The Hunt for a Witch?

Jian Yang is a New Zealand politican who has recently received a large amount of scrutiny due to the discovery that he failed to declare that he was involved in training spies as part of work he did at a university in China in a citizenship declaration. I followed this story with interest. It occurred to me as worrying and interesting to consider how much such an individual has been involved in government since becoming a citizen of New Zealand.  

Recent documents obtained by The International Column through an Official Information Act request indicate that before the arrival of State Councillor Liu Yandong on an official visit to New Zealand in 2012, Jian Yang received a briefing containing information specific to her and other Chinese officials prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The complete documents contains information about these officials that the public is not privy to according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Further statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received as part of the Official Information Act release indicated that individuals like Jian Yang are invited into involvement in official trips, in this case and in others via phone. Hence there is not a paper record of how Jian Yang became involved in several trips to China and visits to New Zealand of Chinese officials. 

Jian Yang responded to claims that his failure to be forthcoming brings his integrity into question by claiming that those who write about him are attacking him because he is Chinese. However, it is worth noting that should Jian Yang and his actions not be brought into question simple because he is of a certain ethnicity or formerly not a New Zealand citizenship is rather silly. Witch hunt or not - the public deserves the opportunity to form their conclusions of Jian Yang based on evidence.  

The World in Transition

Something interesting is currently happening on the Korean Peninsula. Firstly, with the Olympics at hand the North Koreans have been brought to the negotiating table with the interest of more then just participating. Some might claim this represents progress in relations with North Korea for the South, but those more skeptical might point to the fact that a cycle of relations has been renewed with a threatening and increasingly prerogative United States. Something else is happening in Canada at the moment and the Pacific Region in general. Finally (and without the United States) the large free trade agreement which includes most of the Asia-Pacific is now a pending reality. Final talks seem to be left to individual countries to ratify the deal. What has brought about this sudden movement? Has a President of the United States, who has brought into the question the continued existence of the North America Free Trade Agreement, provoked a quick sign? What is really interesting to consider is how the world is playing chess against the United States and weaving the fabric different from that of what the White House intended. 

Transitions often work where ideas replace each other. A classic example could be colonialism which after World War Two was time and time again unwoven as a viable way of doing things. If one wants to claim that the world is currently in transition now, one needs to do two things. State what the difference in ideas is and state how the world is crowding around the idea that will prevail and continue to shape it. Freedom of commerce has long been something important to the world. Countries developing and developed have seen great benefit as a result. Those who claim that protection of companies and commerce at home is now the agenda, fail to acknowledge that companies cannot be forced or bullied into doing what government wants. And yet, with expanding companies like Apple in the United States, and companies like Walmart delivering extra pay for their workers - one could say that 'Trumpism' is working and getting the United States somewhere. If so, do we live in a world in transition towards protectionism?

I don't think so. I think instead that the world is about to vindicate itself into a new era of commerce which the United States will eventually be forced to join but who is missing the chance to broker. The United States cannot lead the world in action, without leading the world in thought. As the United States makes vocal threats to withdraw from free trade agreements, and places tariffs on this and that, it will eventually find itself secluded as it becomes more and more like Iran and Russia in how it drives economic growth - internally and without a focus on trade. That however, isn't the idea, but the means of transition. A world where the United States shuts down the federal government whilst the New Zealanders go to space for the first time. A world where Israel is hailed as an example of secularism by the Vice President of the United States. And a world where the loss of leadership and loss of integrity entails a loss of continuity. That, is the stuff of transition.   

"Dear Prime Minister" (New Zealand)

Dear Prime Minister,

It puts a smile on my face to write to you with the starter “Dear Prime Minister”. This is the case because I know that this letter is going to be read and that you are a leader open to consider the voice of your constituents. Having said that, the aim of this letter is to commentate with relation to a number of potential problems on the horizon with the aim of helping you in the task of being Prime Minister. I don’t (and am certainly willing to start this letter by saying) that I don’t know everything.

Firstly, the government has recently introduced a hike in student allowance payments which are long overdue. However, one of the key pieces of advice given to the party opposite regarding this issue was that an increase in contributions to students would result in a hike of rents by landlords in accommodation ideal for students. I think the government of the time needs to consider this with the aim of putting money in the hands of students that cannot be handed on to landlords. Perhaps, a food voucher might be welcomed by students who struggle allocating money towards feeding themselves and already resort (in the case of Wellington) to places like the Wellington Free Store to feed themselves. It might be a little late now to put in place, but it might be worth mentioning and opening up for public debate (including students).

Recently the National Party has started advocating for their policies with relation to road building to be considered further by your government. It is a political move that your government has responded to by correctly pointing out that the New Zealand Transport Authority should and does deserve the opportunity to make its own decisions. Projects around rail are also driven with consultations of the public and supported by local councils which entails that the government doesn’t just get to decide what it wants to do. The need to respond here further I think is apparent (at least to me) and doing so might best entail stating what has been implied by current responses.

Finally, I think that the government of the day has had a neat way of setting relationships abroad on a positive foot whilst at the same time containing a lot of anti-American and potentially xenophobic sentiment flouting around at the moment. I love that the government of the time has chosen to do this without stirring the pot and making things worse. It occurred to me that there is an opportunity for New Zealand to demonstrate it is a peace maker within the world. As the United States pulls back and loses focus, New Zealand should look to step in where it can. That might include an envoy to North Korea at some point. It might also include more discussion (and groundwork) around a common area of movement and free trade between Australia, New Zealand and Canada. This week once the United States drops the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians are going to be scrambling and the opportunity to catch a lucky break with a focus on just them might be practical.

I have to admit I am very excited. A little concerned hearing that the government wanted to see the certain ministries cut five percent from their current budget, and a little more concerned seeing that those who have already gone through the tertiary system are not being offered anything whilst new students get a first year free ride (on perhaps, I’ll admit, a slightly selfish note). Focus on health, education that is primary and secondary, and police. These are three areas where the Labour Party stole the conversation during the election and need to continue to make their core. Failure to do so might entail that ground gets stolen down the line by the opposition as they turn their own budget cutting into your (appeared) miss management.

All the best for the coming year

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE WORLD?

Following current events around the world as they unfold at the moment has become too much like watching two disgruntled neighbours hurdle insults over the fence at each other. Watching the speeches of the North Korean representative to the United Nations and the President of the United States recently isn’t the only case that comes to mind. Whether it is Brexit in Europe, Syria in the Middle East, Qatar and the blockade of it by neighbouring nations – the world seems very stuck. The world seems like it has lost its sense of direction. Whether this comes from competing ideas of what the future should look like or whether it comes from a lack of consideration of what to do about various muddles the world seems to have found itself in – I want to ask an interesting question. Does the current muddling represent a trend, and if so – what is causing it and how can the world move on from it.

It seems like just yesterday the world was in a very different state. We had a revolution in the Middle East to talk about with interest and optimism. We had this interest in what Europe was going to make of itself. A powerhouse of neo-liberal making, engineering peace and engineering a green economy. But with the Greek banking crisis, a chain of events seemed to unfold. Some might say that Brexit could be seen as all about identity. But really a concern for where the wealth is going and more importantly whether it might disappear has grown out of a zero-sum global economy. One could say that neo-liberalism has failed. I think that is an interesting thing to consider reflecting on how the prospect of war has been normalized because the reward of keeping the peace doesn’t entail a flurry of commerce and the trickling in of wealth. Instead those things can be assured with or without the looming prospect of war, the blockade and the exit. The idea that trade entails peace is growing cold because the rewards of peace are no longer present in the plenty. Well's run dry. 

Yesterday seemed like a very different time. Even when I was abroad watching world events – it didn’t seem chaotic to the extreme it does now. One could reflect on an event and draw a conclusion about what might happen next. What was to be learned from this occurrence was to me at the time a worthwhile question to ask. But as the world falls into a state of disrepair. As the world goes from one extreme to the next and makes me very glad I live in one of the far-flung corners of it, I can’t help but wonder whether the world is waiting to be renewed. Whether something is missing like the oil to keep the engine going and the next chapter on the horizon. Whether it comes down to who is President of the United States seems interesting to consider with a focus on giants of peace in Europe (and elsewhere) doing the job that was often done by the leader of the free world. I guess my question comes without an easy answer. But does that make it any less worth asking: What is going on here world?

Beijing: Relations Are What You Make Them

The People's Republic of China is a country that has recently been closely watched, with western nations keen to see China play along and put pressure on nations like Iran and North Korea. Concern continually floats around the fear that China will see itself as 'the exception of the rule' when it comes to dealing with security destabilizing states. But recently China has been more inclined to play ball as Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers reported in an editorial article for The New York Times. They noted that China was first in line to call out North Korea with the recent test of missile technology with a rocket to launch a satellite into space. And although more recently China has been inclined to oppose sanctions on nations like Iran, recently China came around to enforce sanctions and also play an active role in nuclear talks. This shows that China's concern about regional security is existent even with the demand for oil in China, and it reflects well on relations with the United States where stability on the Korean Peninsula and Middle East is paramount. Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers left their article with an open question however: Is China's coming around to sanctions based around getting a better price for oil from Iran? Only time will tell. But having read their article, I found myself finding this picture too rosy reflecting on recent deterioration in relations between the Philippines and China over a territory dispute. Is there still plenty to worry about?

According to recent reports, a Philippine Navy plane spotted several foreign vessels in a lagoon at the disputed area of Scarborough prompting the Philippines to send its biggest warship to have a closer look. The fishing boats turned out to be Chinese when the war ship arrived to conduct an inspection, where it was found the vessel contained large amounts of unlawfully collected corals, clams and live sharks. Jason Miks from The Diplomat had the story, reporting that following the incident, Chinese military vessels were dispatched and positioned themselves between the fishing boats and the Filipino BRD Gregorio del Pilar blocking the sailors from accessing the Chinese boats and make arrests. The incident says something about the inclination of the Chinese to move forcefully when incidents around boarder disputes, rather then as Jason Miks goes on to point out, take the high road and have the disputed islands ownership settled in international court and avoid uncertainty and strategic marshaling in the future. The reason for the reaction comes with strong public sentiment in China in favor of seeing such disputes dealt with harshly. China doesn't want its influence in the region to wain to the advantage of other players, but if their interest is to be sustained such a hard line policy can only force harsher responses by Filipino and the Vietnamese - who also hold claims to ownership of the territory - in the future. With a diplomatic solution out of sight, neither side wants to back away strategically, which leaves room for wondering if China is to be a co-operative neighbor or not?

One couldn't fairly talk about the shape of China in terms of relations without talking about Taiwan. The People's Republic of China has had a strong interest in seeing the island not declare independence not just because of how that reflects on the island being a strong democracy increasingly Americanized, but also because China remains interested in not seeing the independence of Taiwan trigger a flow of separatism in the mainland. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker and Bonnie Glaser discuss Taiwan from the point of view of the United States in an article for The Washington Quarterly called: 'Should the United States Abandon Taiwan'? They discuss the issue in the opposite regard, suggesting that whilst it might seem an idea to appease China and avoid having to look at the island of Taiwan as a potential spark point, that instead: "Indeed [that] sacrifice might promote new appetites and necessitate fresh efforts...[on China's behalf]". But the arguments being made here is again neo-realist where nations are either forced to use power, or suffer in the hands of those who have it and use it. But this leaves the solution of the 'high road' - as Jason Miks talked about it prior -  intact but unused. My argument here isn't that China is more aggressive then others have portrayed it. I think instead there is plenty of room for relations to follow by choice, rather then be suffered as neo-realists might try and convince us.

China might be inclined to feel a vulnerable power since its rise has been both resent, and accumulated with so much fear from other nations in the world. But the concern will only remain if China makes itself the 'exception of the rule'. China remains strongly dependent on its economy in order to sustain growth. Impoverished groups still exist in China, but as time moves on China is going to see its relations reflect on its trade and its economy. China's ability to continue to conduct its current method of economic bridging to extinguish independence orientated sentiment, like has been the case with Taiwan, will be drained if China looks to strategic methods more and more in the future. The neo-liberal 'high road' of making economic ties reflect on ones relations with other nations is not simply a high road to be flirted with as one among many ways of doing business. The article by Mark Landler and Steven Lee Myers reflects the want to see China in a different light from seen previously. This is clearly the case when one looks to Taiwan. The situation has changed alot reflecting on how former President Bill Clinton marshaled two U.S. battle groups in 1996 after China conducted a missile exercise in the waters surrounding Taiwan ahead of elections there. The need for power has been clearly undermined with continued economic ties reflecting on relations, with the Taiwanese President kind enough to use the phrase 'one nation, two areas' talking about the relationship with China in the recent visit to Beijing. Such observations can only lead China to becoming more inclined towards neo-liberal thinking. Thinking and the behavior which results is not a condition of the nation-state but instead learned, and thus exercised. The hope can only be that this reflects on the prospect of better relations with nations elsewhere.

New Zealand's Little Brother Complex

New Zealand is a small country in the South Pacific Ocean, who's geographical size and population is about the same as that of an average state of the United States. New Zealand has more sheep then people - and a military that is compared with many others, tiny - making it easy to look from the outside and ask: What foreign importance can New Zealnd really have? Analysts from Stratfor a defense and intelligence advisor to top U.S. officials was kind enough to bring such sentiment out from the darkness recently, with the help of Wikileaks of course. Stuff.co.nz had the story, saying that: "When it comes to geopolitical importance," Stratfor analyst Chris Farnham wrote to colleague William Hobart in September last year, "it doesn't get much f---ing lower than New Zealand". I couldn't help reflecting on these comments, hearing that New Zealand Prime Minister John Key was in Seoul for a Nuclear Summit with world leaders. John Key echoed Barack Obama in his speech, with the two men's positions mirrored to the extent they were kind enough to mention each other in their speeches. New Zealand looked like the little brother, following keenly the older sibling in hope of gaining something in return - perhaps a free trade deal? But is that really a symptom of being a small nation like New Zealand is? Is New Zealand a little brother to other nations in the world?

First lets start with as New Zealanders refer to it 'just across the ditch' - translation: over the Tasman Sea - with Australia. New Zealand and Australia are linked by foreign policy in a number of ways that could make the relationship seem to be that of a brothership, but only at first glance. New Zealand and Australia are inclined to mirror each other's strategic interests. New Zealand has its written down in its most recent White Paper that New Zealand would enter a conflict if Australia was attacked. The gesture is returned in the most recent Australian White Paper. New Zealand and Australia have however had a more recent separation in directions when it comes to economic pacts of free trade. When Australia was willing to go with the United States not only to Afghanistan but also Iraq, the United States became inclined to respond with a free trade deal, New Zealand who refused to go to Iraq was not so lucky. But normally the protocol with New Zealand and Australia was that New Zealand would go first, and then Australia would follow when it came to free trade deals. In clear defiance, New Zealand secured a free trade deal with the People's Republic of China - the cross Tasman relationship is yet to take on the same dynamic leaving a seperation in both aspirations and trade deals. As the saying goes, when the Australian economy catches a cold, New Zealand gets the flu, but being that New Zealand is increasingly aware of that as the case - New Zealand is looking beyond Australia more and more. The makes New Zealand less aligned with Australia deal wise beyond Oceania, but also less inclined to see its role as to follow Australia around like a lost little brother.

However, one of the key reasons that New Zealand doesn't look to Australia as a big brother, is that New Zealand already has a free trade deal with Australia. But in saying that that says something about countries that New Zealand doesn't have a free trade deal with. Let me give you an example of what I mean with India. A New Zealand news anchor by the name of Paul Henry made fun of the Indian Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit on the government television station TVNZ, to the extent that would rather not repeat the remarks here. India was not amused, and within a few days the Indian Minister of Internal Affairs summoned the New Zealand High Commissioner Rupert Holborow. He apologized and made the statement that:“as New Zealand’s High Commissioner to India, I would like to convey my deep regret for the hurt these comments have caused". How much this reflected on existing free trade negotiations between India and New Zealand one can only speculate. However, when New Zealand Prime Minister John Key went to India later on that year, he found the Indian Prime Minister playing hard ball and no free trade. But it's more then that, New Zealand's main export is dairy and meat produce - I have a Chinese friend in Hong Kong who drinks New Zealand milk, it's more expensive she says then other milks, but tastes so much better. Hong Kong seems to exist as a demonstration of what a lack of protectionism looks like: New Zealand milk. But countries like the United States and India are more inclined to want to hold back - they have their own subsidized or noncompetitive farming industries to protect. New Zealand and free trade just doesn't work in many cases, leaving a fiasco to be revealed - particularly when New Zealand considers the dependency it has on free trade, over dealing with its marginal economy at home.

New Zealand currently has a National government focused on fiscal responsibility, which means putting the squeeze on government spending and cutting public sector jobs, as well as services. The sharp reality is that that leaves New Zealand without a plan, and dependent on growth and investment with our trading partners to keep ourselves afloat. A buy of New Zealand farms by Chinese, German and American investors over the last few years are a good demonstration of that. But New Zealand's inclination to look to expanding global markets for their milk and dairy produce are another demonstration - take what has gone on with New Zealand and China since a free trade deal has existed there. A dependency mindset is certainly in existence here, but more then just that - there is a fiasco in the making. If New Zealand hits the brakes and goes into recession - current arguments of fiscal responsibility are going to look like part of the problem, not the solution. That will especially be the case when New Zealanders reflect on tax changes made by their current government. What would likely result? A shake up of internal change, if New Zealand wants growth, it needs to be an innovator - that means new markets and new products - and a focus on investment. For the time being New Zealand has its focus on free trade as its source for growth over investment. There will be less of that in the future with this internal reflection. It might cost New Zealand, but there is always the potentially for it to really pay off. New Zealand for the time being might be a little brother to other countries in the world with the carrot of free trade. But for how much longer? New Zealand cannot sustain its little brother complex with free trade being a wild goose chase.

Making Strategic Thinking Post-Containment

Recently there has been a lot of focus on what to make of strategic thinking as we move into a post-financial crisis world with existing defense challenges. Part of this means the juggling of what to spend more or less on and how to spend on defense to ensure you have your focus in mind. Recently, Jonathan Dowdall wrote an article for publicmic.com which spoke around these points. He suggests there is increasingly a lack of 'strategic logic' with a vocal focus on expanding Washington's commitment to the Asia-Pacific region and putting maritime assets necessary to meet that policy on the "chopping block". The worry in his case is that Washington is saying one thing to the world, but domestic interests are leading to cuts which is ultimately bringing about something else - Dowall doesn't count the deployment of Marines in Australia for much after all. But in him holding that worry, I find myself upon another worry asking what strategic challenges exist currently that warrant a force built more so for a cold war era type confrontation. The big 'hot spots' of the region I would point to as being the Korean Peninsula, and perhaps Taiwan, as well as the Spartan Islands - what are we to expect, focusing on Korea for example. But more then just that, to what extent are the current budget cuts reshaping foreign policy and leading to a post-containment era of thinking.

Let me look firstly to the example of North-South Korean case to show you what I mean. The strategic situation that exists on the Korean Peninsula has been a 'hot spot' brought back into the 'lime light' with the death of Kim Jung IL and the uncertainly of what that means for the future, and the possibility of confrontation. Minxin Pei recently wrote an article for The Diplomat called 'How Kim Death Risks China Crisis' expanding that concern to relations between the United States and China with a worst case scenario playing out on the Korean Peninsula. His fear stems from the fact that a reaction by either the United States or China to a situation - like a crisis post a North Korean collapse or aggressive military action by North Korea - could be seen by the other side as "provocative and ill-intentioned". He goes on to suggest that a crisis in North Korea that involves South Korean efforts to restore order beyond the 38th parallel and the loss of North Korea as a 'buffer state' for China could be a frustrating situation for China which might lead to military action in response. I think however that the focus of North Korea as a 'buffer state' speaks to cold war era type thinking. China might for instance have greater interest in seeing a stable Korean Peninsula without the constant worry of a regime crisis causing a North Korean refugee crisis into China. He also makes this point as though having General MacArthur suggest the war against communism should be extended beyond the Korean border with China happened just yesterday - are tensions really that high? China is far from the 'self conscious' state it was at the time of the Cold War, and its also unlikely to involve itself in a war that could hurt its economic development. I think the United States, South Korea and China could avoid conflict with a multilateral agreement to acknowledge both sides sovereignty, but not before a crisis comes about like Minxin Pei suggests, that would just raise suspicion about intentions. A position like mine talks to post-cold war thinking, but what about post-containment thinking?

Just a few days ago Gareth Evans wrote an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer called: 'Foreign Policy isn't About Good and Evil' which argued along what I would call post-containment thinking. He makes two important points, firstly he warns of the risk of limiting our options as a result of casting those world nations that we don't like as "irredeemably evil" - bringing one ultimately to have to use a gun like the case of Iraq to make ones case. This point with relation to North Korea leads me to Kim Jong-un who some consider as a figure more closely related to Kim Il Sung, likely to use military actions to leverage power against the South for aid and increase his political support amongst those in the military in North Korea as Michael J. Green points out in an article for Foreign Affairs. One can get a very different point of view from reading Cheo Sang-Hun's article for the New York Times where the focus is on North Korea's recent call for implementation of an inter-Korean summit to help see investment between the two nations, something that many in both nations believe could lead to less fragile relations. It could also be the first wave in an eventual opening up China style of North Korea's economy. The aim is not to argue to North Korea's innocence. One could argue that Kim Jong-un is a fresh face with a relatively clean past as Cheo Sang-Hun points out, but that leads me to Gareth Evan's second point in asking: Do countries really always have to be evil? Is there not still the potential for a turn around?

Containment is founded on two pillers, the first directly relates to the threat of 'domination' such as was ideological in the cold war. The secound relates to a notion of putting a country in a cage, and waiting. Hedley Bull made a unique point about world relations saying that countries are able to pursue what he talked of as "purposes beyond ourselves". In doing so, a country is able to behave without any direct payoff in sight. This type of thinking doesn't assume that countries don't always behave with their own interests in mind, but instead that countries can behave without their own interests in mind - in doing so, one leaves a unique opportunity to cooperate selflessly - and change the reputation a country like North Korea might be held to. The concern for the Korean Peninsula in the case of China and the United States isn't about domination, its about greater regional stability that won't be had by the strong invention by either side. But the demise of a policy like containment doesn't rest simply on the changed relations between countries like the United States and China since the end of the cold war. Instead post-containment thinking involves leaving the window for a country to change open. The bigger challenge for the region isn't just seeing the behavior of a state like North Korea beyond a 'black and white' psychopathic mask its often given, but instead giving North Korea an opportunity to behave without wearing that mask to the better of its reputation and be outward engaging. If one is to think along lines like these, one is thinking post-containment.

The Korean Peninsula: The Window to Unification?

Unification for South Korean's is a topic they often don't leave themselves overly concerned with, but recently the topic of unification has been brought to the surface. In September the government of South Korea started a nation wide campaign over radio, television and the internet to promote the benefits of unification, according to Jon Rabiroff at Stars and Stripes. The government of South Korea has also been taking steps to put in place a plan for eventual unification, including considering how to pay for it. According to a report sponsored by the Unification Ministry, the cost of unification if it were to happen in the next ten or twenty years could be between 734 trillion and 2.8 quadrillion won [the numbers are astronomical, even when converted to dollars]. The report has prompted a dicussion of a tax levy to pay for such a huge expense in the future, which might be sent to be ratified by the National Assembly over the next few months according to an article from the Korean HonHap News Agency. However, with all this talk of costs, what do everyday Koreans think about the idea of unification, and the costs and turmoil that might come with it?

Being that I am currently living and working in South Korea, I have the somewhat unique advantage of being able to go to the source on this one, and actually ask everyday Koreans what they think about unification. Most have been friends, who I have brought up the topic gently with. Some of the responses have been interesting however. "I really don't think unification will happen, it will be a slow process if it happens" one of my friends in her early 20s said. " We will have to wait for North Korea to develope economically post a political revolution, otherwise we will face all the burden of paying, which will be huge" she said. "I really feel that North Korean's are completely different people" another one of my friends in her late 20's strongly pointed out, "and a completely different country". "Besides, we were born with the two Koreas side by side, and we cannot see things changing or even imagine it different". I have found it interesting that it seems alot of those in their 20s to mid-30s who seem to have this view, and I am not the only one who has noticed. Andrei Lankov wrote an article in the Asia Times Online which talks about a trend of South Korean's sharing less of their identity with their long lost neighbor to the north. Part of this he suggests comes down to different economic experiences between the two Koreas, but part of it also comes down to the clear divide that exists for those born with North Korea as a seperate place, and in most respects irrelevant. A recent public opinion poll by the Peace Research Institute found a huge increase in South Korea's who see North Korea as a different country, even ethnically. This points to a sharp distinction between older generations who remember Korea as one nation, and see unification as important, and a younger generation whom the idea of unification seems potentially strange, costly and in many respects scary. But all this makes me wonder, what does this mean for the future prospect of unification?

Roland Bleiker in his paper Identity and Security in Korea - which appeared in the Pacific Review back in 2001 - pointed to an interesting problem for future Korean unification. He pointed out that in the sudden collapse of leadership in the north, a resulting refugee and humanitarian crisis might be dealt with by a military from the United States and South Korea "trained to fight and destroy, rather than help and heal". Whilst what he is talking about seems like the manifestations of worst fears, it is certainly interesting to consider how a humanitarian crisis and break down in the north might be treated by South Korea. Whilst the rush of germans over the Berlin Wall at the end of the Cold War was iconic for Germany and the rest of the world, the same kind of event might trigger a different reaction from the South, which would prevent the same kind of open trade of citizens. Imagine for a moment, that there was a break down in North Korea. One cannot be entirely sure the first place North Koreans would go would be South Korea, but what happens in those initial moments might play an important role in whether the two nations come together. The South Korean military holding back refugees from entering South Korea could lead to a frustrated reaction from the people of the north instilling mistrust. Consider for example that North Korean's who have been blocked off from the world for so long, might not have the painful example of German unification to reflect on, and instead strongly favor a quick coming together, which they feel cheated of. Having a growing number of South Koreans who see the North as very different wouldn't help the situation politically either, specially if a reaction of 'they should really sort out their future for themselves' comes in to play. A reaction like this from a generation of South Koreans, it could be said, would kill the idea that Korea can go threw a quick unification similar to that of East and West Germany post the Cold War era. But that isn't the only result I think one can draw from a much newer generation of Koreans with a different way of looking at things.

I think South Korean's are often left unconcerned with any topic involving their neighbor to the north because South Korean's [like everyone else] are more inclined to worry about what they can change - you are driven to madness otherwise. And whilst many in the world might consider living next to a crazy social stuck in the past communist state like North Korea scary, South Korea is a bit like a married couple forced to live next to a dance club - after a while you get use to all the noise, and over the hipe. That being said, I think that one would have to be incredibly stupid if they wanted to claim that South Korea's don't care, particularly when it comes to something like unification, even for a much younger and unique generation of Koreans. Writting this piece on generational change and its effect on the future of both Koreas - or Korea depending on how you are willing to look at it - makes me want to draw not only a different prospect, but hope for the future - rather then the brute stategic stage plan I draw above. For I don't think South Korea's choice is either flight or fight when it comes to a break down in North Korea and the issue of unification. No one can say that unification has become more or less likely, even with the opinion of a younger generation of South Koreans considered. The prospect for a future generation of Koreans deciding their nations belong seperate maybe swiftly changed with experience of this long lost brother nation cast as irralvant. With this experience, Korean's might come to realize how similar and unified they already are, and change their minds about whether they belong together or not. With this considered, time is not running out for unification because of a new generation with a different perspective. The window to unification is not necessarily a fixed one. There remain reasons for unification to take place in many different ways, but my own fear is simply that a strategic debarcle would mean Korean's miss out on the opportunity to come together under less painful circumstances then many fear for Korea's future.

Egypt: A Road to Summer from the Arab Spring

The world currently watches with curiosity and a lot of fear at what is happening within Egypt. With the protests that happened earlier this year ushering in a schizophrenic military regime aimed at sustaining peace in the country and holding back turmoil whilst looking to eventually hold elections. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces has been bent on keeping peace and resenting pressure to hold elections and take into account public liberties, instead cracking down on those within Egypt wanting to criticize the slow pace towards elections. According to Jackson Diehl at The Washington Post, there have been a number of actions by the regime which include bloggers being threatened for criticizing the military council and thousands sentenced to prison by military courts. It seems that individual freedom of speech to a given extent has been challenged, whilst Egypt continues to make steps towards elections planned for November this year. All this leaves me wondering to what extent the illiberal nature to Egypt's pace to democracy might turn Egypt's future as a democracy rotten. But first let me explain, what do I mean when I say 'illiberal'?

Freedoms that are often associated with democracy, have in the past to a given extent been discussed as though they are an inherent attribute of democracy, like suddenly holding elections makes your society liberal. As Fareed Zakaria wrote in an article for Foreign Affairs back in 1997 however, the application of democracy can still leave a country without liberalism, particularly if a countries transition to democracy doesn't bring forward individual freedoms before rather than after elections are first held. As he puts it, the process to pursue freedoms after an election can be tedious, with those in power unwilling to give it up to the people, particularly in a constitution. This kind of logic could translate over to Egypt, with a military regime handing over power to a parliament and/or president whom remains uninterested in acknowledging individual freedoms, like those of free speech and peaceful protest to a full extent, with the want instead to counter economic and civil turmoil in protests. This isn't the only way that elections could hurt civil liberties however. If elections result in a divided parliament where power resides after elections, then the writing of a constitution could become difficult with parties unable to agree on what a constitution should include, leading to a stale mate and again halting progress. All this concern raises a further question: What steps should be taken to keep Egypt on track to a bright democratic and liberal summer, with the acknowledgement of social and civil liberties and elections.

The Egyptian people have plenty to be frustrated with, with Amro Hassan for WORLD NOW noting that protests have again rocked Cairo as people express their frustration with the military. The military has been trying to meet push for shove however, threatening those that protest. However those whom have been protesting, have been demanding social justice and acknowledgement of individual freedoms, as AFP reports. If the current military leadership of Egypt sees threatening the people as a means to sustain the path to democracy, then it would seem that the the Supreme Council of Armed Forces lacks a strong conception of liberalism. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces needs to acknowledge that in light of the current protests, holding elections in November isn't going to magically get everyone off the streets and back to work. The demands of the people are not just for elections. Egypt needs a strong notion of freedoms of the people, and a notion of where power will reside following elections before elections, not to risk a mess either from the whomever gets elected, or from the Egyptian people who will challenge the legitimacy of whomever is elected because of the lack of civil liberties before elections. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces needs to change its behavior and mind set if it wants to get the Egyptian people off the streets.

I think that what Egypt needs right now, isn't a constitution necessarily, but the notion that it has an invisible one, where the current Supreme Council of Armed Forces and whoever comes to power after, understand that the current revolution pends on the idea of freedom, upon many others. Any leadership that ignores freedom is going to find that the revolution won't move from the streets, and will remain, to the pain of any economic and political progress for the country. Therefore, to bring about a summer in Egypt, leadership in Egypt needs to take steps to bind the rights of the people into all actions they take, and set an example for future leadership in Egypt to follow. This should include a notion of what freedoms the people should have that can soon be written into a constitution in the future - when the time is right. Egypt has made so much progress already, even with the current backlash from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces. Egypt now has a much more free press, and a number of different civil groups pinned to the idea of democracy, but also political and economic progress in the country. It needs to utilize this passion, and part of that will come with democracy but part of that also comes with acknowledging the voice of the people, to as full an extent as one can. If any Egyptian leadership wants to avoid a cold dark winter from the Arab Spring in Egypt, they need to embody the change the people of Egypt seek, before an election, as much as after.

Turning the World Green without Kyoto

Turning the world’s businesses towards sustainability and energy efficiency has been posed as one of the great most recent challenges, left untouched. I don’t have to tell you about climate change, I am sure you had already had the pep talk about how climate change is a looming threat, but taking that as an initial premise, where does that leave the world? Recently I have been reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. Within it, Friedman gives a pitch that climate change and America’s oil dependency calls for actions in the form of legislation, to put America on track. What he suggests, is taxes and fixing a higher price for oil, and charging polluters for the damage they do to the environment. He does so arguing it plays a critical role in fostering demand for American businesses to become energy efficient. This kind of position reeks of a focus on the state to solve the problem, and create the demand for businesses to turn green. As Pierre-Francois Besson puts it in an article for swiss.info, businesses are lost without a new Kyoto Protocol; the business world lacks the signals of demand to gather investment for green and sustainable business. But is all this really fair, and the world needs to work outs the issues that currently prevent the Kyoto Protocol holding weight after 2012, and business is simply waiting around for a new Kyoto and fixing of prices? Or can businesses accumulate the investment needed to get a green tech revolution rolling without Congress or a Kyoto?

It would certainly seem so with companies like Google, and GE entering the market of developing sustainable energy. GE has been filling in the slack, according to Bryan Walsh from TIME Magazine, saying that GE is keen to pick up some of the huge demand in the United States for solar power, and become an expanding player in that market. In doing so, GE has been investing in venture companies with the best ideas on moving solar energy, and sustainable energy from the far future to the present. With businesses keen to cut down on power bills, and save money, the demand for solar panels is astronomical, with Nick Engelfried from GreenAnswers.com reporting that 2011 was a record year for solar in the United States, with a 66% increase in sales. There seems much potential on the horizon for that increase to simply be the tip of the iceberg however. A number of companies like First Solar have been growing on this demand, not just in Germany, but also in the United States. Google is another company making huge investments in sustainable energy, keen to see new and innovative energy generated that is good for the environment, but with a catch; it has to be very cheap so that such a business can be exported to the developing world, like India and China, increasingly the next big polluters. And it’s not simply solar feeling the investment, nor is it just Google and GE, with Ford, and Intel eyeing green tech. According to Jon Swartz from USA today there is little doubt the focus is on new innovation with energy, with 4.9 billion invested in US start-ups, up 40% from the previous year. But all this leads me to my next question: Is this like the great revolutions of the past, like the internet investment bubble, quickly mounting to shrivel when the realization hits that this is the utility to create the revolution, rather than the revolution itself. What do I mean by that?

Thomas Friedman in Hot, Flat and Crowded suggests this in his book, which puzzled me. For someone trying to advocate a revolution in green energy, why would they suggest there is no money to be made? For example when it comes to smart grids, which would allow homes and businesses to make money off power they generate and don’t need and use. Such a grid however will be increasingly important to growing demand for sustainable energy, because if they can sell it, investment in such a grid means money to be made by those keen to grow the sustainable energy market share, and sell solar panels, or sell businesses windmills or green energy machines. There is plenty of money to be made on both sides, and suggesting it’s the next ‘crash and burn’ isn’t just a really bad way of trying to convince a need for investment, but also off the mark: there is plenty of money to be made. When it comes to Thomas Friedman’s argument in favourability of having government or having a Kyoto solve the worlds energy demands, it seems clear these positions have jumped the tracks and are missing the revolution happening right under the nose of all keen to see the world become more green. It’s true that demand is necessary, but with the variously stocks like Google, taking a hit as oil prices increase; companies are increasingly becoming aware that one cannot rely on old sources of energy like oil into the future. Oil prices might go up and down, but it’s a continual roller coaster ride I’m sure many companies will be keen to get off, sooner rather than later. Because the next rise could be a record, and that would mean torture for the share price of many if not any big company flouted. Not only that but the state is not the one who should be looked at to solve the world’s problems, particularly with mounting global state debt, and slow recoveries worldwide. Economic forces are much better in full steam without government clogging the prospect of growth with a new tax, and making its slow legislative process the backbone of the revolution on our doorstep; they are already getting there without a carbon tax. In my view Thomas Friedman is preaching to the converted; the green revolution has already begun.

The Strategic Significance of Aid for the Korean Peninsula

The recent stir up of pro-democracy movements in the Middle East has again brought the world to reflecting on the dictatorships of the world, and wondering about their possibility of the same happening elsewhere, particularly in the case of North Korea. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's hard line polices towards their neighbor to the north differs from the liberal 'Sunshine Policy' taken up by previous presidents. Instead South Korea is holding back aid from North Korea, in the hope of showing North Korea's leadership that there are penalties for violating international law, talking specifically of the sinking of a battleship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong island last year, as Sunny Lee from Asia Times reports. Conservatives in South Korea seem concerned with the continued norm of relations paved by the 'Sunshine Policy' of the past, calling it the lost decade, and instead wanting change. The hope might be to change the behavior of the north towards better relations, with the insistence that an apology appropriate for the attacks in the most recent past. However, with South Korea holding out aid from the north, questions of the strategic significance of food aid come about, and whilst some in South Korea like the hard line taken with North Korea, others are more concerned with the deterioration of relations, particularly with nuclear weapons thrown into the mix. It is clear that North Korea remains dependent on aid, but will this hard line really work and chance relations with the North, or simply force a stand off, as North Korea takes the lack of aid as a challenge?

Whatever the clash, South Korea has vowed to meet it head on, with the military in South Korea having been criticized for its slow response last year. But will tensions really rise, and is the lack of aid from South Korea really a hard line taken by some, but not by others. South Korea hasn't been the only one hastily holding back from giving aid to the north for political reasons, with the United States worried that any aid provided now will end up being distributed during the mass celebrations next year with the marking of the 100 year birth anniversary of the regime's founder Kim IL-Sung, Shaun Tandon at AFP reports. Such aid would be deployed to prop up the North Korean regime, as a number of conservative law makers in the United States worry. However, others call out the aid as humanitarian, and essential for those in North Korea. One such voice being Jimmy Carter, who after his visit to North Korea, called the withholding food for political reasons a 'human rights violation'. However, whatever gap of aid is left by the United States and South Korea, NGOs and the United Nations seem totally willing to fill, undermining whatever political intentions might be had towards North Korea. The United Nations sent food aid to some of North Korea's most vulnerable on humanitarian grounds, and a Christian organization from South Korea sent multiple truck loads of food threw to North Korea, Sunny Lee from Asia Times reports. This might just lead to a change in friends, rather then learned lessons from North Korea. In the end, stability and continued peace on the Korean Peninsula may still be dependent on not what aid North Korea received, but who it received aid from.

The United States isn't the only player South Korea is keen to see play along however, with the big elephant in the room being China, in the hope of enlisting its help to talk some sense into North Korea. Many however are inclined to try and paint relations between North Korea and China as rosy, with Chinese officials keen to make a point of nothing-to-see-here when Kim Jung IL visited China earlier this year. One such scholar keen to paint a rosy picture is Mu Chunshan, who wrote for The Diplomat that with co-ordination between North Korean and Chinese agents, there must be a strong relationship behind it. But I really wonder, if there is a strong relationship, then why all the secrecy with relation to Kim Jung IL's visit. It remains an open question. I remain unconvinced that China's reformist and old-style communist schools within the party are able to come together on what to do with North Korea, and both are playing a part. But in any case I think that the relationship between China and North Korea is not the one to tell of existing tensions, it is instead the relationship between South Korea and China that should be the focus, and act as the thermometer for the region. China has no interest in playing along with South Korea and starving North Korea of aid. In the end, China is trying to consolidate a want to prevent war on the Korean Peninsula and cause swarms of North Korean refugees to head for the Chinese border, and maintain North Korea. In that being the case, it really comes down to perceptions and intentions.

In the end, future stability towards maintained peace on the Korean Peninsula, in any form, is bound not to aid itself, but the intentions that come with the lack of it, particularly in the case of North Korea. If holding back aid from North Korea by South Korea and the United States are aimed with sparking revolution and toppling the leadership of North Korea, future tensions will mount. South Korea should look to the voice of China to determine where such perceptions from North Korea sit, and how desperate the North Korean situations is. South Korea should increasingly consider that if China's voice continues to be more loud, stern and supportive of the North, then perhaps 'Sunshine' might be necessary to avoid tensions sparking a hot war. China may not be the Communist nation it once was, driven by a cold war mentality of maintaining a fellow 'cat' at any cost. But it will respond with its interests in mind, in wanting to prevent a break down in North Korea. If China continues to aid North Korea, as others don't, its voice will be one seen key to North Korea. China will maintain a voice of assurance, but also reformist, as both schools of thought within China play against North Korea. With that as food for thought, perhaps it should be considered that any change from North Korea in terms of behavior will be dependent on the relationship between China and North Korea, more so then how much South Korea can starve North Korea of aid in the future, particularly if South Korea continues to see the strategic significance of aid for North Korea greater then any other force it can exert on its neighbor to the north.

The Reality Check for a Post-Bin Laden World

I have to admit, when I heard the news that Osama Bin Laden was dead, I was shocked. So much so that I didn't believe it, I thought the news anchor said that "Obama is dead". But I wasn't watching Fox News, and sure enough, as surprising as it was, Osama Bin Laden was dead. But with this comes a lot of questions, firstly how does someone so wanted get to hang around in Pakistan for so long, without anyone noticing? This is the man after all, we were all suspecting would be found if anywhere in the same kind of accommodation that Saddam Hussein was found in: a hole and not in a mansion. If there really was a blind eye cast when it came to Osama being in Pakistan by its government, there is no doubt that tensions will be on the rise in US-Pakistan relations. Already, law makers in Washington seem keen to 'check up' on Pakistan, ensure counter-terrorism really is on their mind, and that all the aid the country receives to fight terror isn't being received blind to the actions that would be required of someone remotely a US ally. But is this really how we should go forward in shaping relations with Pakistan? That wasn't the only thought that came to mind for a Post-Bin Laden World.  The other striking perception amongst american's [6 in 10] that the death of Bin Laden as a 'death of a leader' means time to reconsider the United State's role in Afghanistan, and troop withdraws, as Susan Page reported in the USA TODAY. Are these two related though in reality, or is this a stream line of Osama as a Hitler type figure, that if you kill, the war machine won't know what to do with itself. I am not blindly for the war in Afghanistan, but I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and think for a moment, is that really how this works, or do we need a reality check?

Lets start with the question of Osama and Afghanistan and Ill move on to talk about Pakistan in due course. Recently, Fareed Zakaria emphasized the point that the take down of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan demonstrates a success of the White House focus on counter-terrorism, over troop movements, and investing the efforts against terror with a lack of dynamic to how Al Qaeda will evolve further. It makes sense to not focus just on Afghanistan, I admit, specially when you consider that there remains large potential for recruitment of new terrorists, not just from nations in the Middle East: The biggest Muslim nation in the world after all is Indonesia in Asia. But beyond that geometry lesson, there is the possibility that Osama's death doesn't actually mean as big of a victory of the United States against terror, as they celebrating in the street outside the Oval Office post Osama's death would suggest. I found an interesting article in Foreign Affairs by Brynjar Lia called "Al Qaeda Without Bin Laden" that was quick to point this out, arguing that Bin Laden wasn't the primary reference point when it came to the ideological and religious thought that encourages Jihad and terror. Even the individuals responsible for spreading such ideological propaganda from Al Qaeda remain largely separate from Bin Laden, another point Lia makes. That is a reality of Al Qaeda, the fuel for terror isn't a single individual, but instead grievances such as western military intervention in the Islamic world, which haven't gone away. This leads me to wonder about this 'hit and run' counter terrorism approach of the White House. To continue to swoop in, and take out an Al Qaeda operative, to leave a gap that gets quickly filled. The reality is too, the more you do just that, the more dynamic Al Qaeda will become. Which leads me to my second point: What to do with Pakistan and their efforts against terrorism?

It seems that Pakistan has much to be frustrated about beyond the United States wanting to extend requirements on future aid to the country in the future. Another article from Foreign Affairs, The Pakistan Dilemma, by Shuja Nawaz suggests just that, with continued U.S. drone attacks in the country, one in march which killed 41, putting the government in an awkward position, with its people deeply angered over C.I.A drone attacks on the one hand, and having the U.S. knock on the door on the other to ask more of their efforts against terror. There remains evidence to suggest that Pakistan, wasn't aware of Bin Laden's location, but not taking the time to probe leaves open that question, and challenges US-Pakistan relations. I understand the idea of secrecy, and how important Bin Laden is, but is Pakistan a client state, or an ally of the United States: swooping in with Navy Seals doesn't exactly leave room to grow ones relationship beyond a simple "do as I say". It also creates further mistrust and cracks in Pakistan, as the military grows ever angrier, creating distance between the civilian government with its hands out for U. S. aid and military in Pakistan concerned about drone attacks, as Nawaz hints on. In my mind, this leaves little room for a co-ordinated effort between the United States and Pakistan against terror. Why not instead want to reach out to Pakistan's military, and allow them to conduct their own efforts against terror, it is after all in their own interests to have a nation with less terror, and sustain peace to enhance their economic development, rather than just remain dependent on U.S. aid. The United States should move to consider this, as a long term strategy, because the reality is, they are not going to win an ally with continued drone attacks, specially if the military is potentially thinking: "we'll we could have caught those operatives, without the risk of civilian deaths". Forgive the metaphor, but Pakistan isn't a prostitute that can be brought off, its a nation with its own dynamic interests, fewer of which are pro-terrorism than this leaving Pakistan to answer questions about Osama Bin Laden in their backyard potentially suggests. Pakistan can be co-operated with.

Fareed Zakaria, as do many other academics, law makers, and policy people, as the time to take actions when it comes to Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But the reality is, firstly, I don't see a necessary connection between  Al Qaeda and Afghanistan: keep your eyes on the ball, and be open to a dynamic strategic future, where troops being pulled out of Afghanistan is put on the table in considering whether they need to be there, not which Al Qaeda operative is dead. This kind of proposition heeds not only to the points made above, but the observation that nation-states remain distinct from organizations like Al Qaeda bent on terrorism, a consideration that should be made in the case of Pakistan. As for this counter-terrorism of 'swooping in' and 'getting the bad guy', I really think that we need to grow to consider the dynamic: we don't have a fixed terrorism structure here, we have a dynamic one. There is also the potential that in doing so, you make things worse, rather then better, in the case of Pakistan, but also Al Qaeda - particularly when you loose touch in how the organization will evolve. Fareed Zakaria is a very intelligent academic, but I really worry that all this talk of getting terrorists in this window of opportunity is too trigger happy. Take a deep breath, not to simple give the terrorists room to take one, but instead give room to observe Al Qaeda specially in watching how it moves to fill gaps. For it doing so, one can learn something valuable about Al Qaeda and who to move to make a priority target to undermine the organization further in the future. 

Don't Call My Generation After the End of the Alphabet

Generational issues seem to constantly come up to be left unexplored, but i refuse to leave this can of worms unopened. I am well aware that generations don't like to talk about each other, specially when prescriptions that come with talking about a generation are often generalizations, and sometimes aren't always nice. I experienced this first hand recently, having read an article from Tim Williams at Leader Messenger titled: "Generation-Y Slack Workers". As you can tell from the title, this article amounted to an arm chair take on those born mid-1970s to early 2000s [otherwise known as Millennium Babies] and how they were a lazy generation, who made for poor retailers, and don't know how to work. But in reading this article I reflected on all those days I spend with the grandparents, being told how "back in my day, we worked so hard and you young'n's just don't know". It seems in my mind, the member of the Baby-Boom Generation who wrote the article was getting ahead of himself, this Millennium Generation hasn't even found its spot in the world just yet. I know that the generation who fought in World War Two and lived threw the Great Depression did really take some strife, to say the least [known as the Greatest Generation]. I also know the generations which followed have had to deal with  the Cold War that loomed on [known as the Silent Generation] and finally the generation who had to rebuild the world and re-think the world following the Cold War, and consider themselves self made [the Baby-Boomer Generation]. Whether these proscriptions are fair is one thing, but does the most recent and following generations [Generation x, and Generation y] really deserve such bland and boring names, or am I hoping for too much with my expectation that my generation will amount to be worth more then just a letter towards the end of the alphabet? 

On my surfing of the internet I did find what amounted to some optimism of my generation, participially when it comes to this generation makes new use of the internet. I am just talking about the art of blogging - well kinda - but I am mostly talking about internet tools like Facebook and Amazon, Ebay and Craigslist, not only a new playing field when it comes to communicating but also when it comes to making money. One such article in The Sydney Morning Herald by Sarah Whyte ["Generation Y steps up and shows who's boss"] coining Generation Y as instead Generation E - the Entrepreneurial Generation. This article sees the newest generation increasingly wanting to branch out, selling new products over Ebay for instance, and bring a social aspect that Facebook provides to advertise a product [the article mentions two young men making good money selling leather jackets over Ebay]. Millennium Babies understand the value of the internet, but creating new business opportunities isn't the only way its being used. Almost a month ago now, New Zealand was struck by a large earthquake in Christchurch, and with the devastation being broadcast nationwide many wanted to help, what could they do? Facebook! Within a few days of the disaster 2000 people had signed up to a page on Facebook called "Accommodation for Earthquake Stricken Cantabrians" where fellow New Zealanders offered accommodation and "UC Volunteer Army" where university students could volunteer. How these new internet tools are being utilized is far from amounting to just being narcissistic and simply teeny-pop social, like some older people would have you think. Instead, the internet is increasingly evolving to take a new field to offer a helping hand and do business, a lesson that the Baby-Boomers should take seriously, if they want to hold out retirement just a little bit longer. That isn't the key reason I'm enthusiastic about my generation however. 

As much as this may be Generation E, I think this Generation will increasingly be Generation D - Dealing with Disaster Generation. I was brought to this conclusion, not only reflecting on how this generation was brought to action with Christchurch, but also with relation to the youth in Japan and how they have met the call to action with the recent Tsunami there. A Time Magazine article "Rising to the Challenge" written by Hannah Beech certainly hit home with this point, not only with a what seemed like a waking youth, with unemployed students keen to help in any way they can. This was not only a new generation waking to a natural disaster, but challenges to existed around them, particularly with unemployment so high in Japan with the established Baby-Boomers holding all the posts, the newest generation has been increasingly lost. With this new generation energized, their remains the prospect that the newest generation might strive to ignite Japan's economy, left in stalemate for the last two decades - at least that is the hope the article expresses. It is my suspicion however that the Millennium generation is going to get  use to having to pick up the pieces after a national disaster, specifically when it comes to weather events. With an increasingly dynamics climate turning once in every hundred years events into once in every few, this generation may really have no choice. However, D doesn't just stand for Disaster, but also for Dealing with State Debt. Its clear that a number of western nations continue to stack up large bills they intend on leaving for the generation's that follow - and that means us. That doesn't even mention the fact that with the Baby-Boomer generation retiring, there is going to be more  people living off superannuation then well be paying taxes, which is a recipe for disaster. 

While the newest Millennium Generation and the Baby-Boomers increasingly run along side each other, we have an evolving world increasingly in wake, but also in wait. Because so many of the disaster that rest on the horizon have been created and left to wait by generations past. Challenges economic in nature like Debt, and global like Climate Change, are going to be dealt with by this generation. Not because thats what we decide, but mostly because they will be in our face, and it will be increasingly clear what needs to be done, and that we need to have the audacity to do it. This is where my enthusiasm really does rest, and where I move to recent 'x' and 'y', and move from 'e' and 'd', and instead towards this generation being 'A' at the front of the alphabet. I think this generation is the Audacity Generation. Because having to deal with the challenges put to us, I think this generation would respond: not to the next! We will be an adaptive, innovative, and solution focused bunch. In doing so, I think their remains the prospect that this generation could have a huge achievement on its hands. It should be said tho, that ultimately, what the accomplishments of generation 'y' will be remain for the future to hold. And in that being the case, I think instead generations should name themselves, rather then let the leaving generation remain critical of them with their grandfather complex, and bestow them with their name - and potentially demonstrate their lack of creativity and vision. There remains the prospects for the Millennium Generation and no one should claim to have summed them up so early. Specially when it comes to naming them after the last few letters of the alphabet, don't limit us just yet to a 'y' or an 'x'.  

The Beijing Bubble: Continue the Rise or Ready to Pop?

For some time now, China has been an economy on the boom, maintaining GDP at levels around 10 percent, and soaking up demand for oil, coal, and food as more of China's population move into the middle class and buy cars, own better houses, and do business. This demand has done wonders for countries rich in natural resources - once such example is Australia where China has large holdings in coal, where huge amounts of investment have continued to keep the Australian economy buoyant, even with the recession following the 2008 financial crisis. China's growth is keeping the global economy on its feet. However, many are inclined to wonder if China's growth is really sustainable like has been the case in the past, as real-estate loans come into question. Recently, the government has been ordering stress tests on such loans by China's big banks. The picture is increasingly not looking good with trillions of dollars of loans being put as "questionable repayment capacity" and government officials issuing a statement this week say that "the sustainability of development of China's macro-economy faces uncertainty". As a result, investors have seen downgrades in expectations of investments in China. This has created wide speculation that China may be on the wake of something along the lines of the 2008 financial crisis. But is this really China's symptoms of it being on the edge of something big, or is this simply just a country showing growing pains, but not a financial meltdown around the corner?

Speculations have run rapid that something is brewing, not just with the status of many real-estate loans in China at question, but also with the continued chain of supply of what is being called 'easy' or 'cheap' money, keeping the housing market afloat. Much of this investment has accumulated from the state, where huge investments which were made with the recent 2008 financial crisis in the United States, threatening to dampen growth in China. Interestingly enough though, many are inclined to see this as the key ingredient to how China may be generating a financial housing 'bubble'. One such article was written by Vikram Mansharamani in The Korean Times, and talks about the growth of China's housing market having an intrinsic link to such 'cheap' money, with over-investment from the Chinese government leading to huge amounts of unnecessary consumption and waste. Examples of such have been sighted by others, with Time Magazine pointing that malls seem to exist in China, that with even all the investment it took to make them, remain largely empty of shops. To many this is alarm bells, not only because of the wasted investment, but also because this seems similar to the prime ingredient that many are inclined to point to as causing the 2008 financial crisis in the United States. With the Clinton Administration willing to set up huge funds in banks to help more people buy homes at lower deposit rates, they creating an oversupply of loans, which many see eventually leading to a culture of defaulting that lead to the crisis of 2008. But is Mansharamani really on the mark here, and the same thing is happening in China? Oversupply might be a fair issue at hand, but I think Mansharamani has it wrong here; it isn't the only one, nor is it the most important 'bubble' symptom here.

I remember reading an article in The Economist back before 2008 and the financial crisis happened, that reflected on the huge amount of growth that had happened globally, and considered that recent sparks in inflation might cause a minor blip in growth, as the United States and the worlds markets adjusted to the huge amount of growth. I cannot help think back to that article now with relation on China. Inflation has been astronomical in China as of recent, with consumer prices rising 5.4 percent, according to recent data, the highest ever experienced by the country. Rising prices of fuel and food, with swarming demand, have left prices on a constant rise, and many in China left trying to keep up. Recently, I noted a protest in China of truck drivers, saying they with such high prices of oil they could not afford to do their jobs, and make a profit. Inflation should be the key consideration, because it might make a number of people unable to afford paying their mortgages, whilst also squeezed with increasing food and fuel prices as well. If that happens, we could see a huge amount of defaulting of people who own homes in China, which could lead to fluctuations in house prices and loss for investors in the housing market. But I really wonder if we will see it like we did in the United States, it may be the case that a lot of demand still exists for homes and that any drop in prices would be halted with continued home buying of those who can afford to. There still remains a lot of pressure to own homes, particularly amongst young Chinese men trying to impress their potential wives - which with help of the 'one child policy' - are in the few compared with men, making the expectation that a potential male husband-to-be has a home high.

As far as I'm concerned a few empty malls or over-building of houses doesn't prove that China has a 'bubble' in its real-estate market. With growth that remains unimaginable to many in the United States, there is the possibility that all this building is only access and left empty for the time being, as China's real-estate industry struggles to try and keep ahead of demand from a growing middle class population. But if interest rates go up as the government tightens the supply of the yuan, they are going to have to do something about inflation. Yang Yao in a recent article for Today Online points this out, suggesting that the Chinese authorities need to look to loosen restrictions on imports - particularly in the case of food - and make customs procedures simplier, and try and lower inflation. However, this may not be as easy solution, with China's want to import deflation potentially leading to an export in inflation, as more of global food supply gets clogged with China's demand. All on all, I think whether China's real-estate market goes 'pop' depends on whether inflation is really slowing growth, if their is a 'tug of war' when it comes to the global food market, China could have a real problem on its hand if inflation doesn't slow to the pace of wages. My prediction would be, along the lines of 'The Economists' optimism back in 2008, China will go threw a brief adjacent with inflation. But be warned, like the weather man, I could be wrong. As for if China really does have a 'bubble' on its hands, I think we will really just have to wait and see. Even if this 'Beijing Balloon' is full of helium and continues to rise, eventually all balloons go 'pop'; assuming there is a bubble in China's market that is.  

The Obama Doctrine: "Long Term Policy Change Or Short Term Policy Pitch?"

The recent events in Libya and Ivory Coast have to many woven a new thread on how humanitarian efforts are meant to unfold, and whilst it might be unfair to put the Obama Doctrine on trial just yet, I think we need to take a look at a presidency that which preached such high hopes, specially when it came to foreign policy, and humanitarianism. The Obama Doctrine can be summed up as pretty much everything the Bush Jr. Doctrine wasn't, less about just fighting Islam as a force for evil in the world, and more about winning the hearts and minds of those in Middle Eastern nations. It also means being a fair minded and assertive ally of groups at the throats of each other, specially in the case of Israel and Palestine. And really, all this isn't bad, even with conservatives in the United States quick to suggest that this is a toothless proposal, and that America needs to put troops on the ground when it comes to fighting terror; but the war isn't that black and white, specially when it comes to making democracies out of Muslim nations, so new to the idea, and divided nations along ethnic or religious lines. Those who cry out for action from US forces on the ground, need to go back to Afghanistan and Iraq and count the civilian casualties: that isn't the way to win hearts and minds. It admit there should be a time and a place for troops on the ground tho, saying that he would support those freedom seeking people's of the world, who needed America's hand in his inauguration speech. Just this week tho we have seen how America doesn't necessarily want to follow along with Obama vision for foreign policy, with the burning of the Quran in the United States sparking an uproar in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Alot of Americans are again wondering, "didn't interfering in the Middle East like we are in Libya put us in the mess we had with Afghanistan and creating the monster of Islamic terrorism?" and "why aren't we more focused on issues at home rather then what is going on in Africa or Libya or Qatar?". This really makes we wonder, as much  hope there really is in a lot of what the Obama Doctrine includes, is American really willing to go along with this new type of foreign policy for America, and is the rest of the world really seen any differences in America's way, along the lines of "Hope" and "Change"? 

Take for example what has been going on in the Ivory Coast as an example, and let me explain what I mean. This nations has been threw hell and back in recent months, with a civil war cast of the election of a new leader Alassane Ouattara, and the previous president - Gbagbo - unwilling to step down. The fighting has ensued for some months, and the blood shed has been great, not to mention the atrocities of soldiers taking what the want and raping whomever women they please. Recently tho, attacks of forces loyal to Gbagbo went too far, and having attacked the hotel where United Nations forces were stations, and attacking UN peace keepers protecting civilians, the UN turned from enforcing a cease fire, to taking actions against Gbagbo in the interest in toppling his power, and brining his crimes against his own country to a stop. It didn't take long for French special forces to be called in, and whilst their role was paved as simply support, its clear that they were involved in capturing Gbagbo and letting the democratically elected leader Ouattara take charge in the Ivory Coast. He was quick to say that all those whom have committed crimes will be brought to justice, and it didn't take long for the fighting to stop, with images of Gbagbo seen wiping himself with a towel on national television putting the nail in the coffin for the movement in support of him. But that isn't the happy ending of this story folks. Because I am sure there were many watching the same pictures in Libya, and Qatar, caught with similar atrocities and the same ruthless type dictator were thinking "hey, what about us?". Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that this specks to dictators all around the world, but really does it, specially considering it has taken so long, with the United States and United Nations doing nothing? I'm sure instead the rebels in Libya were thinking "so really we have to wait until Qaddafi starts blowing NATO aircraft out of the sky, until the United Nations will take action against Qaddafi". And the dictators of Libya, Syria, and Qatar took away the lesson that: "Ok, as long as we don't attack UN forces when and if they arrive, then we are fine". Many might also be looking at the strong connections that Alassane Ouattara has with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and that really, this humanitarian demonstration amounts to a re-invention of colonialism, just in a different form: particularly considering how French special forces were involved. Now I know, as I am sure it is apparent to you, that America isn't the one in the wrong here, but I am concerned that instead of doing something and leading the way, America is not leading, and now showing with example, cause all this leaves me thinking: What on earth happened to winning hearts and minds? 

I know I have a habit of painting these recent posts on the Middle East with interpretation, and trying to understand what others are thinking, but too often I see a lack of this, we want to see how what is happening in the world is relevant to me, in the United States or Britain, but really what about these other Middle Eastern countries? I am not trying to encourage terrorists, nor am I trying to say it how it is, I am trying to example, this is how people will take what is going on, cause this is what it looks like. No one can doubt there is a huge amount of audacity in what Obama has proposed, but really does it amount to what the world and America wants, it seems in reality these are two separate things, which is the contradiction of thoughts and minds on the one hand, and sitting on the side lines trying to tell it like you want it to seem on the other. I know that there might be those who reflected on America using Afghanistan as a spring board to fight the Russians and Communism way back when, which sparked the extremism the world is currently having to put up with. But in reality, those who point that out, should really go listen: because I suspect the most frustrating part was when American assistance to fight the Russians packed up, and left, and those in Afghanistan who fought, felt portrayed and used. Toppling Qaddafi's leadership might be in a way making Libya a spring board for democracy, and make America worried they cannot commit in the long term, but this Administration needs to have a think: You cannot win the hearts and minds of anyone from the sidelines! This kind of sidelining, really creates a bleak picture for a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize; makes him look more and more like the Clinton Presidency with a failure to act in Bosnia after the Black Hawk Down embarrassment of how to enforce humanitarianism. America can build on its fear of interfering in African countries, and Middle Eastern ones, and  a want for regional bodies like the African Union to call the shots, and let America keep its aid dollars at home, but really now is the time to lead. The hearts and minds are still out there, and still waiting, in Libya, Qatar; waiting, and wondering: "Short Term Policy Change or Long Term Policy Pitch?". Because a new administration can pitch all they like, but they should remember: its the action that really counts. 

Operation "Confused Intentions": The No-Fly Zone over Libya

The operations over Libya for many paint a re-newed picture of good old international solidarity against human atrocities, with Qaddafi's forces having attacked Libyan civilians with ground forces and air strikes, the United Nations Security Council switched into gear to put through a resolution allowing the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, to stop continued attacked by forces attempting to crush rebellions in the country with brutal force. Within hours of leaders meeting in Paris, did air strikes from coalition forces take place, with the US and British Navy launching tomahawk after tomahawk [112 in total just in the first few hours of strikes], it didn't take too many days for the coalition to declare that Libya's air force was 'all gone'. However, is this really all about setting an example for other nations in the Middle East with their own rebellions to crush, who might seek out similar measures specially if their own domestic uprisings begin to take hold and make their leaders situation desperate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other nations like Syria, have all been occupied with their own uprisings, and yet have also supported the idea of opposing Qaddafi, preventing this operation from being an entirely western one, with Qatar even committing four fighter jets to the efforts over Libya. Whilst Arab support for the operation over Libya does make it clearly different from Iraq, or Afghanistan,  [not only because NATO rather then the United States is now in charge] there are however still questions about the true intentions of all this support for the no-fly zone over Libya. With so much frustration having been aimed at Arab leaders like those in Saudi Arabia from Qaddafi [having been accused of being western puppets] it does bring forth the question of how much of this is about human rights and setting an example, and how much is about just getting rid of an annoying Qaddafi who is certainly distasteful to other leaders in the Middle East?

There remains one big reason that the leadership elsewhere in the Middle East may begin to take a role in what is happening in Libya, and that comes down to the need for forces on the ground. If pro-Qaddafi forces occupy cities, it remains difficult for coalition forces to launch attacks, not only with the looming possibility of inflicting casualties on members of the public, but also identifying rebel forces from Qaddafi forces [not all of Qaddafi forces are in tanks, and visa versa]. Bahrain, a small pin prick nation on a map of the Middle East, right next to a much larger Saudi Arabia, experienced external forces from its neighbor recently. With Bahrain in turmoil as the pro-reform revolution took hold in the nation, the royal family in the country called an emergency, and ground forces from Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were quick to respond. Their arrival didn't mean a blood bath, but there were civilian casualties and it remains uncertain as to whether foreign troops were used, and involved. There has already been consideration that a coalition led no-fly zone over Libya may not be as effective as thought, which was one of the main reasons why the United States was reluctant to support the resolution in the first place. If foreign troops are eventually needed, its certain they aren't going to be from the United States, with the White House already being questioned from the current involvement of US forces, having been forced to spell out: 'No US troops on the ground'. With the French, and the deficit concerned British caught in a similar position, any ground forces on the ground in Libya may have to be from the Middle East, particularly if the coalition want to keep this from looking like another Iraq and Afghanistan and potential a western 'oil snatch' like some in the Middle East would believe. While Libya does have neighbors like Egypt, with a better track record for dealing appropriately with public uprisings, they too many be counted out instead needed to maintain stability in their own nations, rather then helping out with the situation in Libya.

If things really do get messy from here, where will the coalition look to go next with a no-fly zone in place and the violence continuing. And even worse, what happens if rebel forces in Libya make an advance, and don't take the humanitarian message to ear, and take comparable restraint to how pro-Qaddafi forces did when he took Libyan cities. What would the coalition do then? It might be that the rebels are a ground force, lacking aircraft [not that it matters, cause no-fly means no-fly for everyone, the jet sent up this week to test the no-fly zone by military forces supporting Qaddafi discovered that] and the military weapons to launch the same indiscriminate attacks that pro-Qaddafi forces did, but whilst taking back cities where sentiment towards Qaddafi is still favorable, attacks on members of the public could become frequent, depending on how divided the nation truly is over the transition. In the end, letting events play out on the ground would send the wrong message, as though the no-fly zone was there all along to give rebel forces the upper hand, a call they may do anything with, specifically if they see the no-fly zone in place against Qaddafi, as the involvement of anti-Qaddafi nations would indicate. Whether this unlikely turn of events plays out [there remains indication that rebel forces, do understand, that if they are do take back cities, they have to do it without bloodshed and civilian atrocities - these are their fellow citizens after all, and Libya may not be as divided as this play out of events suggests] there should be concern, for the current plan needs to incorporate the future, and you cannot just slap the UN slicker on forces from Qatar, Syria, Morocco, or Saudi Arabia, and suddenly make them angels, nor can you enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and expect to make angels out of rebel forces. Having troops called in may be something that doesn't happen, but if it does, the coalition needs to have a big think - considering what options they have ruled off the table already - cause from the looks of who they have involved themselves with, they could have some serious confused intentions on their hands, and not left with options if things turn bad from here.