Opinion Pieces

Author-Jake Carter ‘18 sula, a consequence of stronger sanctions, Section-Opinion Pieces would precipitate a devastating refugee crisis on China’s border. Similarly, Russia, in a constant power struggle against the In recent weeks, Kim Jong Un’s United States, views the North as a strahostile displays of nuclear and interconti- tegic buffer between them and the US-alnental capabilities have created a growing lied South. As long as this is the case, both international crisis. True to its distinc- China and Russia are certain to support tion as the “land of lousy options,” North North Korea and reject or undermine any Korea and the surrounding geopolitical destabilizing strategies, including sanclandscape present very few routes for tions. peaceful resolution. Much hope has been Relying on leverage gained from expressed for the use of sanctions, Rus- effective sanctions, any negotiation, insian and Chinese cooperation, and even cluding one based on the Iran Deal, that a strategy based on the 2016 Iran Deal. requires the North’s forfeiture of nucleThere exists, however, only two practi- ar capabilities is, thus, impractical. The cable options for resolution: war or US leader of a small, impoverished nation capitulation. surrounded by stronger countries, Kim On Monday, the UN Security Jong Un rationally views nuclear weapons Council approved new, tougher sanc- as essential to his regime’s survival. Mentions against North Korea, cutting, for acing to the US, nuclear weapons protect example, oil imports by 30%. Although North Korea from American incursions supposedly a victory, these sanctions, a and further isolate and weaken the watered-down version of the original South. As Vladimir Putin explained, “[The proposal, are far too weak to succeed. North would] rather eat grass than give The North for decades has been the most up their nuclear program.” Thus, only the heavily sanctioned country on earth and most significant leverage could enable still has managed to survive, experiencing successful denuclearization. nearly a 4% growth in their economy in Without the support of China or 2016. With the privileged thereby satis- Russia and, thus, without sufficient sancfied, Kim Jong Un, unconcerned for the tions, no diplomatic routes of denuclewellbeing of his people, has no substantial arizing North Korea remain. As now the pressure from within his country. Thus, only means by which the US can achieve only the most extreme external pressures this objective, war must be considered could elicit North Korean cooperation. Al- as a potential strategy. There is, howevthough a step in the right direction, these er, an alternative to devastating nuclear new sanctions are certainly not strong conflict: The global community must enough to do so. acquiesce to North Korea’s possession of Sufficiently restrictive measures nuclear weapons. Although erratic, Kim can, in fact, only be implemented with Jong Un is not irrational and understands complete Chinese and Russian coopera- that war would mean extinction for his tion, which certainly will not occur for nation. Comforted by the principal of the foreseeable future. Accounting for Mutually Assured Destruction, the North 90% of North Korea’s foreign trade, Chi- would be unlikely to make any imprudent na has a tangible incentive to maintain decisions with these weapons. Nevertherelations with Kim Jong Un. Moreover, less, such a policy would of course require the destabilization of the Korean penin- increased military preparedness in the

The Podium | Opinion Pieces

region, strong and repeated demonstrations of support for South Korea and Japan, and the immediate cessation of Trump’s bellicose rhetoric. At the very least, the recognition of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities buys time so that the global community can incrementally increase pressure on the North until a shift occurs in geopolitical scales or internal pressure returns, revealing a new route for opening and even denuclearizing the nation. At best, the policy could sufficiently placate Kim Jong Un, allowing for the creation of a new, stable, and even semi-cooperative North Korea. The question is, however, does the US have the foresight to swallow their pride and lead this effort, or will they drag the world into an unnecessary and devastating nuclear war?

Author-Shane Rockett ‘19 Section-Opinion Pieces In two very different geographic and political settings, two minority groups have voted in referendums for the creation of an autonomous state in their name. The Catalans, speaking from the perspective of politically stable, modernized Spain, believe their economic progress is being hindered by their unity to Spain. The Iraqi Kurds believe that after being massacred by the Iraqi government, politically ignored, and then still being arguably the most effective force against ISIL, the time has come for an independent Kurdistan. Though the bids for Catalan and Kurdish independence may seem similar, they should be met with vastly different responses from the United States. The Catalans who are attempting to weaken Spain ought to be ignored or discouraged, while the Kurds’ quest for independence should be encouraged and supported by the United States. Regarding the Catalan effort for secession, the United States should, at the least, ignore their attempt to divide our NATO ally, Spain, and if more direct action is to be taken, openly oppose the Catalans’ call for independence. Should the Catalans achieve their goal in creating an independent state, America will gain nothing. An independent Catalonia would be unable to join NATO because Spain would very likely veto their entry. Furthermore, the People’s Party, the current national party of Spain, has traditionally supported American aims and sent troops to support the United States in the Second Gulf War. The cause of Catalan independence is not only irrelevant, but detrimental to American national interest. In contrast with the Catalan movement, the Kurdish cry for independence should be met with support and aid from the United States. Trapped between three states in the volatile Middle East, the Kurdish people are the largest ethnic group with no homeland in the world. Historically, their political views overlap with Americans; they are more religiously tolerant and anti-jihadi than most sects in the area, including their Arab neighbors who control Iraq. The official paramilitary group of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Peshmerga, has been an effective ally in the war on terror and assisted the US during the Second Gulf War; the United States would expect to continue military cooperation with an independent Kurdistan. Israel, the United States’ closest ally in the region, already supports Kurdish independence. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “[The Kurds] are fighting people that have proven political commitment and political moderation, but they’re also worthy of their own political independence.” Additionally, Iraqi Kurdistan is a region rich in natural resources, most significantly oil and natural gas. The United States would be wise to secure Kurdistan’s massive oil reserves under a friendly, independent, Kurdish national government. American convenience aside, the Kurds deserve a national homeland because they have suffered for too long as a political minority, most notably having chemical weapons used on them by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. While the Catalans’ economic grievances are significant, their concerns pale in comparison to the Kurds, who are frequently ignored or suppressed violently by their respective states. As much as it may sting for the Catalans, self-interest and morality should prevent the United States from supporting their independence movement, while the Kurds ought to be backed by their American friends.

Author-Shane Rockett ‘19 Section-Opinion Pieces Traditionally in China, romantic posters of their revolutionary leader, Mao Zedong, decorate the streets. Now, another man’s portrait has joined the honorable chairman in mass-printed reverence, and one may find posters of China’s current leader, Xi Jinping, hung alongside his predecessor. The similarities between Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong extend farther than their top spot on the Chinese political ladder. In fact, Xi Jinping appears to be following in the direct footsteps of Mao, his predecessor. Xi’s policies, such as his political purges of the party and efforts to establish a cult of personality have granted him a level of power in Chinese politics unrivaled in history by any but Mao. Not only has Xi Jinping achieved Mao-level power, but he has done it by blatantly copying the political strategies of the chairman. Among the two leader’s similarities, Xi Jinping’s active purging of political dissidents from the party stands as the most striking similarity between him and Chairman Mao. Prior to Xi’s assumption of office in 2012, the communist party had disciplined 35 members of their Central Committee since taking power in 1949. In the last five years, the same amount of Central Committee members have been purged under Xi’s leadership. Top level officials are not the only ones whose jobs are at stake, however, and in total, 1.34 million Chinese officials have been purged from the party for deviating from Xi’s course under the euphemisms “corruption” or “disciplinary charges”. As if to confirm his elevation to Mao-like status, Xi has broken from party precedent by neglecting to name a successor before his second five-year term as president, implying that he has no intention of stepping down from his position as China’s top dog. Already at the end of his first term as president, Mr. Xi’s political tendencies are beginning to reek of autocracy. Though Xi’s political policies may be the most significant Maoish method of consolidating power, his efforts to create a cult of personality have been by far the most obvious. This November, the Chinese Communist party toured Yugan county encouraging the Christians of the region to take down their posters of Jesus and replace them with state-supplied images of General Secretary Xi. To say that Xi wishes to destroy religion would be inaccurate; he does not want to kill religion, he wishes to replace it. Additionally, Xi has taken advantage of the Chinese government’s internet censorship capabilities to silence his critics, even going so far as to ban a meme comparing him to winniethe-pooh and censoring a nine year old boy’s viral letter to Xi suggesting he lose weight. To truly draw comparisons between Xi and Mao’s cult of personality, one must look no further than a Beijing market, where their airbrushed portraits hang in tandem above various market stalls. In October, as though to cement Xi’s status as the next Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist Party congress added a phrase bearing Xi Jinping’s name to the Communist party constitution; the words, “Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era of Socialism With Chinese Special Characteristics” are now part of official party dogma. Other than Mao Zedong and the economic reformer, Deng Xiaoping, no Chinese official has ever received the honor of having their doctrine enshrined in the party constitution, a clear statement by Mr. Xi that his communist party will be defined by the policies of its leader. With no heir-apparent and his name in the constitution, Mr. Xi is showing no indication of giving up power. At this point, few would be surprised if Mr. Xi did not limit himself to the two-term precedent. Slipping out of the Chinese government’s vice grip on the media, rumors of as many as nine assassination attempts on Xi’s life have made their way into fringe sources on Chinese politics. To be clear, there is no definitive evidence supporting the claims of attempted assassinations, but Xi has certainly crossed enough party lords to encourage retaliation. As Xi continues to consolidate political power, the future holds one of two possibilities for him: either his political reshuffling will catch up with him, resulting in his removal from power, or Mr. Xi will prove unbeatable, and China will experience its first life-term leader since Mao. an independent Kurdistan. Israel, the United States’ closest ally in the region, already supports Kurdish independence. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “[The Kurds] are fighting people that have proven political commitment and political moderation, but they’re also worthy of their own political independence.” Additionally, Iraqi Kurdistan is a region rich in natural resources, most significantly oil

and natural gas. The United States would be wise to secure Kurdistan’s massive oil reserves under a friendly, independent, Kurdish national government. American convenience aside, the Kurds deserve a national homeland because they have suffered for too long as a political minority, most notably having chemical weapons used on them by Iraq under Saddam Hussein. While the Catalans’ economic grievances are significant, their concerns pale in comparison to the Kurds, who are frequently ignored or suppressed violently by their respective states. As much as it may sting for the Catalans, self-interest and morality should prevent the United States from supporting their independence movement, while the Kurds ought to be backed by their American friends.