Global Scholars has given me opportunities to pursue my interests in international affairs, and I’m glad I took advantage of what the program offers. I learned about many world issues during this year’s events, and I took a deep dive into Russian foreign policy during my capstone project.
While I got a lot out of all of the events, my favorite was the LAWAC discussion on North Korea/South Korea relations. I learned a lot by asking the speaker about South Korea’s preparations for a North Korean attack; it’s great that LAWAC gives students chances to ask questions to the speaker. I also enjoyed seeing my peers lead events of their own. I was very impressed with Victor and Ian (the other one; there are two Ians in the program), as they ran a presentation and discussion about affordable housing completely bilingually (English and Spanish). Everyone this year worked hard and put a lot of effort into their projects. I’m very thankful for the chance to pursue my interests in Russian foreign policy. The Russian Federation has become very active in world affairs recently, and I’m glad I have a solid grasp on this topic. While I was a bit nervous presenting and interviewing Dr. English, I enjoyed the whole experience. I also got to talk to other experts to hear more perspectives about Russia and its actions. One of my favorite things about my school is that it has given me chances to undertake projects about my passions. Whether its video game marketing or Russia’s grand strategy, I’m lucky to have the chance to dive into my interests in a meaningful way. Overall, I’m glad I joined Global Scholars. This program has allowed me to expand my knowledge on international issues and to create a project I am proud of. While scheduled blogging can be a minor nuisance, I did benefit from composing and recording my thoughts. I hope my school continues to enthusiastically support this program so that others have a chance to learn more about the world.
0 Comments
Last Sunday, about 250 people were killed and over 500 injured in a series of bombings in Sri Lanka. Suicide bombers targeted three churches and four hotels in coordinated attacks, the worst since Sri Lanka’s civil war 10 years ago. Many of the victims were worshipers attending Easter Mass. At least 38 foreigners were killed, including US citizens. While the Islamic State has claimed responsibility, authorities attribute the attacks to two local jihadist groups. The extent of coordination between local extremists and ISIS is unknown.
A half week later, the country is still on alert. Security forces guard the streets of Colombo and places of worship. Both the UK Foreign Office and the US State Department issued warnings for travelers. All of the country’s Catholic churches were instructed to suspend services until the situation improves. Muslim Ahmadi refugees are in hiding in fear of retribution they do not deserve. After the attacks, the Sri Lankan government temporarily banned social media and suspended visa-free travel for 39 countries. While these measures will do little to improve the country’s security, they are drawing attention away from the Sri Lankan government’s incompetence in this crisis. Some terrorist attacks are hard to spot, as they only involve a single perpetrator and everyday items. These “lone wolfs,” such as the 2016 truck attack in Nice, don’t require coordination with terrorist groups and dangerous weapons. Their spontaneity and lack of sophistication does not give security organizations a lot of time or material to act upon. However, this was not the case with last Sunday’s bombings. This level of coordination, with bombs detonating in close succession across the country, required a lot of preparation. For two little known extremist groups to pull off such an attack, red flags and warnings must have been ignored. Sri Lankan intelligence did issue warnings of potential attacks as early as April 4th. On April 9th, the chief of national intelligence named suspects in an internal letter. As Easter grew closer, foreign intelligence agencies warned that places of worship could be targeted in the near future. Signs of an attack were seen, yet nothing was done to prevent one. While warnings were ignored, the leaders at the top were busy with political bickering. Sri Lanka’s president, Maithripala Sirisena, failed to warn the prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, of the upcoming threat. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe wasn’t even invited to national security council meetings (which are run by the president). This isn’t a surprise, as President Sirisena tried to sack the prime minister last year. While the PM was reinstated, as the courts deemed his removal unconstitutional, the two leaders of the country continue to be at odds with each other. As the politics continued, the warning issued by Sri Lankan and foreign intelligence agencies led to inaction. Just today, Sri Lanka’s health ministry revised the official death toll by more than 100. The island’s deputy defense secretary blamed inaccurate numbers from morgues while the health ministry stated that some victims were counted more than once. This sudden change is only the most recent example of the government’s disorganization. The resignation of Hemasiri Fernando, Sri Lanka's defence secretary, doesn’t help the government in its quest to regain any credibility. Attacks with the level of sophistication seen last Sunday are becoming rarer and rarer. Many countries have improved their counterterrorism operations to a point where they can prevent such tragedies at the planning stage. This is why many extremists resort to lone wolf tactics to commit as much loss of life as possible before security services can catch up. That being said, terrorists still attempt sophisticated, premeditated attacks when given the chance. The only way to prevent such attacks is with government bodies working together to detect threats and act upon credible intelligence. Hopefully, Sri Lanka’s government will see this tragedy as a sign to hold security above political rivalries. Yesterday, an extremist shooter carried out a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. As a result, at least 49 innocent people were killed, and almost the same number are in the hospital being treated for injuries. This grave assault on a modern, multicultural society was caused by violent extremism, but not the kind many people are used to.
In the post 9/11 world, Western culture often links terrorism with Islam. Because of the numerous attacks caused by jihadist extremists, many people imagine a terrorist as a bearded brown man yelling in Arabic. However, this is wrong, not only because it associates millions of peaceful people with violence, but it also ignores other forms of extremism. In New Zealand’s tragedy, Muslims weren’t perpetrators, they were innocent victims. Instead, this terrorist attack was caused by white nationalism. While the number of assailants is unknown, at least three suspects have been arrested. One of them is a 28 year old white man from Australia. He uploaded a 73 page declaration to social media, calling for war to prevent “white genocide.” Combined with live streaming much of the attack on Facebook and previous posts glorifying weapons, the suspect’s social media presence shows these attacks were caused by hatred for so called outsiders and extreme white nationalism. Like other forms of extremism, this ideology is dangerous and capable of inspiring attacks. Even though this attack may not seem like the terrorism people are used to, it should still be labeled as such. Much of Islamophobia comes from the fear that Muslims will attack innocent people. Yet the cruel irony with this incident was that a terrorist attack seemed (at least partly) inspired by preventing another. As convenient it may be, it is never right to assume something so horrible out of millions of innocent people. While New Zealand will certainly try to strengthen its gun laws in response, it’s just as (if not more) important to remember the impetus for this terrorist attack. White nationalism is in no way healthy for a modern society, along with the hatred and blatantly wrong generalizations it produces. Counterterrorism is more than just tightening gun laws and preparing tactical units. It’s also about addressing extremism so it doesn’t spread and inspire further bloodshed. In the coming days and weeks, when the New Zealand government responds to this attack, I hope it (along with the world) remembers to curb extremism as well as weapon access. Last week, my school (Polytechnic) hosted Arn Chorn-Pond, a renowned human rights activist, artist, and survivor of the Cambodian genocide. During the event, Pond shared his music and life story with the school community. While his experiences with war, death, and loneliness were hard to hear, his journey to survive and help others inspired all of us.
After playing a beautiful song on a traditional flute, Pond recounted his experiences growing up in Cambodia. Before the Khmer Rouge, he lived with his family and had a normal life. He listened to rock and roll, watched American action movies, and played with his friends. At the time, Cambodia was peaceful and the Vietnam War had little effect on most Cambodians. When the Khmer Rouge took over, change came quickly and as a surprise. Few people knew that the new government would cause so much bloodshed. Pond was only spared from the genocide because he volunteered to play propaganda songs on the flute. Pond credits music to saving his life, for if he hadn’t played for the Khmer Rouge, he would have been killed like the rest of his family. The Khmer Rouge eventually sent him and other children to fight the invading Vietnamese. After surviving multiple battles, he ran into the jungle to escape. Pond would eventually find a refugee camp in Thailand. There, he met Peter Pond, an American missionary who adopted him and took him to the US. Pond’s tribulations didn’t stop when he moved to the US. While attending high school, Pond was rejected and made fun of by students who were not used to seeing Asians at their school. While his life was no longer threatened by the Khmer Rouge, he became lonely and depressed, so much so that he contemplated suicide. Pond explained that this period of his life was just as hard, if not harder, on him as living through the Cambodian genocide. However, his adopted father encouraged him to share his story with others. While Pond doubted that American kids would care about his experiences, he was proven wrong when many of his peers gathered to hear his story at a local church. Ever since, he has traveled the world to share his life lessons and message of peace. Pond also supports the reintroduction of music to his home country through his organization Cambodia Living Artists (CLA). During the genocide, the Khmer Rouge killed about 90% of the country’s artists. The government targeted all kinds of musicians, from traditional performers to pop stars. Pond and his organization support surviving musicians, preserve Cambodian traditions, and create opportunities for children to learn music. Poly supports CLA, and in 2016, a GIP travel group volunteered at his organization during their trip to Cambodia. Pond is extremely thankful for the support of the Poly community, and wishes to continue this partnership. Poly students will work with him and his organization again this summer during Poly’s second GIP trip to Cambodia. Last week, I ran an event at my school on Russia’s role in the world where I moderated a discussion with Dr. Robert English, an associate professor and the deputy director of the School of International Relations at USC. That night, we covered Putin’s influences, hybrid warfare, Russia’s role in the Middle East, and many other topics. While I enjoyed listening to Dr. English’s insights, I also learned a lot through preparing my questions and creating the event itself.
I’ve always wanted to learn more about Russia, and I used this project to help myself and my school gain a better understanding of one of the world's most powerful countries. When I was deciding what my event should focus on, many potential topics came and went with the news cycle. However, Russia always remained present in the headlines, be it for its actions in Syria, Ukraine, or even the US. In my head, this constant coverage was proof of Russia’s relevance even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Whether you see Russia as a potential partner or as a constant adversary, its importance is undeniable. While Russia's role in American politics tends to get the most attention, the country is active all over the globe. As someone who is fascinated by global affairs, I'm glad I was able to learn more about Russia's role in the world. I had a solid understanding of Russia prior to preparing my questions, so finding topics to cover wasn’t hard. What was hard was writing and phrasing the questions themselves. I had to articulate what I wanted to ask, provide background, and be concise all at the same time. For many questions, I knew what to say but not how. Sometimes, I would spend a half hour on one question just to make adjustments and work on my phrasing. Eventually, I created an outline with more than enough questions for the night along with some opening and closing statements. Going into the event, I was a little nervous, as it was my first time moderating a discussion (especially in front of an audience). However, I’ve seen other people do it many times. Because I had an idea of what the flow and feel should look like, I knew what I to strive for. However, there were still surprises. I didn’t expect for moderating to take all of my attention. For the audience, it looked like I’m just sitting and staring at the speaker. For me, I spent most of the time thinking about what to say next. I had to think quickly to create jokes and transitions that referenced Dr. English’s responses while also being ready to speak when he finished. This experience reminded me a lot of fencing. In both situations, I would use all of my attention to observe the person in front of me while also developing my actions. I love chances to completely focus on something, so I actually had a good time guiding the conversation. Overall, I thought the event went well. While we didn’t have time for my environmental questions (Dr. English and I were both looking forward to them), I felt that we covered a lot of ground. I’m also glad the audience seemed to like the event and what Dr. English had to say. Everyone learned so much from his words, and I thank him for sharing his insights. Now that I’ve researched Russia and head Dr. English speak, some of you may wonder how I think the US should treat this country going forward. I would say that the US must maintain a balancing act of defending against Russian aggression while also empathising with Moscow and its people. It’s undeniable that the US cannot let Russia intimidate Europe and interfere in its politics, so I support protecting our allies and our institutions. However, it’s also important to remember Russia’s perspective. Russians have a different world view than Americans. The disastrous depression of the 1990s and the people involved in it are still in the memory of many Russians. Additionally, Russia borders many countries, and not all of them are friendly. Unlike the US, Russia has to seriously watch its neighbors, some of which have nuclear weapons. While I don’t often condone Russia’s actions, I can still understand why they are done and what Moscow is trying to achieve. I’ll remember this project fondly. While it was a lot of work, I’m glad I could share my interests with my school. Through this process, I learned a lot about Russia’s role in the world, and I had a good time asking questions to a true expert. I’ll end with my two main takeaways from the event: 1. Putin is not as popular in Russia as what's reported. Even though he has strong election results, more people are becoming discontent with his leadership. Many of the people who support him do so because he got Russia out of its disastrous depression in the 1990s. However, he hasn't increased the standard of living in recent years. 2. There is already an arms race in cyberwarfare. As the world becomes more technologically integrated, the more vulnerable it becomes to cyberattacks. Countries try to keep secret what their capabilities are, but they are already at a point where they don't cause massive attacks on each other in fear of a massive retaliation. Last week, I had the chance to attend my school’s event on affordable housing. My school partnered with Hive Be Good, an organization that creates brainstorming events. After hearing from multiple speakers, the attendees were put into groups to discuss the issue and to brainstorm potential solutions.
While affordable housing is not something I think about often, I’m glad I learned about the issue. I also was glad that the event had speakers from multiple sides of the issue. Among the speakers were officials from Pasadena and Los Angeles. What surprised me the most was what a formerly homeless women said. She explained how easily people can become homeless. The speaker had a proper career as some sort of administrator (I cannot recall what kind), yet she became homeless a few months after she was laid off. Many Americans are only two paychecks away from becoming homeless. A sudden layoff or unexpected accident could easily put someone on the streets. This also reminded me that “poor people” are not the only ones who are at risk of becoming homeless. Whether this vulnerability is a result of an inability to save or poor financial planning, I do not know. However, it is unfortunate that so many people are at risk of becoming homeless, even if they don’t know it. While I did learn a lot about how local cities are helping homeless people in need of housing, I wish that the event also covered the other half of the issue: how to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. I understand that there are already people in need of assistance, and that local communities can do a lot to help them. However, it’s also important to prevent people from needing said assistance. I don’t know the long term solution to providing affordable housing in cities. Is rent control the answer? Will it even get passed? The defeats of Propositions 8 and 10 in California’s last midterm election say otherwise (while Prop 8 is not related to housing it does involve limiting profits, in this case of dialysis clinics). However, it’s just important to ask how to solve a problem as how to help the people already affected by it. Tensions have risen once again between Pakistan and India. While the two neighboring nuclear states have a long history of border skirmishes and disputes over the territory of Kashmir, recent events have been more intense than usual. On February 16th, a devastating suicide bombing killed 40 Indian policemen. While the perpetrator was a local Kashmiri, the attack was claimed by Jaish-e-Muhammad (JEM), a jihadist group with links to Pakistani intelligence agency the ISI. Seeing this as state sponsored terrorism (and to please his hardline Hindu supporters), India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi retaliated by ordering airstrikes past the line of control, the de-facto border that splits Kashmir between India and Pakistan. While cross border fire and incursions by soldiers aren’t new, this is the first time Indian jets flew over the line since the two countries were at war. The exact outcome of the airstrikes is disputed. India claims its planes bombed a JEM compound located well into Pakistan. Pakistan says that India only crossed the border by a few miles and bombed empty jungle as a show of force. While it's unlikely these airstrikes will result in war, the recent events have confirmed two things: the incompetence of Pakistan’s air defenses and Modi’s willingness to use military force.
Pakistan’s military is extremely powerful, oftentimes controlling the country more than the civilian government. That being said, it fails to defend its own airspace. The most notable example was in 2011, when American helicopters flew Navy SEALS into Pakistan undetected to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad was close to the Pakistan Military Academy. The fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist was hiding next to Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point raises numerous questions. However, what’s also noticeable is that Pakistan was unable to intercept or stop American helicopters (loaded with elite soldiers) from landing near its top military academy. If Pakistan cannot protect the airspace of one of its prime institutions from helicopters, it’s unlikely it can defend disputed territory near the border from fighter jets. During this week’s incident, Pakistan’s military was clearly unable to prevent Indian jets from carrying out airstrikes on Pakistani soil. All of the planes involved in the incursion entered the airspace, dropped their bombs, and left without opposition. While Pakistani planes later shoot down two Indian jets, this was only after they crossed into India to carry out retaliatory strikes. Despite its huge budget and powerful political influence, Pakistan’s air force was unable to complete its mission of protecting the country’s airspace. Prime Minister Modi has shown that he is willing to use more military force than his predecessors. In 2016, Modi sent special forces across the line of control and into Pakistani Kashmir to carry out “surgical strikes” in retaliation for attacks by JEM. This time, Modi sent fighter jets to carry out airstrikes. Considering that Indian military aircraft haven't cross that line since the two countries were at war, the ordering of these airstrikes shows that Modi is not afraid to use force. Many of his supporters, who are right winged Hindus and against Pakistan, were more than happy to hear the news that India retaliated against state sponsored terrorism. It’s important to note that Modi faces reelection in the near future. Seeing how he has been unsuccessful in creating jobs and improving the standard of living, a brave and popular use of military force would do a lot to boost Modi’s numbers. I doubt these tensions are more than just a quick flare up when it comes to the long term conflict over Kashmir. However, these events put a spotlight on the incompetence of Pakistan's defenses and Modi's military ambitions. Last week, I attended an event at my school where we hosted Sama Wareh, author and professor of environmental education at Cal State Fullerton. While much of her career, has been focused on environmental work, this event was focused on her humanitarian activities. In her spare time, she has travelled to Syria and nearby countries to help refugees. What’s interesting about Wareh is that she doesn’t do aid work for her day job. Instead, she spends her time off from work to help others. The spontaneity of her service trips is inspiring. Her first trip to Syria replaced a backpacking trek through Asia, as that was the only time she could get off work. Without hesitation, she choose to spend her vacation helping other instead of enjoying nature.
Since then, she has gone to Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, and other countries to help establish schools for refugees. Providing education is important works to preventing current refugees from becoming a lost generation. Her art therapy helps children cope with the horrors of war, and I hope she can continue this vital work in the future. Last week, I had the chance to attend a school event on sustainable energy. The speaker was Aaron Fyke, a CEO and investor of green energy and drone startups. He also advocates for adopting sustainable solutions. Fyke’s presentation had two parts: one half on quantifying the effects of global warming and another half on the progress of sustainable energy.
I’m confident that most people at the event believe in climate change and the importance of stopping it. However, Fyke’s presentation was more than just an attempt to get people to be more eco-friendly. More importantly, he explained from a scientific and empirical point of view that climate change is happening and is powerful. His graphs and numbers may seem bland at first, but they provide indisputable proof that carbon emissions are increasing temperatures and create extreme weather. Data like this shows why the entire scientific community and most of the world believes in climate change. It also helped me understand how climate change works and how it affects so many parts of the biosphere. Fyke also showed statistics on the reducing costs of green energy. Thanks to technological innovations, the prices of sustainable energy are now lower than those of fossil fuels. I had no idea that modern society is already at the point where going green is economical as well as eco friendly. Overall, I learned a lot from Fyke’s presentation. His insights taught me how climate change works and the amazing progress technology has made over the last couple of decades. I hope people like Fyke will encourage the world to take the steps it needs so that climate change does not reach an irreversible state. Last week, I had the chance to attend an event ran by the Los Angeles World Affairs Council (LAWAC) on North Korean issues. Speaking at the event was David Kang: a professor at USC and author of multiple books on Asian issues.
To me, the main takeaway of the event is that North Korea is not a problem to be solved, it is a nation to coexist with. Too often, the world (myself included) sees North Korea solely as a WMD stockpile controlled by a crazy dictator. We forget that this nation has 25 million people who want to live pleasant lives just like the rest of us. As bad as the human rights and living conditions may be, North Korea is relatively stable. Years of isolation have made the country self reliant and heavily fortified, mitigating the effects of outside intervention. I am not condoning their methods of achieving this stability, but it’s undeniable that North Korea is here to stay. Kang is a proponent of a political solution without regime change and reunification. Instead, he believes in reducing tensions to a point of coexistence, with the China-Taiwan model as an example. While he may seem like an optimist, I actually think his proposals are achievable. Establishing proper conduct at the border and increasing interactions with the two countries are all possible and can be done without weakening each nation's security. As Kang pointed out during the event, the world has a “once in a generation” opportunity for progress. North Korea is now embracing diplomacy, South Korea is accepting these efforts, and the Trump Administration is willing to take chances on summits and other initiatives. With all three leaders open for progress, now is the best time to move the issue forward. While I’m hopeful that everyone on the Korean Peninsula can eventually coexist side by side, North Korea still poses a huge security threat to the South. North Korea’s WMD programs may cover the headlines, but it’s their conventional weapons which pose the most urgent threat. Stationed near the DMZ are thousands of artillery (shell and rocket) installations ready to fire into South Korea. According to the RAND Corporation, half of South Korea’s population and economy is in range of North Korean artillery. Seoul and neighboring Incheon could both be destroyed without deploying a single soldier across the border. I asked Kang is there anything South Korea can do to defend against North Korea’s artillery stationed along the border. He said that while the South has done what it can, there isn’t anything meaningful they can do defensively. Seoul has tried moving people and companies out of the city with incentives, but everyone seems to move back. The city has also built its subways deep underground to double as bomb shelters, but these tunnels won’t save anything above ground. The fact that there is little the South Koreans can do to protect their capital serves as a reminder that a political solution is the only way to prevent massive loss of live and destruction across the peninsula. |
AuthorHi, my name is Ian and I am a high school student exploring international issues through my school's Global Scholars Program. I hope you enjoy my writing and learn something about global trends through this blog. ArchivesCategories |