Trump's Foreign Policy

Every week, Monday to Friday, at around 7:30, I usually arrive at work. I usually sit down at my desk, turn on my computer, check my email, make myself a coffee in my Starbucks mug, and then I start monitoring. Today was like any other day. I did just the same routine as I normally do, making a list of hyperlinked-article titles to send to my supervisors.

Anyone that has any interest in the PR field would know what monitoring entails. Monitoring can be described as google-ing/searching keywords to find any reference to a certain company within the media for the last couple of days. It's a way to check how effective the PR has been in spreading certain information to the public (at least, the media). This is why we have to get to work by eight a.m. Interns get the task of waking up bright and early to start on monitoring. But, I'm not complaining. I'm actually getting a first-hand lesson about public relations and learning a lot about media itself. 

So, I usually start my monitoring at Naver because it's the best resource for finding Korean keywords (since Koreans are the target consumers and audience), and then I usually wrap up with a quick google-check because I need to go through the English Korean newspapers (Yonhap, Chosun, JoongAng, Korean Herald, etc). 

And, as I scanned around Korea JoongAng Daily a couple of hours ago, I came across an article titled “Trump supports nukes for Korea and Japan”, which obviously caught my attention. All of my friends knows my obsession over Donald Trump. As a Poli-Sci student, I am very much intrigued with the presidential elections in the States and as a Korean citizen, I fully understand the influence that U.S. presidents (mainly their foreign policy) has on Korea. And the obsession over Donald? I’m sorry to disappoint the white supremacists out there, but, no, I am not a Trump Follower. I would not even be classified as a Republican. Let’s just say I’m highly entertained by the crazy remarks he has to say and it’s pretty much my worry for global peace that motivates me to keep up with the Republican primaries. Sorry, Republicans, but the 2016 GOP primaries are pretty much the center of all global jokes right now.

Anyways, going back to the article, in an interview this past weekend, Trump stated that if he becomes president, as a part of his Asian foreign policy, he will allow for South Korea to possess its own nuclear weapons and even pull out U.S. troops from Korea. I remember at the start of his campaign, before the primaries began, that Trump was very adamant in his opinion of the US-ROK relations in terms of who is footing the bill for the U.S. troops in Korea and even Japan.

I’m sorry, but I was under the impression that this was a give-and-take relationship. If Trump thinks the majority of Koreans love having American soldiers on our country, he needs some new policy advisors. And his former remarks about how the fraction of what Korea pays for the soldiers is “peanuts” in comparison with the U.S., well, he needs to think about the importance of Asia to the United States.

But, I’m liking the idea that Korea would be allowed to develop their own nuclear arsenals. The only reason we need the U.S. in the peninsula is to deter threats from the North. What we have right now is a very uneven fight and there is absolutely no shed of light for an end to the sixty-year-old armistice on the peninsula. I’m not an advocate for nuclear weapons. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t call myself an extreme pacifist (which does not mean I believe collateral damage is moral in anyway). But, allowing for Korea to develop our own nuclear weapons gives Korea the power to seek military independence, something that we need as a sovereign nation. 

I do understand that the decision to allow for Korea to have nuclear weapons is a slippery slope. But please let me emphasize again that this is all very theoretical. I personally don’t think that Trump would win the presidency, so let’s just discuss this matter in the view of “If Trump becomes president…”, which is actually equivalent to saying “if a fraction of Americans (rather, the electoral college) is crazy enough to choose Trump as the commander-in-chief…”.

It’s amazing how polar opposite Trump is from Obama. I mean, the non-resemblance is uncanny. For anyone who has ever enrolled in a foreign policy class or is just interested in U.S. foreign policy, the term “Pivot to Asia” should be very familiar. It is Obama’s current strategy towards the Asia region, putting emphasis on future relations with Asian countries — maybe as a way to balance the rise of China, but who knows? Obama managed to maintain great relations with most of the Asian countries (excluding North Korea of course), the biggest symbol being the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But, I’m very curious to see how Trump’s foreign policy would look like. He’s burning ties left and right…it’s now a question of how long until the U.S. becomes a lone country in an otherwise global world. As a business man, he really underestimates the power of diplomacy and the importance it is to maintain great relations and the importance of working on the bad ones. 

China's not-so-direct response

For the last couple of days, there have been increased coverage of the movements of North Korea by the South Korean media. And, today, I received breaking news alert from both my BBC and CNN news apps, both talking about how North Korea changed its rocket launch window from February 8-25 to February 7-14. 

This comes after the initial announcement by the North on their intent to launch a satellite into orbit, which has been viewed by other nations as a front for their ballistic missile test. 

As a Korean citizen currently living in Korea, this is pretty scary news. I read in Friday’s Chosun Ilbo — a conservative Korean newspaper — that satellite photography showed that the North has installed a viewing area for Kim Jong-un, the First Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, at the missile launching site. This is not a good sign because the Korean government has translated this as the North making legit preparations for the launch. 

In the midst of all of this guess work and predictions about an ultra-unstable country, Yonhap news reported on Saturday that Chinese President Xi Jinping told President Park over the phone that there should not be nuclear weapons nor war on the Korean Peninsula. This is the first time the two leaders spoke since the North’s nuclear test conducted in January. While Beijing condemned the North’s nuclear test, there hasn’t been a strong response from the country about how to deal with the North. 

Xi Jinping was quoted to have stated, “Under any circumstances, China will consistently make efforts to realize Korean-Peninsula denuclearisation, safeguard peace and stability on the peninsula and resolve problems through dialogue and negotiations”. 

Overall, the conversation is a bit vague since, according to the ministry, Xi didn’t directly mention North Korea. But I would say that much of diplomacy can be described as being vague. 

It is assuring that China maintains good relations with South Korea, seeing that China has huge leverage over North Korea in that China provides the North with food aid and energy. And so this telephone conversation seems like a pretty big deal. President Park has done a great job keeping great relations with China (plus the U.S. at the same time!). I'm not sure how much China -- or rather Xi Jinping -- is willing to push the North, seeing as China fears the falling of North Korea would only increase the leverage of the United States on the Asia continent. But, I guess only time will tell, right? 

And, just in case anyone that is reading this is thinking that the entire country is under a state of emergency because of North Korea, that is currently not the case. While I was living in the States, every time any Western news agency talked about the Korean peninsula and that fact that, since the Korean War ended in an armistice, the two polar ends were still in a state of war, I was pretty freaked out. I mean really scared. I was even worried to move back to Korea because it was right after the bombardment of Yeonpyeong. 

But, oh boy, was I wrong. I guess it’s because skirmishes between the North and the South happen so often, the people of the South usually don’t pay much attention to it. Places like Hongdae and Gangnam are filled with people, regardless of what is happening. 

Now that I’m used to how South Korean think, I’m not sure how seriously I should be looking at the missile issue with the North right now. But, we’ll see how the issue unfolds over the weekend, I guess.

Until then, it’s only guesswork. 

2016 Elections: Trump CRUZ-IFIED

Finally, the primaries have started. 

The first caucuses — held in Iowa — have been conducted on the first of February, and what drama do we have here. The Twitter post by the New York Post summarizes it all. 

"Trump left humbled by Ted's victory. Hillary and Bernie in Dem thriller. Cruz-ified."

I would not want to be an American waking up to see that headline on the newsstands Tuesday morning. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to see that the person the Iowan conservatives chose as their nominee was anyone but Trump. That's not to say that I'm a supporter of Ted Cruz. But he is a conservative that the GOP would actually endorse. The same can't be said of Trump. 

But, the problem is not the Republican nominee. It's the tight race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The whole day, my phone has been buzzing with headlines stating that the democratic caucus was too close to count and that they cannot declare a winner. Even the Korean media were going crazy about this. 

I'm sorry to say that Clinton is not at the top of her game. She needed a strong victory in Iowa, but she failed to do just that. Bernie Sander's received a huge amount of votes, primarily from the strong support he has from young voters. Looking at an NBC exit poll, the data shows that about 84% of Democrats between 17-29 voted for Sanders. He also beat Clinton in the next age bracket.

(NBC News)

I don't have anything against Sanders. I just wouldn't be one to parade around using the hashtag #Feeltheburn. But, I understand why the American youth are actively supporting Bernie Sanders, as he is the face of "anti-establishment", an image that differs quite drastically with the overly experienced Clinton.  

And, let's not overlook the strong support that Clinton gained from older voters. As I have learned constantly in political theory courses, it is safe to say that young voters are least likely to actually vote. Right now, it's only February. There is still a lot of time left until the the end of the primaries and the actual voting date. And there has been a whole bunch of hype during this election, which may have been a critical factor in this Iowa caucus.

I'm sure that Clinton's supporters would be more stable, more likely to actually come out to the polls, compared to the young voters supporting Sanders.

Expecting a win for Sanders in the next caucus at New Hampshire, let's see what happens after that. Let the games begin.

Iowa Caucuses

It’s January 26th, which means its only a week away until the official start of presidential nomination race — the Iowa caucuses that will be held on February 1st. Iowa has been the start of the presidential nomination caucuses for both the democratic and republican party since 1976. And, since then, Iowa has maintained its important status as the “first-in-the-nation”. 

Bracing myself for the caucuses, I read Anthony Gaughan’s opinion piece in Newsweek — “Five Things You Should Know About the Iowa Caucuses” — to make sure I know what’s going on before it actually happens. 

The article talks about the importance of the Iowa caucuses, especially in predicting the nominee for the Democratic party. The most recent example? In January of 2008, Barack Obama beat current candidate Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses. Seeing as he won the election and thus the candidacy, the Iowa caucuses has a strong effect on the overall outcome of the presidential race.

So, let’s see if this will be the case of the 2016 caucuses.

According to the most recent CNN/ORC Poll, Clinton currently has a lead over Sanders of 52% to 38%. As a Hillary supporter, her lead is welcome but the narrowing margin is a bit discomforting. 

Sanders is gaining most of his support from young Democratic voters as well as those who identify themselves as independents. After taking numerous courses about public opinion and voting behavior, it’s pretty much a given fact that young voters tend to not make an appearance at the voting polls. Even I, as a poli-sci major, haven’t voted in the last presidential election in Korea, nor the last election for the Seoul major. 

It will be difficult for Sanders to transfer the support he has from young Democrats into actual votes for him at the caucuses. Clinton has a more stable backing, gaining much of her support from women, those who are above the age of 50 and anyone who is not caucasian. If I was living in the States and was an eligible voter, Hillary Clinton would have my vote for sure, no contest. 

However, after the Iowa caucus, the next stop is New Hampshire, which is where Sanders has more of an advantage and likely to beat Clinton. 

So, fingers crossed, let’s hope Clinton wins in Iowa. 

A New Immigration Bill?

Recently, on my handy-dandy iPhone, my New York Times app has had practically no rest. Every time I check my iPhone to see if I had any text messages or any missed phone calls, I only saw the notifications from the NY Times, with headlines about the Supreme Court, affirmative action, gay rights, etc. But, out of all these headlines, one that caught by eyes dealt with how an immigration bill passed the senate.

Why did this headline intrigue me the most?

While living in the United States, I saw unlimited attempts by many Congress members, who attempted to solve the problematic immigration issue that continues in the States. From my recollection, I still remember the crying faces of immigrant children on my television screen, sobbing at the news that an immigration bill — which gave hope to the thousands of students living in US illegally — failed to receive enough votes to come into action.

With these memories embedded in my min, I was shocked to read that this new immigration bill was a little different. It went through a lot of debate and many many revisions, which included the increased spending used toward strengthening the US borders.  

It passed the Senate with a 68-32 vote, which were gathered from the huge efforts of the Gang of Eight, the bipartisan group in the Senate who were the main advocates of this bill.

To give a quick summary of the Senate's bill, it offers a way for illegal immigrants, who came to the US before December 31st of 2011, to gain citizenship. It would be a gradual process that would take about 13 years to attain citizenship.

13 years is very long...but, I guess anything is better than nothing, right?

Now, the question is: What will the House do?

Known to be very conservative, this bill might face strong opposition but, due to the strengthening of the borders, I feel that this bill might actually have a chance. Even 14 Republican Senators voted for this bill, giving me more hope that this might actually pass the House of Representatives.

One of my favorite parts was Senator Rubio's speech, with insights on his family's history as immigrants from Cuba. As a Republican Senator from Florida, I was very impressed to see his huge support for the immigration reform.

I'm very excited to see what will happen in the House and to see if this can actually be passed. This bill will have such a huge impact on the immigrants who went to the US for a better future, a dream that they will have a hard time seeing without this bill.

Let's all pray and wait for the House to make its decision.