chinese influence in the region and with China having a rating of "Not Free" according to Freedom House, it is safe to say that China isn't exactly advocating for freedom like it's Western counterparts. It also may not stop at just influence as many African states find themselves in crippling debt to China and could end up like Sri Lanka, which wich was force to give up it's Hambantota port for 99 years to China due to debt. In the end it is up to the United States and our allies to advocate for freedom abroad and if we turn over the "top dog" position to China, millions if not billions will suffer as a result. |
The problems of the world and their relation to us at home.Categories |