David and Goliath in the South China Sea

The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the South China Sea – the respective Japanese and Chinese names for the islands – are jagged and inhospitable rocks, unsustainable for human existence. Its last inhabitants fled to Japan after World War II, and the rocks have since been forgotten in every realm but politics. Tensions arose in September 2012 when Tokyo officially purchased the islands from their private Japanese owner. The Chinese government responded by a drastically increasing the number of surveillance vessels in the islands’ territorial waters, sparking outrage from the Japanese government and demonstrating how far China was willing to go to claim the islands as their own.

The controversy, however, does not end there. China claims that there are even more islands that fall under their jurisdiction. The Spratly Islands, an archipelago of reefs, islets, atolls, and cays, and the Paracel Islands are approximately an astounding 1,000 miles and 1,500 miles away from mainland China, respectively. Yet Beijing asserts these islands too are Chinese. China’s claims of ownership over faraway islands and waters have gained the country notoriety over the last few years, with outlandishly claiming territory as far as 2,000 miles away, including land and water considered to be part of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Japan.

Japanese nationalists have likened the conflict to the Falklands War, in which Argentine forces invaded the Falklands/Malvinas Islands in 1982; a territory then considered a remote colony of the United Kingdom. Argentina, which had long claimed the islands were rightfully theirs, was attempting to divert attention from human rights abuses and economic issues at home, and, conversely, in the U.K., Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s approval rating was tanking. Both the British and Argentine governments were in much need of a distraction to take the public’s mind off of more grave matters.

Is China in an analogous situation?

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s rise to power coincided with Tokyo’s purchase of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, which incited mass anti-Japanese riots in China. As his first political challenge, along with his newfound leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr. Xi had no choice but to take a stern stance against the Japanese, escalating the conflict. This antagonistic approach, including the dispatch of surveillance and fishery ships, and, most especially, the establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone, can be likened to the actions taken by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so many years ago: it is the kind of political decision a leader makes when backed into a corner. The people were screaming for someone’s head, and naturally, Mr. Xi ensured it was not his.

Making matters worse is China skyrocketing military spending – which has risen to $130 billion a year in 2012 from $30 billion a decade earlier – fueling an unspoken arms race in the East. In doing so, China threatens the safety of neighboring countries, especially Japan. However, Japan is not backing down: despite denying the existence of a navy, the Japanese have commissioned at least 3 aircraft carriers, exactly for what purpose remains unclear.

Akin to a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean, the Chinese and its adversaries are toe-to-toe on the seas, cannons perpetually at the ready. The conquest is not only of territory and influence, but also of control over economic borders. In the age of imperialism, those extensions of economic power were colonies. For this era, the United Nations calls them exclusive economic zones: states in possession of special rights on exploration and use of resources, specifically marine resources in this case. China’s claim on uninhabited land far from the mainland coast is not a straightforward attempt at “land-grabbing.” No, owning the small islands scattered around the Pacific does nothing to increase territorial power but rather, supports the acquisition of a larger, more influential exclusive economic zone.

China is overstepping its boundaries once again, claiming land that is not theirs to claim waters they should not control. But as the largest economic, political, and military power of the region, countries like Brunei, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia remain weak against their common foe. Unless David finds his special slingshot, Goliath stands to win this round.

- Kathy Dimaya

Hopes for Cypriot Unification Combust

“Ethnicity is almost never the root cause for ‘ethnic conflict.’”- Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

Cyprus has been split along ethnic lines since 1974, after a military coup backed by Athens prompted Turkey to invade the northern portion of the island. A decade later, the Turkish-held region declared itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a separate entity from the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus. As peaceful negotiations over the past several years were beginning to lead toward warmer relations between the Turkish north and Greek south, controversy in managing the newly discovered oil deposits has caused hopes for unification to dissolve.

In 2011, Noble Energy (NBL), an American oil and natural gas production firm, discovered giant natural gas reserves off of the country’s southern coast. According to CNN, if brought to market, the resources would represent more than 100% of Cyprus’s GDP.

Late this past summer, President Nicos Anastasiades of the Republic of Cyprus highlighted that the return on these findings has the potential to be more than just financial: “The benefits out of the exploitation of the wealth of energy is going to the interest of all the people of Cyprus whether they are Greek or Turkish Cypriots.” However, the chances that this oil will help unify the island in the near-future have since been squandered. For the second time last month, Turkish scientific ships, accompanied by warships, were reported to be conducting seismic surveys inside of the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The objective of their exploration was to evaluate the seabed’s potential for oil drilling.

Turkey’s actions have sparked outrage from Cypriot politicians. While Ankara argues that it does not recognize Cyprus or its right to exploit offshore energy, the drilling license for the entire region had already been awarded to Cyprus as it lies within its EEZ. Nonetheless, Turkey's Prime Minister told a press conference: "We have the right to conduct seismic studies there, according to the agreements signed between Turkey and the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus. We will always use this right." In response, Cyprus has begun to press the European Union for “resolute action” against the Turkey, on grounds that the intrusion violates its nation’s sovereignty.

The Cyprus dilemma is fueled not by competing ethnic groups but by competing economic interests. Both sides refuse to lose out on the island’s potential economic value, especially now that oil has been proven to exist nearby. The question is: Who does the oil belong to—the Republic of Cyprus or Turkey? Considering the rights to drilling were already given to Cyprus by the European Union, an institution that Turkey seeks to become a part of, it is surprising that Turkey has not backed down. It is contentious enough that Turkey refuses to recognize the Republic of Cyprus--an EU member country--as a sovereign state, but it has now chosen to directly ignore guidelines enacted by the EU. These recent policy decisions on the part of Turkey make one question its motivations for seeking EU membership in the first place, because protecting states’ rights to sovereignty was surely not one of them.

- Konstantine Tettonis

More than Words…And Airstrikes

I was surprised when I first heard about the Obama Administration’s decision to spearhead a US-led airstrike campaign against ISIL in Iraq a few months ago. As an Assyrian-American – the same ethnicity as one of the many Christian minority groups ISIL has targeted and massacred – I was thrilled that the United States was finally taking military action against ISIL. However, today, I, like many Americans, am frustrated by the seeming lack of impact these airstrikes have had.

Contrary to popular belief, the Obama Administration has been warned about the threat posed by ISIL since the beginning of 2014 and has only recently begun to take action. Despite the fact that the Obama Administration has vocalized its mission to “degrade and destroy” ISIL on several occasions, the only way in which the Administration has followed up on this mission is through airstrikes. These airstrikes have proven to have had a limited effect when it comes to aiding those suffering in the region or limiting ISIL’s military capabilities. Though the airstrikes have somewhat degraded the military capabilities of ISIL, it is clear that it will take much more than airstrikes to fully dismantle ISIL. Attacks from above alone will not bring ISIL to its knees. 

Already, the public’s support for the Obama Administration’s ISIL strategy is eroding, and for good reason. Contrary to President Obama’s “no boots on the ground” strategy, support for sending troops into combat operations against ISIL is increasing. Americans are also growing more concerned that ISIL will orchestrate an attack in the United States. We cannot know for sure if the threat of an American terrorist attack is imminent; however, by not taking a stronger stand against ISIL abroad, the United States and the Obama Administration could be making a strategic error that could have real ramifications for the U.S. as ISIL continues to grow.

Nearly every time the world has seen tragedy in the form of mass killing, whether it be Rwanda, Darfur, or Cambodia—the United States has sworn its most famous and favorite promise: “never again.” However, by August of this year, ISIL had killed nearly 10,000 civilians, and, just this week, ISIL killed 322 members of an Iraqi Sunni tribe. If the United States government and the Obama Administration want to stay true to this mantra, they must either commit more American resources, perhaps even in the form of boots on the ground, to fight against ISIL or ally with other nations who have verbally committed to destroying ISIL and encourage them to take concrete action. The airstrikes are simply not cutting it.

- Nika Arzoumanian

Photo: News Talk Florida

A Great Leap Forward or The Status Quo?

From October 20th to October 23rd, the Chinese Communist Party hosted the Central Committee 4th Annual Plenum, which focused on the enforcement of rule of law in the country. This particular gathering of key Chinese Communist Party leaders marks the first time that rule of law will be formally discussed on such a public stage. In a country where judicial power is heavily regulated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (China’s legislative body), many scholars, particularly those from the West, hail this new focus as a positive development for China’s future. 

Indeed, coupled with President Xi Jinping’s much-publicized campaign to crackdown on corruption, some may say China’s future has never looked more promising. However, reflection after the plenum indicates something different: while the Xi government plans to institute reforms such as the development of circuit courts and the promotion of transparency during judicial proceedings, no concrete policies have been outlined to achieve these objectives. While the connections between sustainable economic growth, corruption, and law were reinforced at the plenum, the Chinese government did not institute any tangible methods to implement these policies.

As progressive as some may want to call these reforms, the plenum began by reaffirming the necessity of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party to build “socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.” What exactly does this mean? This widely known Chinese political categorization implies a fusion of Soviet-style socialism and Confucian/Buddhist influences regarding governance and judicial systems. Observers who are hoping for gradual or radical democratization will not get it anytime soon.

Although the government discussed the continuation of a number of long-running initiatives, such as the crackdown on corruption, perhaps the government’s most interesting emphasis was on the importance of the Chinese Constitution as central to the enforcement of rule of law. This has been particularly reinforced through the designating of a “National Constitution Day” on December 4th in which schoolchildren can partake in civic activity and the general public is to be made aware of the rights and duties they have as Chinese citizens. This move is particularly striking, as the Chinese Constitution is not given as much importance as Chinese “policy suggestions”: Five Year Plans, speeches, and informal and formal policy suggestions from the Party leadership. 

There is a hope that stronger enforcement of Constitution will alleviate the seizure of private property, particularly in rural areas, and begin a more widespread push for human rights, but Mr. Xi and his government do not seem to have formulated a tangible plan to begin executing on these priorities. Perhaps there is another purpose in highlighting the importance of the Chinese Constitution: the document contains the duties of Chinese citizens as well as their rights. One such duty is that citizens should not infringe on state interests when exercising their rights and freedoms, which might be another point of emphasis when teaching or learning about the Constitution. 

Perhaps the most important announcement was the government’s declaration of a “sunshine” judiciary policy, a conscious attempt to install transparency and accountability in the judicial system. Such a policy would insulate the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (the highest court in China) from government influence and hold judicial officials accountable for their decisions even after retirement – all steps that make Mr. Xi’s government look like it is serious about ending some of the judiciary’s more questionable practices. While the casual mentioning of increasing accountability of transparency might move China in a more progressive direction, it should be noted that no information has been shared regarding the proceedings of high-profile corruption cases of former Politburo member Zhou Youkang and former vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission General Xu Caihou. However, the fear that these policies are nothing but empty words to impress the international community and the Chinese people is very tangible.

- Anjana Sreedhar 

America: The World’s Superhero?

In his September 10 speech outlining U.S. strategy against ISIL, President Obama made the case for America’s indispensable leadership in the world.

In his concluding line the president stated “our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for.” This one line, tucked away at the end of the speech, signals a drastic turn in Mr. Obama’s foreign policy.

From Clark Kent to Superman

Mr. Obama’s previous doctrine is best described as pragmatic realism. He did not use military force to resolve a situation unless it was a direct threat to American interests. Mr. Obama struck a deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria, but showed he was not willing to put Americans in danger to do it, let alone protect the repressed population. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, as troublesome as it was for international community, did not pose a direct threat to the United States. The Arab Spring, as momentous as it was for the spread of freedom and democracy, garnered no more than American air support in Libya.

ISIL is a potential threat to U.S. citizens, so combating it is consistent with Mr. Obama’s previous doctrine. Now, however, the United States’ rescue of the Yazidis – a religious minority that Americans have never heard of – has marked a turning point in American foreign policy. The U.S. has shifted from a guardian of Americans to a guardian of humanity. Obama has made America the world’s superhero.

Cynics will say the president’s speech was a moral justification for action the U.S. would have taken anyway; one of those pleasant coincidences in U.S. foreign policy where idealism aligns with realism. But Mr. Obama’s speech indicated more than wartime rhetoric. His call for “broad American leadership” included a commitment to American values:

Our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity.

Throughout U.S. history, American foreign policy has been most effective when it has fought for its values abroad when threatened at home. Made fashionable by President Woodrow Wilson, defending the universality of U.S. values has been a trademark of American foreign policy. But this history is also littered with vacuous calls by U.S. presidents to stand up for freedom around the world. Few have actually made good on this promise. Those who did have had track records ranging from the victory of World War II and the Cold War to the Fall of Saigon and the Iraq War.

The Danger of Jokers

Promises of freedom also have a history of heartbreak and backlash from those who took the U.S. at its word and were then abandoned. When President George H.W. Bush urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War, the United States stood by as they were gassed by Iraqi helicopters, allowing the dictatorship in Iraq to consolidate its power. In 1919, President Wilson sold out Chinese self-determination in Shandong for Japanese acceptance of the League of Nations, sparking the anti-western May 4th Movement and the ascendance of the Chinese Communist Party. Following classic comic book plot, America’s betrayal of its principles birthed its own future villains.

It is a noble but risky venture for America to commit itself to upholding broad values. When it succeeds, it not only wins a military victory, but also increases U.S. reputation and attractiveness across the world. This, in turn, makes the United States safer. But when it betrays its covenants with the world it compromises its reputation around the globe. It exposes itself to accusations of hypocrisy and callousness – the same accusations that are used to recruit disillusioned nationalists to fight for communism or religious fundamentalism.

The U.S. must be careful which values it promises to uphold and to whom. The world will hold America to them, and betrayal will ring stronger than apathy. This is not a cause for isolationism, but a reason for caution and deliberation in what commitments are made.

If Not U.S., then Who?

What values can and should America uphold? Is it Superman, who tackles any injustice single-handedly, no matter how large? Or will it be more like Captain America, acting as the jacked Boy Scout and rallying others to fight evil together? Or will it be like Batman, enacting vigilante justice? Which superhero does the United States have the capacity and will to be?

Will it really stand with those who fight for themselves, as President Obama promised? Come to their aid when they light the signal? These are the questions this column will explore over the course of the next few months.

The new role Mr. Obama will take has yet to be seen. But one thing is certain: no one else can answer the call. The United States remains the world’s sole superpower, and the only nation capable of even considering dauntless heroism. When the small and the helpless cry for help against oppressive tyrants, it is America who must respond. Like Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.

It’s just a matter of which hood and cape Mr. Obama should don.

- Ian Manley

The Next Two Years: How the GOP Can Prove That They Can Lead or Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

Election Day is finally here. Most polls indicate that America will see a return to power for Republicans in both chambers of Congress – the first time since 2007. The close Senate races in Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, and North Carolina each seem to increasingly lean Republican, and election forecasters are unanimous in their belief that the Republicans will pick up the six seats that they need to claim the majority. In an election defined by frustration with President Obama, Congress, and Washington in general, some upheaval in our nation’s capital was to be expected. Midterm elections are notoriously painful for the sitting president’s party during his sixth year in office – a phenomenon often referred to as the “six-year itch.”

Unfortunately, the targets of the public’s discontent and this particular six year itch are Senate Democrats, the most vulnerable of whom are in  red states that President Obama failed to carry in 2012. Many of these Democratic senators came to office during the 2008 election cycle, when then-Senator Obama’s powerful appeal down the ballot swept them into office. Ironically, many of these same Democrats now need to escape the shadow of the man that catapulted many of them into office, ; a sort of political break-up that has become increasingly publicized over the past few weeks. President Obama’s perceived lack of leadership and apathy with regards to pressing issues has brought back bitter memories to those who voted for the senators now running for re-election. However, while President Obama’s sinking poll numbers, an advantageous electoral map, and a favorable electorate have set up the GOP for success this year, the story could be quite different after two years of a Republican Congress in the 2016 election cycle.

Former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell summarized the GOP’s quandary on CNN’s “State of the Union”: “Republicans [should] be careful what they wish for, because if they win the Senate, they better do something, they better send the president some responsible pieces of legislation or they’ll get crushed in 2016.” This sentiment has been echoed throughout Washington as the realization of the Republican’s likely victory has set in. Senior Democratic House Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-08) has gone so far as to predict that a Republican House and Senate, given free reign in Congress over the next two years, will inevitably overreach and create a “huge public backlash.”

Of course, Republicans already aren’t inheriting a Congress that America is happy with – polls gave an abysmal 14 percent approval rating earlier this month. It will take considerable effort to erase the perception that Washington is broken in only two years, and now the onus will be entirely on the Republicans to prove that Congress can work again. If they can’t, the political fodder proved by another government shutdown or a failure to take up immigration reform (as the House did in 2013 following the Senate’s passage of Immigration Modernization Act) could prove devastating to the next Republican nominee for president campaigning on bringing efficiency to Washington.

In the minority and in the 2010 wave election, the Republicans’ bomb-throwing, flamethrower rhetoric cultivated their image as crusaders against government waste and overreach; a populist image that has resonated with voters (they are easily expected to maintain their 4-years-and-running majority in the House, after all). However, if the Republicans claim the majority in the Senate and continue this behavior, they will quickly be seen as obstructionists who, even when finally given significant power to govern and lay out their agenda, are unable to follow through with their promises and too incompetent and myopic to keep in power. A narrow-minded focus on repealing Obamacare or lowering taxes for the wealthy will hit a brick wall, as President Obama will be more than willing to wield his veto to strike down bills on issues such as these, which, at the end of the day, do nothing to address the array of emergencies that the country is confronting.

No issue should worry Republican leadership like next time that the debt ceiling will have to be raised. If the standoff from 2013 is repeated (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already threatened to shut down the government) it will be an almost purposeful attempt at political suicide and a case in point for Democrats. If the GOP proves unable to govern, 2016 will be a painful year to be a Republican.

Our outlook on what is likely to be two years of a Republican-controlled House and Senate may seem grim, as their time in control of the former has not given us much of a source for optimism. But the simple fact of the matter is that we want the Republicans to succeed – we want them to prove that they can legislate and govern responsibly, because after four years of gridlock and bitter, toxic politics, America cannot afford any less. The problems that this country faces cannot wait for a new president or another election; and to paraphrase Rep. Paul Ryan, we need to tackle them before they tackle us.

- Alaina Haworth with Alex Hasapidis

País de Los Muertos (The Country of the Dead)

Venezuela has a homicide rate of 79 killings per 100,000 inhabitants (a rate that has quadrupled in the past fifteen years), and yet the murder of Robert Serra on October 1st has seized the attention of the entire country. An incredibly popular rising parliamentarian, Mr. Serra was only 27 years old when he and his female assistant were stabbed to death in his Caracas home. 

The morning after Mr. Serra’s death, Miguel Rodriguez Torres, the then Minister of the Popular Power for Interior, Justice, and Peace addressed the people of Venezuela, blatantly labeling the killing an “assassinat[ion].” While an assassination would seem the likely cause in most countries, however, as an opposition party member pointed out in a tweet, “50 Venezuelans are killed each day” – suggesting that the murder was not a targeted assassination, but a killing that took place during what was believed to be a botched robbery. Despite this possibility, Mr. Torres’ uncompromising language has left no room for doubt about the circumstances of Mr. Serra’s death. What could make the government he represents so sure this was an assassination? More importantly, how was the government able to come to that conclusion so quickly?

It’s true that members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Mr. Serra’s party, have been the targets of suspicious murders before. In April of this year, a prominent leader of the party, Eliecer Otaiza, was murdered in Caracas under murky circumstances. Two years ago, Mr. Serra’s bodyguard was killed. However, in a country with a homicide rate as high as Venezuela’s, these murders have proved to be a small fraction of the daily killings that take place across the nation and not the products of targeted assassinations. Considering this and the lack of information surrounding the circumstances of the night of Mr. Serra’s murder, there is not much evidence to lend much credibility to the President and his party’s claim that Mr. Serra was killed not as part of a robbery, but as a premeditated murder. 

As time has passed, the Venezuelan authorities are no closer to finding a culprit for the killing. The immediate arrest of two “suspects” provided no leads and, despite President Maduro’s insistence that the conclusions of police investigations would supposedly vindicate his claim of an opposition plot to kill Mr. Serra, the police investigation remains inconclusive. Just this week, Venezuelan authorities arrested yet another two suspects, indicating they are no closer to an answer than they were three weeks ago. Yet the government continues to claim that “hired killers” with instructions from the opposition performed the murders. 

The apparent stalemate between the firmly held belief of the Venezuelan government and their total lack of evidence is the casualty of an overly politicized investigation. The opposition is attempting to point to the already high homicide rate in Venezuela as the cause of Mr. Serra’s death, shifting all the blame towards the existing government for failing to do more about a problem that affects not only government officials, but the entire nation as a whole. The PSUV and the President’s administration is attempting to shift blame towards the opposition in hopes that the people will rally against any possible challenge to the President in the upcoming election. 

Regardless of who the culprit is, the government has spent more time pointing fingers than investigating the crime. But, moreover, the furor over this story ignores the fact that over 50 Venezuelans are murdered every day – they just aren’t famous enough to garner this much media attention.

- Alaina Haworth

What’s Up with North Korea?

In the era of information and growing interconnectedness, few countries have been left as opaque and unpenetrated by the forces of globalization as North Korea. While the country’s government was long ago exposed as a cruel, ruthless dictatorship masquerading as an ideal state, North Korea and its struggles seem to have faded from the public conscience. Instead, the world has been preoccupied with fears of Ebola, ongoing conflict in Syria, and the upcoming American midterm congressional elections. Since North Korea slipped from our the public radar, what exactly has been happening in the world’s most secretive country?

#1: Kim Jong Un is having health problems.

The Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, returned from his 6-week absence from the public eye on October 13 of this year when the North Korean state media released photos of him appearing in two public events using a cane, evidence that his immense weight gain is leading to serious health problems. According to Yoo Ho-Yeol, a professor of North Korean studies at Korea University in Seoul, "We expected to see him at the Supreme People's Assembly, because he had attended that session every time. So we are speculating that he might have problems in his health." 

#2: Kim Jong Un’s power may be slipping through his fingers.

Rumors regarding the health of Kim Jong Un have led to questions about his ability to continue governing North Korea. Originating with the high profile execution of Jang Song Thaek, his uncle, and all his relatives, questions about Kim’s dwindling power have been circulating heavily through the media. This month, the Washington Times reported that six officials have been executed, including General Ri Pyong Chol, Air Force chief Ri Yong Gil, and Chang Ung (who had connections to Kim's uncle). None of them have not been seen for some time. 

Speculation about Kim Jon Un’s weight and the status of his relatives are the least troubling of the rumors being spread about North Korea. Some believe that the Organization and Guidance Department (OGD), the government body that implements the decisions of the Supreme Leader, has actually seized control of the country and has decided to keep Kim Jong Un in power as their puppet. Some experts cite evidence of an attempted coup and secret plots against the leadership as proof that the North Korean government is becoming destabilized. While the dissolution of such a government would free millions from the cruel tyranny of Pyongyang, the chaos would most likely bring about a civil war, a renewed conflict with South Korea and the United States, or worse.

#3: The North Koreans may have experienced a nuclear technological breakthrough.

Here, the key words are "may have." According to General Curtis Scaparrotti, who commands U.S. forces in South Korea, the DPRK is now able to build a nuclear warhead small enough to sit atop a ballistic missile. But information about North Korea, especially pertaining to their exact nuclear capability, has been dubious at best. It is highly unlikely that North Korea has created or obtained weapons that could to reach American soil, as they have yet to successfully test such a device, and Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby once asserted that "we don't have a smoking gun piece of evidence" to indicate success in North Korea's development of a long-range missile. 

However, considering the technology for the enrichment of uranium is nearly 60 years old, the ability to create weapons for a country already in possession of centrifuges should come sooner than expected. Even this small breakthrough for the North Korean missile program should be a concern for not just those nations in its immediate vicinity, but for countries around the world. One of the most politically backward countries of the modern world may have the ability to annihilate cities and entire regions in conjunction with a hatred of the West so indoctrinated in society that it rivals that of radical jihadism.

This means we must watch North Korea vigilantly. Long has North Korea and the threat that it poses resided on the backburner, brushed off as impotent and deemed unlikely to be worth the concern. North Korea's rise as a true threat may not occur for another year or ten years. Still, the threat is manifesting at a steady, ominous rate. We cannot rely on their nuclear incompetence as a buffer for our fears. Perhaps Kim Jong Un was the lesser of two evils, and whoever may or may not be truly running the show in Pyongyang will be capricious, fickle, and more difficult to deal with – a rather grim thought considering the already destitute state of affairs in North Korea.

- Kathy Dimaya

Can Climate Change Spawn Another ISIL?

In the midst of grappling with security threats ranging from ISIL to Ebola, the Pentagon has identified a new “immediate risk” to national security. On Monday, The Department of Defense released a 20-page "2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap," in which it classified climate change as no longer a future security risk, but now, as a present day threat.

According to the report, the changing climate will have serious implications for military operations, including humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, supply chain activity, and the maintenance of training and equipment installations. Yet, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stressed that the crisis’s implications are even wider in scope. At the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Peru earlier this week, he characterized climate change as a “threat multiplier.” In his speech he cautioned that climate change has the potential to intensify many of the challenges U.S. defense strategy is forced to confront today, including the rise of armed insurgencies.

The DoD’s report sheds light on how the effects of climate change can contribute to political unrest, especially within developing nations: "These developments could undermine already-fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently-stable governments, as well as increasing competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources." The report goes on to describe how competition for resources is often ground zero for “extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.”

As the New York Times points out, the Islamic State has capitalized on the scarcity of certain resources, including food and water, in order to seize political power. The increasing demand for these already scarce resources allows groups like ISIS to tighten their grip on the people they are subjugating. In the past, resource scarcity has bred conflict in places like Sierra Leone, Haiti and Angola. However, as climate change continues to intensify, not only will it help spark new political conflicts, but it will also help to fuel ones that are already occurring. With the climate crisis continuing to unfold, resource competition will inevitably surge, and so too will political unrest – leaving the Department of Defense to prepare itself against whatever threats next present themselves.

- Konstantine Tettonis

Kobani: Tug Of War

The town of Kobani, which sits on Syria’s border with Turkey, has become the focus of a deadly triumvirate: the Islamic State, America, and Turkey. The primarily Kurdish border town is the personification of the quasi-war being waged against IS, the black flag of the Islamic State flying over air strike rubble. The United States is raining down air strikes on IS as they chastise NATO ally Turkey for their lack of ground involvement, all while the American-endorsed Kurdish fighters battle IS with little ammunition and dwindling numbers of troops. Refugees are trapped between their desperate need to leave the warzone and their inability to vacate their homes due, in some cases, to Turkish border patrol.

Just as Berlin was a vivid example of the difference between the East and West sides of the Iron Curtain throughout the Cold War, Kobani is a case study on the pain the Islamic State is inflicting upon the Middle East and continued damage that they are soon to cause. While it’s easy to see the recent air strikes that “helped dislodge” IS from several Kobani neighborhoods as a victory for the American-led coalition against IS, it can also be seen as simply another ebb in the flow of the back and forth fighting that has been occurring in Kobani since IS’s initial siege approximately a month ago. In fact, US military officials are hesitant to even call it a victory: "Air strikes along are not going to ... fix this, not going to save the town of Kobani," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby says.

Despite the Islamic State’s retreat from certain neighborhoods in Kobani, the facts on the ground haven’t changed: the Pentagon has deemed help from Turkey a necessary component in winning the battle against IS. Turkey claims to be doing its part by taking in the refugees from Kobani, a city it insists is devoid of civilians even though local government officials state there are “more than a thousand civilians” trapped inside the city by IS snipers and ground troops. As Rear General John Kirby issued a statement saying that Kobani “may very well still fall,” Turkish forces remained on their side of the border, literally watching Kobani be bombed from their tanks. In addition, not only is Turkey refusing to send aid, but it is also blocking the only path for aid to the Kurdish northeastern region of Iraq, through which Kobani is located.

The proximity of Kobani to Turkey makes it the most representative example of the harm Turkey’s lack of support is inflicting upon the campaign against the Islamic State. Turkey, as a NATO ally and a bordering state of Syria, should be doing more to aid the coalition in its quest to “dismantle [the IS] network of death.” The fight is quite literally pushing against Turkey’s border, and in the case of Kobani, there isn’t time for the politicized apathy towards IS being practiced now.

- Alaina Haworth

Beijing's Power Play

“Democracy!” the students cry, all they want is democracy. The noblest of overtures, revolutions, and rebellions have turned the world over in pursuit of democracy. But can Hong Kong -- a single city in the most economically and politically powerful communist country in the world -- successfully break free of Beijing’s influence?

Hong Kong is not just another city in China. Since the British handed control of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the city has operated on a completely different wavelength from the rest of the country; and perhaps its clearest delineation is its “one country, two systems” government that grants the city a legal and financial system that is separate from the rest of China. Citizens enjoy civil liberties such as an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and the right to protest, luxuries mainlanders cannot claim for their own. In addition, Hongkongers also enjoy a free market economy, in which their low taxation, nearly entirely free port trade, and established financial market make it one of the world’s leading financial centers.

But despite Hong Kong’s seemingly independent system, Hong Kong still must abide by a number of Chinese laws. Hong Kong’s Basic Law (which acts as the city’s constitution) outlines Beijing’s exact authority over Hong Kong, but in practice, Beijing controls Hong Kong through the Legislative Council (Hong Kong’s city council), which votes for their Chief Executive and is replete with Beijing loyalists. The treaty that China signed with the United Kingdom to acquire Hong Kong in 1984 stated that by the year 2017, the city would have free and fair elections.

Therein lies the key issue in this year’s student protests. In September, Beijing announced electoral reforms in which the Chief Executive would no longer be elected in the fully democratic manner promised in the treaty with the UK -- instead, the reforms would give Beijing the power to choose which candidates could run for Chief Executive have to be approved by pro-China nominating committee. Students and protesters quickly responded to the announcement by peacefully sitting-in in Hong Kong’s financial district, called Central, in a movement that has become known as Occupy Central.

Initially, the demonstrations remained nonviolent, however, escalating violence between the police and protesters eventually drew more people into the streets, exacerbating the conflict and resulting in a tense, public standoff between the two sides. Despite repeated talks with senior Hong Kong government officials, the impasse has remained unbroken, and Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s second highest ranking government official, recently stated that talks would not continue.

Perhaps we should note that the contention in Hong Kong belongs to the lack of compromise between the pro-democracy and pro-Beijing factions. To those not only protesting Beijing’s actions but aiming to create a full-fledged democracy in Hong Kong -- democracies do not spring up and succeed with a push of a button. The world’s greatest proponent of democracy, the United States, fought a costly war and lost many lives before the fledgling country could even call itself a democracy -- and even then, it only became a democracy for wealthy, white male landowners. That is not to say conflict is the answer, but rather, persistence, and determination.

To the pro-Beijing supporters, Hong Kong is not truly part of China anymore. Beijing’s overreach of power is conspicuous, and the world knows to look past the excuses that Beijing has laid forth to explain their actions, and instead see China’s power play. Hong Kong no longer plays a pivotal part in China's economic development, and especially over the last 20 years, the importance of this port city has dwindled. China's only motivation in its attempt to control Hong Kong is purely political, or arguably even imperial.

China's blatant power grab fools nobody. The political encroachment into Hong Kong is an attempt to seize power by reneging on promises made to the people of Hong Kong in order to quell any spread of democracy in China. But Beijing has made one miscalculation: the people are angry. And as centuries of revolutionary history suggests, angry people usually get their way.

- Kathy Dimaya

It’s Wei Qi, not Chess: China’s growing relative advantage in Africa

Although China may not be bent on global domination, it has a strategic ambition: the nation seeks to reclaim the power and respect that made it such a singular entity years ago. For thousands of years, China viewed itself as the “Middle Kingdom,” or the center of the universe. It saw little incentive to pursue anything outside of its vast territorial boundaries. Today, things have changed: China’s hunger for new land, raw materials and markets is leading the Chinese to the continent of Africa, where the nation’s influence is far more than simply budding.

In his book On China, Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger accurately characterized Chinese foreign policy in the context of one of its civilization’s most enduring games, wei qi. The wei qi player aims to encircle and capture all of her opponent’s pieces on the board. Unlike in chess, the objective of wei qi is not to achieve an all-out victory, but to claim a relative advantage. 

In the theoretical game for Africa, the Chinese seem to be gaining a relative advantage over the West. In 2009, China surpassed the U.S as Africa’s largest trading partner with the Sino-African trade relationship valued at $200 billion in 2013. The Chinese have penetrated African markets through the exchange of cheap manufactured goods and the construction of infrastructure such as airports, railroads, and dams. In turn, the Chinese have secured key natural resources (namely, oil and minerals), which account for 80% of their trade with the continent. In addition, by the end of 2009, nearly 50% of China’s cumulative foreign aid went to African countries.

Chinese influence in Africa has drawn the attention of the United States. In response to the new global power’s growing involvement on the continent, the United States has been taking steps to highlight its commitment to African nations. This summer, President Obama convened the U.S-Africa Leaders Summit, where the president distinguished the U.S and China’s intentions in Africa by saying, “We don’t look to Africa simply for its natural resources; we recognize Africa for its greatest resource, which is its people and its talents and their potential.” Although the summit also set out to address critical issues including human rights and access to healthcare, the summit was seen largely as an effort to begin countering Chinese influence on the African continent. According to an article in South Africa’s Business Day prior to the Leaders Summit, “the US government was running the risk of missing the African bus.” This conference was perhaps an opportunity to catch the “bus” at the next stop.

Kissinger writes that there are multiple ways of succeeding in a game of wei qi. However, the most talented players do so by placing their pieces into empty spaces, mitigating their opponent’s strategic potential. Africa can be perceived as this new “empty” space on the board, with China in the process of filling it. Africa’s untapped natural resources and markets will help China increase its relative advantage over the West in this round of global wei qi.

- Konstantine Tettonis

The Bigger, Better Enemy

The last words of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines were not their own. Men who devoted their lives to humanitarian efforts and to helping others died in the way that they least deserved.

In war – which is, presumably, what one could call the United States’ latest conflict in the Middle East – perhaps this kind of brutality is unremarkable. Hundreds die in war and many die in heroic and brutal ways, but those hundreds of deaths have not amassed as much media attention as these three have. My heart goes out to the families of those who have died for their country, no matter their beliefs, religion, or background. However, the assassinations of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines signal a sinister new chapter in terrorism. We once thought of al-Qaeda as the pinnacle of evil. The terrorist attacks of September 11th still bring fear and sadness to our hearts, even more than a decade onwards. But a new bad guy is in town, and he is worse than our last opponent.

 The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (a.k.a. ISIL) is a Sunni jihadist group dedicated to creating a caliphate (an Islamic state governed by a Muslim ruler) in the Iraq-Syria region (also referred to as the Levant). A fairly new addition to the world’s roster of terrorist organizations, ISIL was once known by a different name: “al-Qaeda in Iraq.” However, over time, ISIL’s fanaticism and violence so astonished the members of al-Qaeda that, in February, the group denounced the Islamic State for their unruliness and disobedience. Such is ISIL, a group that has set out to accomplish what al-Qaeda never could.

 Unlike al-Qaeda, which preached waging a war of attrition against the western world, ISIL has gone forward and carved out their own nation dominated by a perverse ideology. Though ISIL’s gains can be measured by the fear it has struck in the hearts of people around the world and the land it has conquered, a better criteria of ISIL’s success is the composition of the coalition of friends and foes that have united to stand against them: ISIL has proved there was an entity more evil to the U.S. and Iran than each other.

 However, perhaps ISIL’s crowning achievement is not the violence that it has perpetuated, but the fear that it has created. The executioner of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines was a man with a British accent, stoking fears of homegrown terrorism like never before. A new breed of jihadists is forming. Indeed, hopeful, younger, more zealous terrorists are answering ISIL’s call and feeding the monster. Gone are the days that jihadists were born and bred to hate Western culture in the developing world – they are now born in any nation, on any socioeconomic level, and as any ethnicity. The disenfranchisement of so many should be a warning sign to the West that ISIL’s reach – and ambitions – reach far beyond the Levant.

- Kathy Dimaya

The Climate is Changing, The Politics Are Not

Too often in our country, the severity and magnitude of the climate change crisis is lost in the fracas of political partisanship, preventing desperately needed policy from being formulated and implemented. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s hearing on September 17, entitled “The Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure By Design”, is evidence of this. Obliged to speak on the discordant nature of the conversations on climate change at the hearing, Rep. Bill Posey(R-FL) stated: “There’s a lot of venom flowing on both sides of this issue, which I am afraid hinders more direct discussion of the facts.”  

When the U.N. Climate Summit took place last Monday, there was hope that the international setting would provide leaders with the opportunity to leverage the collective discussion toward establishing definitive goals and adhering to binding agreements. It was thought that when confronted by representatives of countries critically impacted by rising sea levels and erratic weather patterns, leaders would be quick to recognize the value in substantively working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting especially vulnerable nations. Unfortunately, this scenario has never played out – and time and time again, developed nations, faced with little to no incentive to combat the trends endangering our future, have turned a blind eye to the facts and left critically affected nations to languish.

These repeat refusals to acknowledge the facts have proven that a state centered approach to looking at the issue of climate change is ineffective, as these countries often have real incentives to ignore the crisis. This primarily stems from the fact that political leaders believe that by restraining carbon emissions, they will thereby restrain economic growth and preside over suffering economies while their enemies prosper. Such arguments have been popular – American leaders like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), have made arguments against implementing the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal for carbon cutting regulation by citing the fact that China’s high pollution levels will offset whatever progress the U.S. makes.

The inability to enforce legally binding international treaties similarly impedes accountability. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol is a prime example of the lack of consistency on an issue that inherently affects every global player, and would benefit largely from concerted action. The U.S. has never ratified the Protocol, and Canada withdrew from it in 2011.

The scale with which countries face direct and immediate threats from climate change is another way in which the lack of incentive is manifested. Developing countries, a subset of countries specifically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol’s directive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can not realistically experience the same degree of growth industrialized countries have had the opportunity to if their access to carbon emitting production was to be limited. For nations like the U.S., whose economic livelihood is not literally underwater, as many others are, it becomes simpler to look more closely at affected areas. Developing nations and those critically impacted, ultimately, are forced to look to other solutions.

Real progress will not be made until sustainability, accountability, and vulnerability are factored into every collective policy decision. This will only occur when the dangers posed by climate change and its subsequent effects on economies and governments around the world become apparent to all.

- Sabine Teyssier

The Economics of Ebola

“We are exhausted, we are angry, we are desperate,” said Sophie Delaunay, the American director of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). These words, said two weeks ago, parallel MSF’s June 23rd declaration, saying that they were at the limits of what they could handle. The fight against Ebola in the three months between these two statements has been painfully delayed and remarkably underfunded. As Ebola slips from the headlines, the disease continues to spread exponentially and its economic effects are becoming increasingly profound in three of the worstly afflicted countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.

 These countries’ health care systems are crumbling under the weight of this crisis – even before the epidemic began, Liberia had less than 200 doctors serving their entire population of 4 million. Now, it has only 50 doctors working in the domestic health system. Borders have been closed, markets shut down, and certain areas entirely quarantined, bringing the economy to a grinding halt. A statement released on September 17th by the World Bank Group stated that “[Ebola’s] economic impact could grow eight-fold, dealing a potentially catastrophic blow to the already fragile states.” In fact, the World Bank’s President Jim Yong Kim predicted that “GDP losses to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea from this crisis will be a combined $360 million.” This is a huge hit to Liberia’s economy, one that is still recovering from a 90% loss of GDP sustained in their second civil war, which ended in 2003.

It is widely theorized that the disease itself isn’t the leading cause of an impending economic disaster – the World Bank Group blames the hysteria surrounding the epidemic, calling it an “emergency within the emergency.” Trade has slowed over the closed borders and the tourism industry has gone into free-fall. Africa’s economic powerhouse, Nigeria, has seen a boom in online shopping, especially sanitation products, due to people being afraid to leave their homes. Labor force participation is on a sharp decline, resulting in further closures of work places, transportation, seaports and airports. While inflation and food prices were initially contained in the affected nations, they “are now rising in response to shortages, panic buying, and speculation.” According to ACDI/VOCA, an international development group, “roughly half the populations of Liberia and Sierra Leone work on cocoa and peanut plantations, rice and cassava farms.” These trade-reliant, highly specialized, under-developed economies – which are populated by people living just barely at the subsistence level –  have set the perfect stage for Ebola to wreak havoc.

The World Bank Group is mobilizing a $230 million financing package, the United States is deploying 3,000 troops and spending more than $750 million, and the EU is giving $15.5 million in specified aid as well as over $125 million in general aid. There is a medical emergency sweeping across West Africa; there is no debate about that. But there is a greater economic ripple effect taking place that could plague these countries for decades to come.

- Alaina Haworth

America Votes 2014: Once More ‘Round the Carousel: What the midterm elections really do and don’t mean for America

The Washington echo chamber has spent the past year or so rattling away about the repercussions of the impending midterm congressional elections. As always, partisans on both sides of the political spectrum claim that, on November 4th, the nation’s fate will once again hang in the balance as Americans decide the future of the country.

But are the stakes truly this high? What impact is this election really going to have on the future of our country?

Let’s look at the possible outcomes. For starters, the House is a lost cause for Democrats. As observed by election watchers like Larry Sabato, there are only 37 truly competitive races in this cycle, with 21 of those races against an incumbent Democrat. That means that, in order to regain the House Majority, Democrats would not only need to hold onto these seats, but take an additional 17 more in the process. That’s a tall order during a President’s sixth year in the White House, when a President’s party has historically lost seats in both chambers of Congress.

So what about the Senate? While control for this chamber seemed up in the air just a few months ago, the last few weeks have brought with them a sense of dread for Democrats – underwater poll numbers for Senate candidates in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky have increased the perception that Republicans are likely to take back the chamber for the first time since 2007. As it stands, the New York Times’ the Upshot puts the Republicans’ chances of gaining a majority at 58% – nothing to sneeze at, but certainly not a lock for the GOP.

Either way, the next two years look bleak for Washington: should the Democrats hang onto the majority, what is going to change? The House will continue to be the graveyard of Senate bills and visa versa, budget battles will rear their heads once again, and so the toxic political climate that has gripped the world’s greatest deliberative body will remain toxic.

And if the Republicans find themselves in the majority? Sure, we’ll see some change – expect the President to wield his veto pen more often, the approval of judicial nominees to grind to a halt, and the Administration to deal with more paperwork than ever as Senate committees start re-investigating Benghazi, Fast & Furious, healthcare.gov, and everything else on the GOP’s list of greatest hits. Even the most optimistic electoral predictions see no way for the GOP to reach 60, let alone 67 seats, giving them no way to override a veto or invoke cloture solely on party lines, limiting their ability to overcome Democratic opposition – and leaving the Senate as stalemated as it is today.

What changes for everyone outside of Washington? The short answer: nothing. Both parties will remain at loggerheads on nearly every issue, and we can only expect party lines to harden as the 2016 campaign season begins (but let’s face it – in the eyes of many, that has already begun). The only thing that seems to have stirred Congress out of its slumber recently is the rise of ISIL – if it takes the beheading of Americans to make Congress agree on an issue, then we’re in trouble.

Some may say that this all makes for a cynical prognosis. The sad part is that many would say that this isn’t cynical – it’s simply the way things are.

- Alex Hasapidis

Race with China—The Environmental Leg?

In late April, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, China, revised its environmental protection laws for the first time in twenty-five years. According Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, the revisions will allow for stricter punishments against companies or individuals caught polluting the environment. This comes after the country had long rejected adhering to clean energy standards in fear of hindering its economic growth and production.

China’s shift in position regarding clean energy regulations can be attributed to the hazardous consequences of pollution the country is now witnessing on the health of its citizens. Faced with high levels of water and soil contamination, declining animal populations, and dangerously low air quality, Chinese prime minister, Li Keqiang, stated that China is ready to “declare war” on pollution.

Although the idea may seem laughable at first, can China simultaneously be “declaring war” on the U.S. in terms of challenging it to adopt more clean energy policies? While the U.S has always remained at the forefront of the international environmental movement, it has been just as stubborn as China in accepting clean energy standards. However, now, a week after China made its bold move to increase its enforcement of environmental law, the Obama administration unveiled a sweeping climate change report termed “The National Climate Assessment.” The report lays out specifically what effects climate change is having on certain geographic regions of the U.S. and what could happen if they are not addressed. In response to the rollout, the administration is expected to make more of an effort to expand its climate initiative.

If China wanted to challenge the U.S., it certainly did. Now that China has taken the international clean energy initiative more seriously, the pressure is on for the U.S. to follow. However, this may not come easy. According to The New York Times, as the Obama administration is beginning to shore up public support for the president’s climate policies, Republicans are already accusing the President of plotting, not a “war on pollution” but a “war on coal.” The release of the new report is sure to cause a major political battle this upcoming summer, and rest assured, the international community WILL be watching.

Reading Rec: China’s Crackdown on Corruption

China’s finally going after one of the richest families in the country and investigating the source of their wealth. Does this mean that corruption is finally diminishing? Absolutely not. Several members of the Zhou family have been detained by authorities and whereabouts unknown. It is going to be interesting to follow where the investigation will lead.

Read more here.

The Great Schism Finally in Reverse

This year’s Easter falling on the same date for Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics characterizes the ever-improving relationship between the two Christian denominations. The Orthodox and Catholic churches split after their historic “schism” in 1054. However, since the middle of the 20th century, dignitaries of the long disconnected faiths have made great strides toward increasing communication and cooperation. 

Last year, the spiritual head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew I, attended the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis. This was the first meeting of its kind between leaders of the two churches since their schism and helped continue the discussion for ecumenism, or the promotion of Christian unity. Goodwill between the two faiths is expected to continue as Bartholomew and Francis have made plans to meet each other on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem in May.

Two historically divided faiths reconciling their differences peacefully will serve as a positive example for other antagonistic religious factions. Although the idea of the Orthodox and Catholic churches integrating may be idealistic at best, simple dialogue and deference between leaders of the faiths will undoubtedly go a long way in mending their hackneyed divide. Heads of spiritual groups currently in violent conflict should turn to the West and realize that conflicts, no matter how deep-seeded they may be, can be resolved.  

Reading Rec: The Drone Race Takes Off On Multiple Fronts

In 2011, The New York Times published an article titled, “Coming Soon: The Drone Arms Race.” The article foresaw a new “Arms Race” commencing, this time not in pursuit of the nuclear bomb, but in a new weapon, which to some is even more startling— the unmanned drone. Defense departments in nations across the globe have recognized the drone’s utility in combat and surveillance due to its precision, agility, and elusiveness. According to President Obama regarding drone operations: “Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.” The technology has been aggressively pursued and proliferated by countries in fear of falling behind one another militarily.

The competition for drones exists not only in the defense sector. Large private sector companies are beginning to wage their own wars for the technology in order to “stay ahead of the curve.” The Wall Street Journal released an article yesterday announcing that in the midst of Google and Facebook’s, “…battle to extend their influence,” Google has acquired a maker of solar-powered drones. The drones it plans to develop, will allow it to deliver faster data speeds to its customers.

I highly recommend reading the WSJ article. Keeping in mind the technology’s current military applications and combat capabilities, while reading, I couldn’t help but question whether the technology is potentially helping to weaponize private companies. The idea that Google or Facebook would ever attempt to physically harm anyone seems farfetched but with the power of the Internet expanding and its security becoming proportionally more questionable, these questions need to be raised. Given the significance of the services that these companies provide, if the technology fell into the wrong hands, the fallout would be catastrophic. With this considered, can private companies be trusted with drone technology? Is the “Drone Race” in the private sector, safe?