Browner Passes on Position in Washington

Carol Browner is planning on leaving her position as the White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy. Browner has been a part of the Obama administration for two years and has seen little progress in climate change policy. With much doubt that the next two years will differ from the last, Browner plans to pass on her position in Washington, D.C.

The friction between the Democratic agenda (in the White House and Senate) and the Republican agenda (in the House of Representatives) has already staggered compromise on a number of issues, particularly health care. With such division in Washington many wonder whether any major policies will pass Capital Hill or if such issues will remain at a stalemate.

One negative aspect of this play is that Browner’s pass confirms that lobbyists in favor of promoting clean energy legislation stand little chance of getting anything passed.

But Browner’s pass may well be an advantage for the White House and Democratic party. By passing on environmental issues, the White House and Congress can better focus on collaborating to pass policies on more pressing issues. With a renewed emphasis on reducing the deficit, job creation, education, and revamping the economy, there is little room on the floor of Congress for laws concerning pollution and global warming.

It is expected that bipartisan efforts can be made in the aforementioned areas, but with America’s enormous debt and a public distaste for Washington’s “pet projects,” environmental issues will likely take a backseat, or possibly be shoved in the trunk, while Democrats and Republicans of Congress argue over who gets to drive and who’s riding shoot gun for the next two years.

You can listen to a podcast on this topic here: Pass

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com
Photo Source: Google; http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/browner-climate-not-in-2009.php

North Korea Sends Message to the US and Seoul with Artillery Fire- Ping

On November 25, 2010, North Korea could be seen firing artillery shots just off the coast of Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea (the very island North Korea had shelled days earlier killing two soldiers and two civilians). The North carried out this “routine drill” just as the top U.S. commander in South Korea was touring Yeonpyeong. The North aimed to send a less-than-subtle message to Washington and Seoul that the North was by no means intimidated by the planned joint-drills between South Korea and the U.S.

Under the pretense of it being “a routine drill,” North Korea was able to successfully make its message clear to the U.S. and the South without making verbal threats, using the play known as a ping. The artillery shots were more than sufficient to rattle some nerves as many people were still on edge from the attacks made by North Korea earlier in the week.

Washington and Seoul opted to send a ping to Pyongyang of their own by moving forward with the joint-drills, despite North Korea’s threats that it would bring the peninsula to “the brink of war.” The North’s firing of artillery and the U.S/South Korean response to proceed with joint-miliarty-drills both demonstrate the ping. Through the use of this play both sides sent a clear, but unspoken message to the other: We won’t back down.

In the end though, North Korea did back down.

The ping was not much of advantage in this case for North Korea. All it managed to do was anger the U.S. and South Korea and resulted in a cut-off of aid to North Korea (which has struggled for many years with feeding its population). The North’s ping was meant, I think, to intimidate the U.S. and the South. I personally don’t think bullying other countries for food and supplies is a very wise tactic on the part of the North, especially since it has over-used this technique through the years. Generally when a nation wants food and aid they attempt make good connections with the countries they want help from. Shelling an island and firing artillery are not very good ways to make friends.

The ping used by the U.S. and the South, however, may have had some advantages. By moving forward with the joint-drills the allies sent a serious message to Pyongyang that the US was and is fully prepared to come to the defense of South Korea. And that these overused bully tactics by the North are really losing their touch. Washington and Seoul didn’t outright tell the North to “bring it on!” They did, however, imply by show of example that South Korea (and by association the U.S.) is not to be messed with.

You can listen to a podcast on this topic here: Ping

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com
Photo: Google; http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-11-23/news/27082222_1_artillery-fire-north-korea-yellow-sea

Freedom in Egypt- Fiat

History was made this month with the ousting of Egypt’s president of thirty years, Hosni Mubarak. It was announced on Friday, February 11 that the president had left the country, an action completely in contrast to the report he had issued the previous night that he would not step down. The streets of Egypt erupted into celebration, but journalists were cautious to insert any opinion or joyous tone of their own into their initial reports.

I first learned of the president’s ousting when I logged onto the online copy of The New York Times right after my morning classes ended. The report was about an hour old by the time I learned of the news. I was surprised to find that the article was very short and straight to the point, unlike the Times usual 2-page-length stories. The facts were stated quite plainly. Mubarak was out and the Egyptian people were elated. There wasn’t much else said. This move on the part of the reporter exemplifies a fiat play, where one gets straight to the point with no spin.

I think this was a wise decision on the reporter’s part as it delivered the news swiftly and effectively. By delivering the facts, the article allowed readers to digest the shocking news and then form their own opinions on the matter.

You can listen to a podcast on this topic here: Fiat

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html?hp

Photo source: Google; http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2011/02/many_in_the_middle_east_react.html

 

Japanese Gov Challenges Islanders to Increase Protection

Japan is challenging the citizens of Yonaguni Island to accept a military presence there. The island is Japan’s most outward lying island to the west and sits dangerously close to a disputed territory. The Senkakus islands, which lie near Yonaguni, are controlled by Japan, but also claimed by China and Taiwan. Many citizens are against the occupation for fear of endangering economic ties with Taiwan, but other residents are in favor of the measure. The military presence, they argue, is not meant to guard against Taiwan. It is meant to protect the island against mainland China.

Chinese war ships have been spotted near the island recently, and some residents believe it has been a bit too close for comfort. The island, which has a very small population, has little means of selfdefense. The Japanese government is urging people to keep in mind that this military measure is for their own protection.

The government is using a challenge play to its advantage by appealing directly to citizens and directly confronting the islanders’ concerns. By putting the planned occupation in a favorable light, the government of Japan may successfully achieve its goal without angering a majority of citizens.

A possible downside to using this play is that it still allows those against the measure to speak out against it. Public distaste for the measure could reflect poorly on the Japanese government.

I think trying to get the citizens of the island to willingly agree to the measure will end up putting the government in a favorable position with citizens. By agreeing to the measure, citizens will not feel it was forced upon them.

You can listen to a podcast on this topic here: Challenge

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/asia/11island.html?ref=world

Governments Aim to Pull the Plug on Protests-JAM

The internet’s crucial role in the organization of mass protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen has certain governments on their toes.

Egypt’s government pulled the plug on virtually all internet and cellphone service on Friday, January 28 in attempt to prevent protestors from organizing further demonstrations. The block successfully interfered, at least in terms of speed, with journalists’ reports of the events in Egypt.

China, whose government is run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), followed suite by further restricting its government-monitored internet access. In light of the recent protests, the word “Egypt” has been blocked as a keyword search on two of China’s largest search engines, Sina.com and Netease.com, as well as China’s equivalent to twitter, Weibo. With increasing opposition to authoritarian rule emerging across the globe, perhaps the PRC fears that protests in Tahir Square will lead to a second Tiananmen Square movement.

Both governments are using a tactic known as the “jam play” in attempt to block material that could threaten the success of their governments.

An advantage to using this play is that it successfully hinders protestors and journalists from communicating as quickly and effectively.

The downside for the governments is that these determined protestors are not down for long. They can sometimes find ways around the block (such as seen in China) and there is always communication through word-of-mouth. As hard as it is for many of us in the 21st Century to imagine life without internet and cellphones, it did exist. And when thousands of people are protesting in the streets, do you really need a text message to find out where everyone is gathering? It seems to me that the crowd wouldn’t be that hard to find.

Despite both Egypt and China’s attempts to restrict talk of reform, chat rooms and emails on the topic continue to circulate. It’s clear that it will take more than jamming the internet to silence a determined and tech-savvy generation’s call for change.

You can listen to a podcast on this topic here: Jam (new intro)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/asia/01beijing.html?scp=1&sq=egypt%20china&st=cse