The Crisis of Contemporary Society

Technology has given human civilization more material comfort than ever before. Often commentators claim their is progress in the world with more democratic governments and free markets. This is an illusion. Safety, comfort, and stability are not equally distributed around the world. Poverty, war, and racism will continue to be persistent problems with limited hope of a permanent or sustainable solution. The world of the 21 century is more unstable economically and politically. Global society has entered a state of general malaise. It effects populations at a large level and a personal one. Mental and physical health can be effected. Life has become extremely regimented even in a country that considers itself democratic. There are more feelings of isolation,even though mass communication is widely available. Societies are losing meaningful philosophical and ideological value systems. They have no alternative to older paradigms and thus engage in erratic or bizarre behavior. A nihilistic description of this perspective is not accurate, because frustration projects itself in public discord. At one time the concept of the future was an idea that seemed thrilling and prosperous. The dream has led to a nightmare and a existential crisis. The realization that the world can change for the better has died and been replaced with either disillusion or lack of hope. A revolution in politics, culture, and society may not be entirely blocked by the power structure, but by the frustration and lack of solicitous vigor. Change can happen, yet it will not be the revolutionary change to depose oppressive structures. Society is thus frozen unable to improve or advance.
      Labor was at one time a source of fulfillment to people. The modern day workforce has been turned into a regimented revolving door. The attitude that has emerged from the post-World War II period is to get a high paying job and become a member of the corporate machine. It is not about pursing a career that is satisfying to an individual, but the one that can make the most money. There are workers who have reached the top of the corporate structure, yet still find themselves in a state of melancholy. This may be due to the fact their work is monotonous and does not produce anything of significance. Management positions and workers in service sector jobs do not produce an actual product. This has to an extent been dissolved by advancing technology and a rapidly changing economy. Manufacturing or liberal arts related occupations may disappear in the distant future in which robot labor will replace human labor.  Those who cannot adjust will be trapped in a permanent underclass. To an extent this has happened with elements of the workforce. There are people who have not received a university education and do not have the skills to remain competitive. The other part of the spectrum has a workforce with a university degree or higher, but few jobs available. Those who do procure employment either victims of stagnant wages or limited opportunities for advancement. Workers go from company to company seeking to sustain themselves and have enough savings for retirement. The majority of the workforce is trapped in jobs they hate or work they feel that does not contribute to anything. This may explain the increase in depression or anxiety in particular developed nations.
      The lack of a belief system has been replaced by an obsessive materialism. A person's value is no longer based on their character, rather their status or the amount of wealth they have. This distortion in thought has resulted in various problems. It even ruins interpersonal relations among various societies .The traditional conservatives say lack of religion is what causes most of the societal issues of today. This is a false statement on the basis that any thought system that seeks to reduce critical thinking  will never improve anything. Religion has at least in the modern world, been used a means of creating cohesion in fractured societies and states. People who have many personal challenges use it as a coping mechanism when there is no other solution.The developed nations either put a huge amount of investment in technologies that are frivolous such as phones, cameras, or various entertainment media. Consumption has become so lucrative the public does not even understand how much they have become controlled by advertisement. It has become so prevalent that it has rewired human behavior to only think in terms of consumerism.  Consumerism has become a religion unto itself. Religion is in many ways an empty system of conviction. It expects people to believe a set of ideas without a rational thought process. Politics also does this in a similar fashion and is having a crisis of its own. The Western democracies and the experiments in the developing world  constantly speak of values of freedom and human rights. However, their own societies are unequal and engage in warfare. This rhetoric and contradictory behavior  proves that there is not a solid foundation for those beliefs. The superficial presentation demonstrates the death of a genuine political  belief system. Political philosophy has been reduced to sound bites, wedge issues, and a hostile binary political faction system. Contemporary society has lost the love for higher ideas in regards to ethics, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics.  What has been put in its place is a hedonistic consumerism.
      Public  health has become a major issue. The longer people live the more ailments they will face. The modern day lifestyle of fast food and sugar based diets has caused heart disease and weight related illness. While there still are nations that have food insecurity, there are some that are being killed by too much consumption. This will cause strain on healthcare systems. A rapidly growing aging population and youthful people in poor health will be a challenge. The population gets less exercise and is more comfortable with a sedentary lifestyle. obesity will not just effect one region of the globe,it will spread. The lack of honest food labeling and nutritional contents can be blamed, but there is another element.When one lives in a land of abundance, there is a belief that their should be no self control. Eating, drinking, or doing anything in excess is seen as a right. People can have knowledge of the negative health effects of a behavior, but will continue to do so if it provides them an escape. This also explains drug addiction to an extent. Excess becomes a way to escape from particular life struggles or challenges that are not easily solved. Public health is not just effected by personal choice; environment plays a role. The dramatic climate shift occurring on Earth combined with increases in air pollution will cause more chronic illness. Respiratory system diseases will gradually become more prevalent. It is unknown what effect this will have on the nervous system. The current age seems to pose more health problems. The more terrifying aspect is that bacteria has the ability to become resistant to antibiotics. Microorganisms evolve just like other animals and it appears they are responding to human made medicine. The maintenance of public health will become a even greater problem in the future,if no action is taken.
        There is a general sense of frustration and malaise in global society. This is not anything new. Discord has been a part of human civilization and been the catalyst for revolutions. The difference now is that more people are so disillusioned that they rather not even try to challenge the established order. They either disengage from the society only focusing on themselves internally. The contemporary era has become one of manufactured dissent. False movements emerge out of social media or organizations with ulterior motives. There have been activists who have been attempting to raise awareness of certain issues for decades, but are either marginalized or silenced. Protest means nothing if it is done in a manner that will be effective. Disruption is not the goal itself, it is designed to stop the mechanisms of the oppression or injustice. The modern day protest does not function in the most effective manner and as a result there is no change. People all around the world are frustrated with their government or the decline in their communities. Neoliberal capitalism has generated more poverty internationally and the gap continues to grow between classes. Their is also a disparity between nation-states and ethnic groups. The West continues to intervene in African , South American, and Asian nations. Neocolonialism and racism are policies of the United States and the European Union. The White man's burden has been replaced with democracy promotion under the cover of protecting human rights.  The world population hears on a consistent basis news of war and mass migrations that were induced by Western aggression. World leaders no longer seek to change or improve the world. They have become simple managers with limited policy objectives. This is culpable for such an increase in anger and distrust of government globally. The early 21st century is the age of protest, yet this unconventional participation has no direction or defined goals other than just to oppose the government. Sadly, the frustration that is generated by various populations is not directed in a positive way. There is a wave of nativist  xenophobic racism sweeping across Europe and the US born out of economic turmoil, societal decline, and disappointment with the state of affairs.
     There will be more challenges as the 21st century progresses. The future has been in some literature portrayed as a utopia. Utopia is fiction. The world will never reach a state of calm or peace. Humanity's nature to destroy and conquer is too powerful to overcome. Conflict has been the driving force of societies and states. Conflict does not have to be open warfare. It can simply be division among a community, groups, states, or political governance system. While individual freedom should be valued, there needs to be a level of cohesion to keep society functional. Due to various factors that cohesion is eroding. Around the world people are dividing themselves more so around ethnic, religious, and national lines. This just increases chances of larger conflicts erupting. The lugubrious prospects of the decades to come make many worry. It was erroneously thought that their would be an end of history. However, their have not yet been new political systems or ideologies to say that liberal democracy and its values will be triumphant as a global system. There will still be many competing systems of conviction. The contemporary crisis of society is both  personal and within a wider community.  It will be harder for certain people to adjust to the rapid cultural, technological, and social changes. The rural areas will gradually disappear giving way to more urbanization. Mechanization and robotics may make employment limited unless some form of universal income is implemented. Labor, public health, and dealing with discord as well as nihilism  must be top priorities for any leader. The unusual aspect of this situation is that possessions create the illusion of prosperity. The countries that are considered developed still have a working class that is not allowed to advance itself.  The world needs a paradigm shift for the sake of its survival.       

Knowledge of Self

The Myth of a New Cold War

Rising Russian power has caused many to suspect that a new Cold War is developing. This international situation with Russia and the West is not a Cold War, rather the rise of multipolarity in global politics. The US and EU countries do not want to see a new international order. NATO continues to expand in Eastern European nations with involvement across the world. The Cold War of the 20th century was a different political situation. This was a struggle between two competing economic and political systems. The world of the contemporary era is more complex. Russia, China, India, and possibly South Africa as well as Brazil are rising powers. The United States has to comprehend the political reality that it will no longer be the sole superpower. Alliances and power relations will change. Commentators and foreign policy analysts fail to realize this shift in global affairs. The phrase a new Cold War becomes nothing more than a call for mobilization against Russia. Instead of realizing that Russia could be of political assistance on some common international issues, antagonism has become official policy. The only way the world can maintain stability or reach some level of peace is through cooperation. The new Cold War myth is designed to continue conflict, instigate future hostility, and maintain relevance for a dated military alliance. 

      The Cold War has to understood in a historical context. Otherwise, this term which is a misnomer will induce irrational trepidation. The Cold War was a geopolitical struggle between the United States and Soviet Union. The defeat of fascism left a power void, which these two nations would fill. When World War II ended it was a radically different world. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R would fight wars of proxy around the world. The Iron Curtain divided Europe, while the former colonies of France and the British Empire fought for independence. The world was now divided in a bipolar political power structure, with a Non-Aligned Movement between communist East and Capitalist West. The Non-Aligned Movement never favored any superpower, but found themselves swept up in Cold War tension and conflict. Indochina, Korea, and Afghanistan would become major battle zones of the Cold War. The US chose a policy of being against both anti-colonial movements and communist governments. The Soviet Union would align itself with anti-colonial movements or nations if it suited its interest. While it preached anti-imperialism it refused to extend this message to the peoples of Central Asia, the Baltic states, or Eastern Europe. Since the 19th century, Russia had extended its imperial power into Central Asia at the expense of Tatar and other Asian peoples. The reason Eastern Europe came under a sphere of influence was to make it a barrier to future invasion. Joseph Stalin believed that Germany and Japan would rise again. He was not convinced that the West would come to the aid of the Soviet Union if another World War were to break out. The failure of the victorious Allied nations to keep the wartime alliance going caused the Cold War.

There could have been genuine efforts for a sustainable peace. This did not happen due to the differences over ideology and economics. The military industrial complex had become too powerful and gradually arms production became a major part of the US economy. Constant warfare was the only way to sustain this model of economic production. Neoliberal capitalism requires new markets to conquer to remain relevant. This explains why the US was more concerned about maintaining strongmen in particular nations. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was brought back to power by the US and UK, after the removal of  Mohammad Mossadegh  in Iran. Cuba had been under US domination until Fidel Castro deposed the Fulgencio Bastia regime. The year 1953 was a during point after the CIA intervention in Iran. The US would continue to overthrow both democratically elected governments, communist ones, and others which simply disagreed with its policies. The problem with US policy was that it saw communism as a monolith. This was not the reality, because many socialist and communist states developed their own political versions. Broz Tito's Yugoslavia and Enver Hoxha's Albania did not pledge complete loyalty to the Soviet block. Mao Zedong 's version of communism was a mix of populism, Chinese nationalism, and his own theories about revolution. China and the Soviet Union during the Khruschev period had strained relations. The African socialism of  Kwame Nkhrumah and Julius Nyerere combined Pan-Africanism   with Marxist philosophy. Gamal Nasser's socialism was tailored to Pan-Arab nationalist thought. Not all the Eastern block nations were completely  submissive to the dictates of Moscow. Nicolae Ceausescu the general secretary of Romania condemned the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and refused to let Soviet troops cross over through Romania. The reason he was not challenged was because he played both the West and the East against one another using both. Romania had more independence compared to other Eastern block nations. 

International politics was just as complicated in the Cold War past as it was today. There was more danger due to nuclear arms races and destabilization campaigns through covert action. The possibility of nuclear annihilation was high. Both superpowers were doing nuclear tests and were building massive arsenals. The Cuban missile crisis was a demonstration of nuclear brinkmanship in which both powers would test the limits of each others endurance to pressure. President John F. Kennedy made the error of attempting to overthrow the Castro government with Cuban exiles. The Bay of Pigs invasion resulted in failure,but also made Fidel Castro seek protection from the Soviet Union. To deter another invasion Fidel Castro and Nikita Khruschev decided to erect nuclear installations. Kennedy's response was to impose a blockade. This was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. An agreement was reached in which the US would dismantle its installations from Turkey and the U.S.S.R would do the same for Cuba. There was the possibility that if Kennedy had lived there would have been peace and eventual normalization of relations with the Soviets. If Khruschev did not fall from power, and Leonid Brezhnev did not become General Secretary the Soviet Union might have followed a different course. Unfortunately, the series of events took another route. Lyndon B. Johnson became president and expanded the US role in Vietnam. Full scale war came by 1965 and continued until 1973. While the Truman Doctrine proposed containment, the Kennedy Doctrine went to expand that to preventing communism anywhere in the western hemisphere. Working from these two policies Johnson wanted it to be eliminated militarily. The reason the Dominican Republic was invaded and involvement in Indochina continued was that simple containment was not enough. The United States was seeking elimination of communism as a global force. This however was not possible unless there was war with the Soviet Union itself. Richard M. Nixon realized he could exploit the Sino-Soviet split as means to solve the problem of the Vietnam War. The US became victim to its own policies and South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. The Nixon Doctrine wanted to hand responsibility for security over to allies rather than the US providing assistance. After the loss of Vietnam the US was damaged in national and psychological sense. While America Suffered a major defeat, the Soviet Union was having economic and political challenges of its own. 

          The close of the Cold War marks a significant turning point in history. The world would see new countries emerge, but the US would remain the sole superpower. Like most powerful nations it would abuse weaker nations around the world. The US continued to intervene in various nations including Iraq and Somalia. The NATO alliance was not dismantled, but became more belligerent in countries in Europe and Asia. Yugoslavia  was attacked, specifically Kosovo and NATO since 2001 has been on extended mission in Afghanistan. The world was gradually becoming more complicated. The United States found itself in a world in which there was no opposing force to balance its power. This posed a problem. The reason was that there would be no justification for maintaining a military industrial complex or keeping NATO relevant. The 9/11 attacks gave a justification for perpetual warfare. The US was then embarking on a war of terror, which was in reality a method of  enforcing regime change and imposing particular political systems globally. Terrorism has existed in various form throughout human history, but it is unlikely that small armed groups would defeat the US by force. The United States wants to be the hegemon of the world and formulates its foreign policy to  prevent rising powers from being competitors. Russia and China are seen as threats, when they may not be. The Cold War was a struggle between two superpowers. The current situation is that the US has a war on  international  multipolarity political power system. The response from the US-EU block is a violent one. A better course would be to resolve issues through negotiation with Russia, rather than belligerence. This is not possible, due to the fact the US needs an existential threat. Without one, the military machine and the identity of the country suffers. The end of the Cold War may not have been a triumph. The result has created more instability and crisis spanning multiple continents. 

         The US and Russia tension does have roots in the Cold War past, but the current situation is far more complex. Vladimir Putin is not seeking rival of the Soviet Union, rather he is attempting Pan-Slavic revival. This former movement developed in the 19th century when the Slavs were under Austrian and German domination. It was this ethnic nationalism that was causing the decline of  the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There has been a divide between East European and Western European. The tension is based on that past memory of West European presence in traditional Slavic lands. The rise of Yugoslavia and the experiment with Soviet communism, Pan-Slavism  declined in terms of having ideological and political influence. There were obvious conflicts between Slavic peoples. Russia and Poland have had a bitter history between invasions and partitions. This explains why now Poland has become closer to the United States and NATO. The Putin presidency is seeking some form of Pan-Slavism , but not through forceful conquest. Russia maintains close relationships with Belarus and Hungary. These nations unlike their neighbors do not want the follow the political and economic system of the European Union. Vicktor Orban and Alexander Lukashenko will most likely be drawn closer to Russia out of objection to EU policies. Vladimir Putin's Pan-Slavic revival involves developing long term strategic partnerships with particular Eastern European nations. The current problem is Ukraine in which the US has influenced since its independence.  

The US AID organization was involved in funding opposition parties. Ukraine became unstable under Vicktor Yanukoych and it was clear the West wanted a leader more in line with their orbit. Russia saw that the sudden protests were a pretext for intervention. Yanukoych was not removed by legal means, but by mobs from far-right extremist elements and pro-EU factions. Ukraine, if it had a competent leader could have acted as a fulcrum to both West and East Europe. The divide became even worse with the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation. This was a major error in the Obama administration, because it cause a sudden surge in tension. This began prior with NATO's invasion of Libya. Russia supported the UN resolution under the context of responsibility to protect. There was a belief that there was not going to be a change in regime in Libya. When this happened, Russia felt betrayed in a way. US behavior in both Ukraine and Libya demonstrate differences in the ideology of foreign affairs. The United States still wants to do whatever it wants to any nation without repercussion. Neoconservative doctrine has become the foreign policy of the US. 

Nation building, aggressive war, and regime change have caused the image of the US to be damaged around the world. The rhetoric of promoting democracy or human rights is designed to mask the vicious contest of the US attempting to maintain hegemony. The reality is that Russia, China, and more countries possibly from the Global South will be world powers. A campaign that is designed to prevent nations from developing peacefully will only result in mass resistance to the oppressor power. This resistance can take many forms. It could either be armed conflict or sabotage. Russia most likely hacked the DNC as a form of revenge in response to US interference in Ukraine. There is evidence that the Trump campaign  had contact with Russian individuals associated with the  federation government. President Putin denies that such cyber espionage occurred, however both the US and Russia have done this. There is the idea that Vladimir Putin favored Trump rather than Clinton. Whoever is in office a general anti-Russian sentiment will be present. Many times Donald Trump has been accused of being a puppet of Vladimir Putin. This is an exaggeration. Donald Trump has not been able to improve US-Russia relations or reach a common consensus. Trump continues to have the US more involved in Syria and has become more bellicose in regards to North Korea. These issues will certainly put the US and Russia in conflict with one another. Removal or attacks on either Kim Jong Un or Bashir Al-Assad will result in a Russian military response. Russia has been assisting Syria in fighting armed groups aligned with the US and ISIS. Syria is one of Russia's important allies in the Middle East. Donald Trump wants to counter this by arming Saudi Arabia and Israel to act as possible attackers against Syria and Iran. Regional conflicts are attracting major world powers who then escalate them into possible mass global conflict. Donald Trump is not capable of brokering a peace nor understanding the intricacies  of Middle Eastern politics. One can conclude that US-Russian relations will never reach  cordial status.   

         Another reason the myth of a new Cold War is being promoted is due to the mass media and Clinton aligned Democrats. Mainstream media outlets almost imply that Hillary Clinton lost due to Russian meddling or espionage in the 2016 election. Donald Trump won because of  racism, hate, and an uneducated section of the population that voted for the first time. The Democratic Party cannot come to terms with the fact that they chose the wrong candidate. Bernie Sanders had brought more younger voters into the party and  the party did not aggressively go after them for the cause of Clinton. Similar to the Cold War there has become more anti-Russian rhetoric on US media. Putin is demonized almost made into a Saddam Hussein like figure. The way Russia is discussed it parallels the anti-communist rhetoric of the McCarthy era. The difference is that we are not living in a world of bipolar international politics. The international stage has become open to other states to rise. This gives the United States a feeling of inadequacy and insecurity. Economic struggles and  internal strife cause the US to search for a scapegoat. The blame is either placed on Russia, China, liberal politics, or the entire Middle Eastern region. The unfortunate element is that the American public has such little knowledge about Russia or Europe, they will believe anything presented on mainstream media. The section of American conservatives who hate the media do so for the sole reason they believe it is part of a "left-wing conspiracy." Such accusations are false seeing as the majority of  American news outlets are either pro-war or favor some form of American exceptionalism. The conservative argument is anger that is directed at people who do not share their values or convictions. CNN and Fox News both present Russia as a threat to international peace. The Russia -US tension has extended into media, with the US government wanting Russia Today to register as a foreign agent. RT is just like any other 24 hour news channel, yet it is now shown as some form of propaganda arm of the Kremlin. This simply is not true. RT America has employed former CNN anchors such as Larry King and Ed Shultz. This makes a viewer question the channel's credibility of being different from other media. These facts a ignored to promote a simple narrative that the US is fighting a Russian takeover of the world. 

           The US is not in conflict with only Russia, but multipolarity as a system of international affairs. The United States since the end of World War II acted as a successor to the collapsing British Empire. The military interventions at some stage will cause economic decline in the US. The Cold War had more of a balance of power between the two superpowers and the Third World. When the Soviet Union fell there was a wave of instability in the world. The United States did not have another power to restrain it. This meant it could abuse its sole superpower status. The Iraq War became a turning point and other nations took notice. The Russian Federation chose a path of regaining its past military strength, while simultaneously becoming more involved in the Global South nations. Russia continues to reach out to Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, China, Greece, and Germany. The relationship with Germany is especially important. Chancellor Angela Merkel  understands that having business ties to Russia can maintain a functioning economy. The other European nations like the UK and France may not associate with a country that the US has tensions with to complicate their own alliances with America. Germany has in effect had its competitors removed from investment in Russia. This will  only increase Germany's power and it may become one of the major leading powers on the European continent . Russia and China have become closer in terms of economic and military collaboration. The world is not divided between a free world and a communist east. There continues to be a divide in foreign policy. Russia wants a Pan-Slavic revival and the US still wants to maintain a neoconservative world view. There is limited possibility for peace unless some perspectives change. If  Russia-US relations are to improve, NATO build up must cease and there has to be an agreement on both Ukraine and Syria. The myth of a new Cold War is nothing more than an excuse to initiate possible conflict with the Russian Federation. Such a conflict would be devastating and the world would not recover. The Cold War ended comparatively peaceful, but the nature of this US-Russia tension could result in a wider conflict.            

            

   

   

Zimbabwe Under Siege

Zimbabwe is undergoing a major political crisis. The military has appeared to have launched a coup and placed President Robert Mugabe under house arrest. This may have been temporary, because President Mugabe made a public appearance. There has clearly been an increase in political factionalism within ZANU-PF. Questions still remain about a successor to the 93 year old president and what the future of the nations will be. President Mugabe has support, yet some citizens took to the streets to call for his resignation. It is unclear just how many approve or disapprove of his rule during the current situation. The West and the mass media are already showing their jubilation and bias, hoping to see Zimbabwe collapse. The lugubrious fact about the crisis is that was internal. There is no evidence entirely to suggest that China, the US, or Zimbabwe's traditional adversary the UK had involvement. The military insisted that this was not coup even though soldiers were taking over public spaces and media outlets in the country. The reason for this explanation was probably an attempt to avoid sanctions from the African Union. It could also be that the military was attempting to stop Grace Mugabe from taking the presidency. The First Lady's rise has caused much tension and disarray in the political landscape in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe's refusal to name a successor also added to the current crisis in the country. It will be only a matter of time before the EU countries use this as an excuse to intervene, possibly with the force of NATO. South Africa is in a way preventing such an event by playing a mediating role between President Mugabe and the military. As the crisis progresses it is obvious that Zimbabwe is under siege by both domestic and foreign enemies. The President should be allowed to finish his term as designated by the constitution. If he is to pass on during his service in office, a successor will serve until elections are held. A leader should not be removed by an armed force or by street demonstrations. This promotes a political culture of mob violence and military rule. If President Mugabe is to be impeached there should be a legitimate reason under the law to do so. Arguing this legally would be a challenge. Robert Mugabe is one of the last leaders of the liberation struggle era and one of the few African leaders keeping Pan-African ideology alive. This new attack on Zimbabwe and its leader is a way to reverse the progress made from independence. 

           The heart of the problem is rooted in the dismissal of  two important political figures. Joice Muju was vice president serving from 2004 to 2014 and was in many regards a good candidate for a successor. However, the political ambitions of Grace Mugabe targeted officials that were close to President Mugabe's inner circle. She wanted to be the president of Zimbabwe and attempted to ruthlessly remove obstacles in her way. This calculated plan to seize power resulted in one fatal error. Removing Emmerson Mnangagwa as vice president sparked outrage among the military. He had been a veteran of the Rhodesian Bush War and earned much respect from the military establishment. Grace Mugabe does not have the same stature or support. While Grace built up a base of followers, many in the military establishment despised the idea of a Grace Mugabe presidency. She was head of the Women's Wing of ZANU-PF and has been First Lady since 1996.When Muju was removed this marked a point in which Grace Mugabe became more politically powerful. She almost began to resemble a Lady Macbeth like figure with in Zimbabwe's political system. It appears that after the military incident in November of 2017, that Grace has lost most of her political power. Her whereabouts are unknown, but there is indication she could still be under house arrest. There is a possibility that she may flee the country seeking asylum. Emmerson Mnangagwa currently has been in South Africa since his removal from the vice presidency. 

There is a power struggle for the presidency when a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe emerges. There remains uncertainty about who will run the country then. The ZANU-PF party is split among members who still support President Mugabe and other who believe that there should be transition to a successor. What must be avoided is a possible civil war that could emerge in a rapidly changing landscape. 

          President Robert Mugabe has become embattled. His fight is not just for the presidency, legacy, or  preservation of power; it is is for Zimbabwe's national sovereignty. Zimbabwe had to fight a long war of liberation against the British and white minority rule. The Ian Smith regime with its abuses, left many Zimbabweans in fear. Rape, torture, and murder by colonial settlers was common place. These were not the only crimes committed, but also the theft of land. During the 1960s  land was stolen by whites by means of force. The UK and the white minority government realized that they could no longer hold onto Zimbabwe. The Lancaster House Agreement was designed to redress the issue of stolen land. Years passed with limited action. The UK did not uphold its part of the agreement. This was when President Mugabe decided to retake what was rightfully property of the citizens of Zimbabwe. The year 2000 marked a decline in UK- Zimbabwe relations under Tony Blair. The US imposed sanctions over the controversial 2002 election. While that election had irregularities, the US was doing this for another reason. This was the early stages of America's new era of the War on Terrorism. This policy of aggressive war was targeting any stage that challenged US hegemony. Under a neoconservative foreign policy direction the US would attempt nation building projects and impose their version of a democratic system around the world. Zimbabwe became another target just like Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Iraq which would be invaded by 2003. Robert Mugabe had relations with various countries that the US either started conflicts with or was attempting to attack or undermine. Zimbabwe maintained close relations with the People's Republic of China and Iran. Zimbabwe was a close ally of Libya under Qaddafi. During the NATO invasion Robert Mugabe condemned the military action and called the death of both Muammar Qaddafi and US ambassador as tragic. Robert Mugabe's solidarity with Global South Nations made him unpopular among the EU-US block nations. When a nations refuses to submit to a more potent nation, it faces retaliation. If it were not for China's bilateral economic agreements, the economy of Zimbabwe would have been in an even worse condition. It should be remembered that when Zimbabwe was economically stable, whites controlled most of that wealth. Zimbabweans were excluded from the market place and were merely laborers in the colonial system.  

Zanu-PF was attempting to undo the damage caused by colonial rule. This meant giving the land back to the people and increasing productivity. Zimbabwe was making progress in tobacco production. The country continued to look for other countries to boost investment. Iran was one of the nations in which Zimbabwe wants to do business with. Robert Mugabe met with Hassan Rouhani to discuss trade agreements and possible long term political and cultural exchange. The conflicts occurring in the Middle East and the tension with Iran cause those who associate with it to be caught up in an expansive international conflict. Iran has been alienated by its Arab neighbors excluding Oman, Qatar, Syria, and Iraq. Zimbabwe realized that the oil rich nation could be helpful in terms of investment. Even though the two countries are on different political trajectories, this does not mean they cannot collaborate on common goals or concerns. 

Zimbabwe has an immense amount of natural resources, which include coal, chromium ore, platinum, gold, nickle, copper, iron ore, and diamonds. A Mugabe presidency will not allow Western countries to forcefully take such valuable commodities. The reason the West wants to see President Mugabe fall is so they can get access to those natural resources. They also want to prevent a strong alliance between African and Asian nations with could challenge the US-EU block. Although the European colonial empires are gone, the behavior and attitudes of  these nations has not disappeared. The UK, US, France, Italy, and Germany still believe they have the right to rule and subjugate people of color around the world. Robert Mugabe represents that older generation that took freedom from imperial oppressors. His life and actions have inspired many to continue to fight for the African continent and undermine neo-colonial projects. Some wonder why did he continue to run for president for so long. The more negative answer is that he is a power mad tyrant or authoritarian. This is an image that has been presented by the mainstream Western media, but fails to remember that there was a time in which there was power sharing with the Movement for Democracy. Zanu and Zapu were once harsh competitors, but formed one party under the framework envisioned by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. Other leaders are not so accommodating on the African continent. Yoweri Museveni, Idris Deby, and Omar Al-Bashir fit the description of true authoritarians. Robert Mugabe hardly falls into that category. Robert Mugabe continues to lead mainly, because he fears that Zimbabwe will revert back to its colonial past. The trepidation comes from a more belligerent US and a UK that is more xenophobic than ever. The fear of losing what was fought for is a real possibility. If Zimbabwe cannot solve its own internal problems, it invites foreign intervention. This thought has probably came to President Mugabe, who is determined to finish his term. 

        There has been international responses. South Africa wants to see a Zimbabwe which is stable and may not be entirely willing to see a transition occur. A swift change from an old to new administration could mean a large amount of refugees. South Africa under President Jacob Zuma has faced economic and social turmoil. It may not have the capacity to deal with such a large influx of refugees. This could lead to more xenophobic violence outbreaks. This has happened before in South Africa and at this moment Jacob Zuma  may not have the ability to address the the crisis. There has been discussion of the Mugabes going into exile. If this were to happen it may either be Angola or Namibia. Such a proposal would cause more of a controversy,because it will strain relations among the nations of the Southern African Development Community. The African Union must do all that it can to prevent violence or European interference. The street protests have thus so far have been peaceful, but are problematic. It is probable this will be used as a pretext for a US or UK invasion. The responsibility to protect has been used to abuse countries who do not follow Western foreign  policy  objectives. A forced Mugabe exit would certainly cause shock waves across Africa. Uganda, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, and Mauritania would most likely become more oppressive thinking that there could be some form of continent wide regime change. Africa has been under siege and Zimbabwe is another nation under attack. The rise of Africom  and the NATO strike at Libya is evidence of  neocolonialism. Zimbabwe is already under sanctions from most EU countries. African nations still have normal relations with the country, while South Africa has its strongest support. Zimbabwe if it does not solve its own political crisis could become an area of proxy war between China and the United States. The US wants to stop China's advancement in Africa, by means of  military force and support from collaborator governments. It is unlikely that China would come to Zimbabwe's aid if the situation became violent. They did not come to Libya's aid and voted for UN resolution 1973. Unfortunately, internal instability will attract other world powers. The solution to this crisis may not even be President Mugabe himself. 

        Political factionalism has been a constant struggle for Zimbabwe since independence. ZANU-PF factions are fighting one another. This political party was formed out of two liberation organizations during the 1980s. ZANU and ZAPU were rivals. The Dissent's War  between 1982 to 1987 had the two liberation organizations at war to control the country. Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe reached a power sharing deal ending internal strife. The internal division is also related to ethnicity. Shona and Ndebele are still in a state of suspicion of one another. The one party state was established and modeled on a Tanzanian system to avoid possible ethnic conflict. Even with the unification of two liberation organizations there were problems with opposition groups. The Movement for Democracy became a major opposition party in the 2000s. Morgan Tsvangirai was seeking to win the presidency in 2013, but Mugabe got 61% of the vote. There was violence that broke out between MDC and ZANU-PF supporters. Another power sharing deal was reached preventing possible war. Zimbabwe may not be able to function on a Western style multiparty system. A imposed or forced removal of President Mugabe will result in a wider deterioration of the state. Political factionalism will escalate to open warfare, if there is no reasonable solution. The military is apparently seeking a means to govern while presenting a facade of civilian rule. Similar to how the military establishment functions in Thailand or Myanmar generals would still have massive influence in government. There also could be division in the military establishment of Zimbabwe. However, the National Zimbabwe War Veterans Association seems to have turned against President Mugabe. This sudden reversal began around 2016 and continued to erode a pivotal part of his base. The youth of the country are becoming restless and they are the future of the country. What should have been done was to mentor the youth wings of the party. The old guard should have molded new leaders that did not think in the same manner. The emphasis should be on unity, socialist principles of the party, and Pan-African ideology. These are values that should be presented to the public and youth to ensure a stable and prosperous Zimbabwe. Sadly, the country has descended into hostility and conflict. 

       The pathway to a peaceful solution has to involve several procedures. President Mugabe must finish his term. Removing him by military force or street protest encourages a future of unstable power transition. Power transition has been a challenge for African states since independence. When a longtime leader is removed or leaves office there is a level of disorder. A standard procedure and following the constitution will prevent mob violence or civil disturbance. If there is an issue with a president being in office too long, then term limits should be imposed. The number can vary, however it should be respected. If there remains a problem with electoral fraud, then there should be supervision under the African Union. Yet, national sovereignty must be observed. Other African nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of states. It could be that South Africa will have more influence in a weakened Zimbabwe. There is also a probability that Zambia and Mozambique may send troops with South Africa for stabilization efforts. This must be avoided. A civil war in Zimbabwe could escalate to a level similar to the Second Congolese Civil War. If there is to be an abrupt power transition, Joice Mujuru should be the successor. A  Grace Mugabe presidency would actually be authoritarian and oppressive. She should have no political future for inducing the political crisis that has developed. Emmerson Mnangagwa  would not be a suitable choice either.His military connections would surely mold the country in a junta type of government. If President Mugabe is able to avoid impeachment or removal from office, he should finally decide who will be his successor. This has been delayed for decades and it is time to make that choice. Zimbabwe's future seems uncertain, but it can have a positive one if citizens decide to make it so. Zimbabwe must be ready to fight, because its existence will be under attack.                

   

     

Mass Shootings, American Militarism, and the Culture of Violence

Another mass shooting left 58 people dead in Las Vegas. This has been described as a massacre according to the US media. However, massacres have happened in the US prior to this mass shooting. The debate on gun control continues with no effective legislation being passed. The Obama administration made an attempt after the Sandy Hook incident, but was stopped by the pro-gun faction of the Republican Party. Under a Donald Trump administration, effective gun control will not happen. More shootings will occur in various part of the United States. It extends far beyond merely politicians failing to act. There are critical facts that are ignored when discussing the debate about guns. The lugubrious reality is that the US has a culture of violence that was part of its founding. It is rooted in its racial hatred and militarism, which has spread across the world. The only difference with mass shootings in America is the violence occurs within the community. The United States has no problem inflicting harm on many people to impose its will or achieve a foreign policy objective. The only problem now, is that the violence can no longer be controlled or directed in a managed way. Their also reveals a level of arrogance in reaction to such violence. Americans value their citizen's lives more than the people they invade, but when one of their own die it becomes a mass tragedy. The United States continues to cause death and destruction to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, while aiding the conflict in Syria. It is unclear how many have died from US perpetual warfare, but it is most likely immense in number. It does not end with the Middle East; other countries are now being threaten with violence like Iran and North Korea. Many believe the violence of mass shootings is a modern phenomenon of violence. This is not true; violence has been a part of American culture. It also extends to America's other negative attributes such as political extremism,  white supremacy, and American exceptionalism. 

     Mass Shootings are the products of racism, fear, and political extremism. The pro-gun movement became a political force starting in the 1990s. Militias began forming en mass during the Clinton administration in reaction to a changing political atmosphere. White men of  the nation became more threatened by African American advancement and the increase in immigration. The civil rights movement, feminist movement, and the shifting demographics caused white America to arm its self more so to counter change. The National Rife Association grew more powerful in terms of its lobbying efforts, having more influence over Republican congressmen and senators. This pro-gun organizing was not about guns. It was a political maneuver and preemptive measure for far-right elements to reverse changes to the United States either by force or the threat of violence. Whites of America fear being in the minority. The belief is that some form of vengeance would be inflicted on them if their population were to decrease. The increase in hate groups, militias, and extreme tax protester organizations also show the far-right's contempt for the federal government. They see it as a force taking away their freedom and causing America to form into something it was not meant to be. To them America is a land that is for whites only. The African American, Asian, and South American people have no place in it. White supremacy is still policy in many areas of American society, but there are  people who want to see the reversal of the very few gains that non-whites have made in  the country. There exist men who are not satisfied that white privilege is eroding and they react with  extreme violence. The average mass shooter in the US tends to be a white male. There are cases in which non-whites have been mass shooters such as the Virginia Tech   attack. Even when white males do such heinous acts, they are given sympathy. They are either labeled mentally ill or they simply were driven to such acts out of hardship. When an Asian, African, or Hispanic person commits any crime their whole group is judged. 

White supremacy protects even white criminals by giving them shorter prison terms or more leniency. It has been clear that justice is not equally applied in American society. Another problem that emerges is how fast political extremism can spread. Right-wing media outlets preach that the government is attempting to take away guns or  attack Christian values. Donald Trump has also presented these conspiracy theories as fact to his followers. Hate groups for decades in their literature have presented the idea that America is headed to race war. They claim that America and Europe are victims of a "white genocide"  because mass immigration is altering the demographics. These ideas are myths, yet they are effective at getting working class whites concerned about a change in population. This explains why Donald Trump got elected; the hatred of immigrants was a feeling that the majority of white Americans held in their hearts. It was not just working class white voters that got Trump into the White House. There were many Americans who just wanted to see any white person back in office. His election is significant, because it shows the triumph of far-right extremism and its ability to house various factions under one banner. Trump's weak response to the Neo-Nazi  and Ku Klux Klan attacks in Charlottsesville Virginia. reveals he supports their views and so do more white Americans. Mass shooters may be more emboldened in a far-right political climate. Their is a reason why people who live in safe areas have many guns. Their intent is to kill. Hunters and legal gun owners are more so hobbyists with no political agenda. The NRA has a political objective and an economic one. There are huge profits to be made off of the sale of fire arms. Besides the economic incentive, their is the function of maintaining the status quo. Whites want to have all the power in America and when they see progress from another ethnic group the immediate reaction is violence. This explains why there is a movement to militarize US police. Police departments across the country are being armed with military equipment, went is meant for an army. This is to deter or stop possible rebellions against the oppressive system that many non-whites have had to live under. As long as the pro-gun movement is a political force more guns will proliferate in American society. 

        American militarism has contributed to the increase in gun violence. The United States glorifies violence by presenting the military's atrocities as humanitarian and heroic. Warfare is presented as a necessary part of the country's national security. Drone strikes or bombings are seen as actions that do not harm civilian populations. These falsehoods are a way to normalize violence and imperialism. Soldiers are told what they are doing is ethical or protecting the US. 

  

The public susceptible to mass media believes that the American soldier can do no wrong. When there are reports of  extreme violence or violation of military law are exposed these are presented as rare occurrences. Atrocities are inflicted everyday by the US military in various countries across the world. Libya, Yemen, and Somalia have faced US interference. The role will expand and the US public will be convinced that such violence is humanitarian. More than the love of guns, Americans love war. The nation was founded by the murder and removal of Native American people including the enslavement of African populations. US history then proceeded to follow a pattern of expansion to the West. President James K. Polk believed in Manifest Destiny, an ideology in which America was ordained by God to expand. The US then fought the Mexican War gaining more territory. The conquest was being hindered by the question of slavery. It came to a halt with the American Civil War,but restarted with the Spanish American War. America with that war now was considered a global power. The US previously asserted dominance over Latin America through the Monroe Doctrine. This was extended by the Roosevelt corollary. Nations of Central America as well as Latin America were subject to US military intervention. America up until World War I operated mostly with in the Americas. That did not mean the US did not have involvement in other nations. There was a level of  isolationism in regards to wider international affairs, more so during the interwar period. The US reversed its isolationist stance after World War II, becoming a superpower which it still is to this day. It has to be understood America does not want peace. Cold War conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, and covert action in Afghanistan caused devastation to millions of people. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States continues to embark on perpetual warfare. The War on Terror has been used as a justification for US invasions. When analyzed from the context of international law most of these conflicts  are wars of aggression. The US does not use diplomacy, rather a mix of intimidation and force. Now, the US has fallen into a cycle in which its industry is focused mostly on warfare. There is a powerful military industrial complex, which enables arms to be exported across the globe. The United States exports violence by being the biggest supplier of arms. Donald Trump wants to expand the US military and this is not for demonstration.  Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will be military targets of the United States. It seems that the US has a pugnacious nature and simply cannot cooperate with other nations. This desire to either kill or decimate functional states is tied to a culture of violence in American society. 

       There has been a culture of violence present in since its founding. The victims of this violence were those who were not of the favored ruling class of  white male Christians. Maintaining that power was not just through force of arms, but ideology. They had to believe that violence was necessary and that certain groups deserved to have it inflicted upon them. Native Americans were savages in their view with no civilization. African Americans were not human and therefore could be enslaved. Dehumanization and racism created a system of acceptable collective violence. This phenomenon remains to this day. While individual acts of violence are not acceptable by law, collective violence becomes normalized. When a mass shooter kills people there is at least a level of condemnation. When police departments have officers that constantly shoot unarmed citizens there is little protest. The reason is that in American society collective violence from organizations or institutions is acceptable. Other dynamics involved in the culture of violence has to do with gun culture itself. Guns are presented as toys or an amusement rather than killing devices. The argument made by the pro-gun movement claims " guns do not kill people, people do"  as a method to counter censure. The flaw with such a conviction is that the main purpose of a weapon is to inflict harm. An individual does not merely amass large amounts of guns without some form of malevolent intent. 

Beyond the gun itself there is a real issue with violence. America is a country that loves war and weapons; it was only a matter of time when mass shootings become normal. Gradually, this is happening. The Second Amendment, which as been the argument for individuals to amass large amounts of guns has been misinterpreted. The Second Amendment was designed for states to have their own militias within the union. It meant that each state had the right to secure itself, but it does not stop individuals from owning guns. Understanding this from a legal standpoint is critical. The culture of violence has often been blamed on film, electronic entertainment, and television. These claims are ludicrous. Such acts predate these entertainment mediums and to say that if they did not exist there would be fewer murders is inaccurate. This does not explain America's violent acts such as lynchings and Native American genocide. While these were acts of the past, many are still subject to violence due to their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes after the election of Donald Trump have increased. Since 2001 the level of Islamophobic attacks also reached higher levels. The alternative right and other far-right extremist groups are the culprits, but the violent acts are being done by individuals with no association to any group. Such acts of violence can be explained by environment and upbringing. The majority of mass shooters are male and their might be a correlation between ideas of masculinity with violence. Boys are taught to be more aggressive in American society and that violent methods are a legitimate means of solving problems. Being surrounded far-right rhetoric  and being taught to hate certain groups contributes to the culture of violence.  

America now in the 21st century is seeing the culture of violence that it was built on slowly causing a collapse. Crime has been enabled by the availability of guns and further complicated by issues of mental health. Criminally insane offenders can acquire weapons and gangs can easily arm themselves. Chicago has become a testament to the damage of gun violence. As the years progress gun violence  will be come one of the nation's most challenging public health issues. The reason effective gun control with not happen is because guns and violence culture is a part of  American identity. 

       The United States is not only facing decline globally, but domestically. Gun violence and mass shootings are slowly getting out of control. Simultaneously, there is a two party system that is struggling for relevance as it demonstrates that it cannot effectively govern. A Republican Party states that it strict on reducing crime favors the spread of fire arms, while a Democratic Party vacillates on gun control legislation. More people will die as long as no action or plan is implemented. It may not come from the government as long as it remains more divided. The United States may have to completely fall and be rebuilt into something different to fix the various ills of its society. American militarism and gun culture are too powerful a force in the nation's politics. The violence that has been spread abroad has comeback. American racism has also been intertwined with this violence. The obsession with guns and the notion they will be confiscated is rooted in white America's fear and hate of non-white ethnic groups. The hostility shows itself  in the willingness for white gun owners to use their weapons against people they feel do not belong. As the political power of  far-right organizations and hate groups grow, their is a mass backlash against civil rights, women's rights, and the US Constitution. The United States has reached a braking point in which society has become sick with hate, corruption, and avarice. Gun violence is a symptom of the disease, causing deterioration. If the United States wants to survive, there will have to be a radical change to its culture.  The culture of violence will remain as long as whites want to cling to power. If this pattern of conduct continues, there will be no choice to solve it by methods that would be less civil or orderly. 

           

      

Is it the end for Thailand's Shinawatra dynasty?

Yinluck Shinawatra  has fled the country. The Shinawatras have been a part of Thai politics since 2001 and dominated the landscape. Accused of a rice subsidies scheme she failed to appear in court. She was not removed from office by legal means. A coup brought Prayut  Chan O-Cha to power. The reason she fled is that it was clear that this would not be a fair trial. Thailand has become in effect a defacto military dictatorship . The 2014 coup has caused instability that has not been seen since 1992 and 2006. The Shinawatras both Thanksin and Yinluck are not completely innocent. They came to power through patronage and an unusual manipulation of state funds. This latest event may not entirely mean the Shinawatras are neutralized. A large portion of the rural population still supports them. Yinluck could start a movement from outside the country, which could see her coming back after the fall of the military government. Could the West mold her into a Aung San Suu Kyi ? It could be a possibility. Elected leaders do not last long   in Thailand. This demonstrates that a Western model of democracy may not work in Thailand. Class conflict is clearly causing problems in the Asian nations. It seems the poor have been left behind and in this family dynasty tapped into their struggle. The middle class and the upper class seem to support the military, because they have similar far right convictions. Thailand's future seems unknown, but it is clear the rule of law has been defeated.  

RIP Dick Gregory

North Korea, The United States, Nuclear Weapons, and The Possibility of a East Asia War

The United States has condemned the missile launches of North Korea. This has gone far beyond mere disapproval put turned into threats of war. North Korea does not have the ability to develop an arsenal on the same equivalent as the United States, yet the country is being treated like an international security threat. Reckless statements from Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump have caused the situation to escalate. Prior to this provocation by the United States, there were alleged attempts to start negotiations with North Korea. Donald Trump's limited understanding of Asia and the wider world could cause mass global conflict. North Korea by many estimations is not a threat. It is a nation that is struggling with poverty, dependent on China to an extent, and is now facing a wave of diplomatic isolation. If there were to be an assessment of a more violent country, the United States would surpass most. The United States currently has attacked Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria,  and continues to engage in drone strikes in both Yemen as well as Somalia. This has caused more death and destruction than North Korea is even capable of. Part of the blame rests on mainstream media which presents North Korea as being on the same level of military strength. It is apparent that regime change has been a part of the agenda, which explains contemporary attitudes. Even if North Korea were to dispose of its nuclear weapons, the possibly of US attack would be imminent. The reasons are clear in the context of US geopolitical designs. The US has the intention of maintaining dominance in Asia and being confrontational with China. Nuclear weapons can act as a deterrence from US aggression. These latest missile launches are not declarations of war, but indications of fear within North Korea. The paranoia of US attack normally happens under Republican presidencies. Normalization of relations will most likely never happen as long as the US wants to remain the sole superpower on Earth. North Korea could become another Iraq with horrible consequences for East Asia. 

      North Korea does have a large military, but it is not as powerful as presented. According to official statics the North Korean  military  looks impressive. Estimates vary, but is believed that North Korea has 1.9 million service members and 7.7 million reservists. There weaponry consists of 3,500 battle tanks, 563 aircraft, 21,000 artillery pieces, and 302 helicopters. This is diminutive compared to the United States. The US has bases around the world (80 bases in 70 countries) and allies that are willing to fight. North Korea would not have the ability to invade the US. History has shown that the US is the stronger country in terms of total military strength. The United States has 1,066,600 employed, 13,900 aircraft, 920 attack helicopters, and 72 submarines. While North Korea has the same number of submarines, they do not have the financial strength to reach America's level. Donald Trump also wants to see the expansion of the US military. He insisted to congress that defense spending should be increased to $54 billion. North Korea if attacked by the United States would have to fight both South Korea, Australia,and Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to see a re militarized Japan having dominance over Asia. China and Korea provide him excuses for a military build up, which would not benefit Japan economically.The desire to be a stronger world power still is a vision in the minds of many Japanese conservatives. Prime Minister   Malcolm Turnbull  has already stated that he is committed to the US agenda in regards to North Korea. North Korea would be in a vulnerable predicament. The only assistance they could get is from either Russia or China. China does not want to have a US presence close to its border. However, it does not want to see a North Korea too powerful, that is its influence is weakened. 

Russia may be more willing to assist in a conflict, seeing relations with the US are at a nadir. Between allegations of hacking in the 2016 election, the Syrian Civil War, and disagreements over Ukraine US-Russian relations may never be repaired. Russia could use the North Korean standoff to pressure the United States. Both Russia and North Korea are under sanctions from the US. The two countries have a common interest in this perspective. North Korea does not have many alternatives for defense. President Vladmir Putin just like Xi Jingping  has urged North Korea and the US to seek dialogue, rather than confrontation. Their reasons are related to their current circumstances. China has been experiencing tensions with India and with its neighbors in the South China Sea. These areas could become combat zones if China decides to assist North Korea in a conflict. Russia has to figure out what to do about a rapidly expanding NATO in Eastern Europe. Although the Cold War is over this military alliance is still active and directed at Russia. The alliance has been looking for justifications to maintaining its existence and Russia is a convenient  scapegoat. It would not be surprising to see NATO attack if Russia contributes militarily to North Korea. There are numerous complications that would follow a strike on North Korea. 

North Korea does not have the military bases or air power of the United States. If its defenses are not on the same level or quality it would need help from other allies. Russia and China may not be reliable, so basically North Korea would be left to fight alone. During the Korean War it was the People's Liberation Army that prevented North Korean collapse. China has agreed to the UN sanctions, which shows that they are not willing to support North Korea entirely. This does not seem uncharacteristic when examined through the context of East Asian history. China has since the Tang dynasty wanted to keep Korea under a form of political influence. A North Korea that is more powerful would be harder to control. At the moment, North Korea does not have the military strength to challenge any power that seeks to attack it. 

       The reason North Korea is pursuing nuclear weapons is that it realizes that it will be invaded. This is a desperate effort to prevent another US war that has long been delayed. the first Korean War ended in cease fire establishing the demilitarized zone and the heavily guarded border at the 38th parallel. Ever since 1953, North Korea has been resisting the US and its geopolitical designs. The nuclear weapons program to North Korea represents an expression of national sovereignty and a statement that they will not be bullied by any foreign power. This is the extension  of the Juche principle in which the nation becomes through communist revolution fully self-reliant. This could be one possible explanation into having a nuclear weapons program. There could also be after half a century paranoid fears about what the US might do. If one sees the military actions of the United States, it would logical to assume that it would be the more belligerent country. Currently, there are no indications that war will break out in the next month or so, but intense rhetoric has made some nervous. Donald Trump had stated " the country is locked and loaded" and in response Kim Jung Un claimed that his country had the capability to attack Guam. Both the United States and North Korea have created a paranoid atmosphere in which they think someone will attack. Nuclear weapons may be a way for North Korea to demonstrate strength, when in reality they have none to deter US aggression. Another reason North Korea could be developing a nuclear arsenal is to increase international prestige. The lugubrious fact is that smaller countries do not receive respect from the larger world powers. They are not treated equally under international law or given much a say at the United Nations. Having nuclear weapons demonstrates to larger countries that this is a place than cannot be subject to domination. The nuclear programme could also serve a more sinister purpose. It acts as a distraction to the citizens of North Korea, who do not see their daily lives improving. The program redirects anger or frustration into loyal patriotism. This ensures that Kim dynasty will rule indefinitely. A large state propaganda machine and military loyalty to Kim Jung Un  means there is little chance of dissent. 

     

The nuclear program does not have to be successful, but a means of political survival. This effort could best be spent investing in nuclear power plants. North Korea needs more electricity relative to its population. The pursuit of nuclear weapons may have benefits, but they are only temporary. It is still remains a mystery just how advanced the nuclear programme  is. The North Korean claims of conducting nuclear tests could be exaggerated or fabrications by the state. However, there are indications that tests were conducted in 2006, 2009, 2013, and 2016. The only indirect evidence is the quake magnitude scales. It has been difficult for observers to determine whether these are atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs. North Korea claims that it has detonated a hydrogen bomb, yet many are dubious about such pronouncements. There are debates on which element was used. Uranium or plutonium, it North Korea has nuclear capability would have to get these materials from somewhere. Uranium enrichment would be less cumbersome, compared to plutonium which require larger facilities. Most of the tests have been conducted at the Punggye-ri site. These are only tests, which means they have not erected an immense arsenal. North Korea would never be able to catch up to the United States in terms of nuclear capability. The concern over North Korea and nuclear weapons is not entirely about the country itself. The West does not want to see a nuclear armed Asia. This means that there would be certain behaviors they could not engage in across the region for fear of violent reaction. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, yet have not used them on one another. Mutual assured destruction  is still applicable in the North Korean situation. North Korea simply would not attack due to the fact it is not on the same level of nuclear capability. This may prevent nations from attacking each other directly, but leads to wars of proxy. If one nation gets nuclear weapons others will want to do the same. Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia may want nuclear weapons if North Korea builds a moderately sized arsenal. The United States will have to accept that North Korea and other nations will be nuclear powers. No one has a monopoly on technology and nuclear technology will proliferate.  

         The United States at times appeared to want negotiation with North Korea. However, the United States has adopted neoconservative foreign policy as its modus operandi. The United States has been on a path to impose its will on the nations of the world claiming to spread freedom and human rights. Donald Trump claimed that he rejected this perspective of nation building and imperialism. His America First policy when applied to foreign affairs, means the US will not get involved in particular international issues unless it benefits it some economic and political way. That is in conflict with the neoconservative vision that the world must be changed with military force and violence to create an American century. It appeared as if Trump was falling into this field of thought when ordering an airstrike on Syria. This was nothing more than another distraction from his failed domestic policies and poor operation of government. The sudden ire at North Korea came at a time when healthcare repeal failed in both houses. The American public has become so easily distracted that Trump's actions in regards to North Korea made them forget about the domestic issues still troubling the country. The administration so far has not attempted tax reform, immigration reform, or new infrastructure projects. Trump faces criticism from both factions of the American  political   spectrum. Declining poll numbers and shrinking support, Trump reacted in anger. A convenient scapegoat was the solution to deal with negative publicity and accusations. Kim Jung Un provide Trump an escape from the investigations in Russian connections and questions regarding his business practices. This distraction did not work in the way he intended it. It may have further alienated China, whom he wanted to establish closer economic ties with. All through the 2016 campaign he stated "China is ripping us off." This was another unsupported claim, but it spoke to America's racism. There is a new form of yellow peril emerging casting China as America's enemy. Trump and other extreme conservatives are presenting North Korea as being enabled by China, even though they did not share nuclear technology. When  President Xi Jingping  visited the US  in the early months of 2017, the meetings proved to be fruitless. It did not produce economic deals or agreements on North Korea that Trump wanted. 

       Donald Trump who is limited in his knowledge of  international affairs, assumed the response would be immediate. Very little has changed, however there seems to be intent on waging economic warfare on China. Doing this allows Trump to present himself as a great negotiator, who can control China's behavior. There is obvious tension between the US and China and it is indirectly projecting itself  in the sudden Korean crisis. Steve Bannon former White House strategist, expressed these thoughts about becoming confrontational with China. Trump continues to be influenced by Bannon's beliefs, which could lead to a much larger conflict.
      It is essential to realize that the current situation was induced by the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. Besides the more pressing issue of the US not delivering on its food aid promise to North Korea, THAAD proves to be another act of belligerence. South Koreans even protested its development. The protesters claimed that it would only create more of a hateful atmosphere on the Korean peninsula. China also voiced its displeasure with the US missile project. THADD is an anti-ballistic missile and interceptor system. it is designed to strike ballistic  missiles  at its terminal phase. The system contains Patriot Advanced Capability 3 interceptors. Japan also has these as well, causing alarm in China. This has also cause a strain in relations between South Korea and China. The United States claims that THADD is in existence for countering North Korean missile attacks. So far, North Korea has conducted launches, but never has hit a target.

If North Korea was intent on destroying other countries, so far it has failed in its mission. The United States said this was necessary to protect the continental United States area from North Korea's short and medium range SCUD missiles. Previously, it was suggested that North Korea launched a satellite, which observers believed it was being used for espionage. The concern for China becomes the tracking of their ICBMs, causing the strategic balance in the region to shift. A THADD battery is present on Guam, two AN/TY -2 radars in Japan, both ship and land based radars through out the Pacific theater. Depending on particular launch points China's missiles could be tracked much easier. This could effect China's second strike capabilities as some foreign policy observers have noted. This could be intentional or the result of reckless planning on the part of the United States. It should be understood that their will be reactions when ever a missile installation or new military base is established in  the world many see it as a provocation. When North Korea dismantled the Yongbyon site cooling tower in 2008, it was hoping to get aid. The following year the promise was broken. North Korea is never rewarded when it complies with agreements in terms of nuclear weapons or missile technology. North Korea the again suspended nuclear weapons testing in 2012 in exchange for food aid. When this did not come, the launches stated once more. THADD could be a method of declaring war without specifically stating it.  The defense system only has created more paranoia and trepidation in regards to US intentions.    
        If this tension escalates, North Korea and the United States could go to war. This would certainly attract other world powers to East Asia and have Asian countries fighting one another. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and possibly Vietnam may join the US in such military actions. China would have to respond to an attack on North Korea.  Russia may eventually be pulled into such a conflict. India may not remain neutral in a greater East Asian war. Such a conflict would last a number of years and the outcomes will be equally devastating. There could be a chance that the US would use nuclear weapons on North Korea. After all, the US used atomic weaponry on Japan during World War II. It has thus so far been the only country to use such weapons during warfare, so  threats from the country should be taken seriously. Regime change and nation building produce human rights disasters on a large scale. Occupation and formation of another government in another country causes anger in the local population. Imposing democracy is not liberation at all, but an alternate version of imperialism. The US has sought to keep a dominant position in East Asia, after the defeat of the Japanese Empire. The rise China and US defeat in the Vietnam War weakened American strength in the region.  The Obama administration's Asia Pivot brought the US back to the region in a more belligerent manner with the expansion of naval forces in the Pacific. It is not wonder the chances of war have gotten worse. If there is a victory in a mass regional conflict the loss of human life would be astronomical. The remaining survivors would either be refugees heading to either Australia, Europe, or the United States. China could go through a balkanization  process expanding refugees levels. Many nations that were not part of the combat zone could not cope with such large populations. This explains why unification of the Korea peninsula under South Korean leadership has creates a problem . Koreans have been manipulated to an extent by the US and China into conflict with each other, being a staging ground for a war of proxy. The only solution to avoid mass regional war and the divide between Koreans is if they reach an agreement without the interference from world powers.

Further Reading 

Panda, Ankit. “What Is THAAD, What Does It Do, and Why Is China Mad About It?” The Diplomat, The Diplomat, 26 Feb. 2016, thediplomat.com/2016/02/what-is-thaad-what-does-it-do-and-why-is-china-mad-about-it/.

Silva, Cristina. “North Korea Says It Needs a Massive Army to Stand up To.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 30 Apr. 2017, www.newsweek.com/what-north-koreas-military-looks-compared-us-589688.

“North Korea's Nuclear Programme: How Advanced Is It?” BBC News, BBC, 10 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699.