Climate Change: Denialism, or Realism?

Posted on by admin

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 2017

Three men are photographed in suits standing in front of a large poster with the words "EU-China Summit/Brussels 02.06.2017".

EU-China Summit, Brussels, 2017. Source: European Council President via Flickr.

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin-Madison/Naval Officer

Climate change.

This issue is a lot more complex than people suspect for many deemed to be denying the facts.

What many people disagree on in good faith with respect to climate change is not that it’s occurring, nor what the impacts are, or what they may be in the future. Rather, it is what the collective response of the United States should be, and what other concerns — economic, national security, energy policy, diplomatic, etc. — that response should rightly be weighed against.

Continue reading →

Scare of War with China in the Philippines:  Its Source and Implications to the Allied Nations

Posted on by admin

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 2017

A large, green rice field is photographed. Figures are visible in the field in the background.

Rice farm in Palawan. Source: Cedric Buffler via Flickr.

Sannie Evan Malala
Small Farmer in the Philippines

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte revealed on Friday, May 19, that Chinese President Xi Jinping had threatened war if the Philippines forced its claims in the South China Sea.  Duterte and Xi had a restricted meeting last May 15 during the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.  There Duterte expressed his plan to drill oil in the South China Sea, as he claimed.  And he said the response was “we’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war.”  (I think I’m familiar with this pulling of words.) This is clear lawlessness.

Investigating the Trump Scandal: Implications for Democracy and Political Risk

Posted on by admin

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 2017

Gergana Dimova, Ph.D. [1]
Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation in Ukraine/Institute and the Centre of Democracy in Bulgaria

The single most common question posed since the media allegations of Trump’s campaign alleged connections with Russia broke out is whether American democracy is failing and how political risk is affected. I use a database of more than 1,890 critical articles leveled at the governments in the established democracy of Germany, and the managed democracy of Russia, to place the Trump’s investigations in a comparative perspective. The analysis explains how the appointment of a special prosecutor affects the democratic nature of accountability arrangements and offers predictive statistics of political risk in the aftermath of this media scandal. It considers factors related to regime type, institutional and electoral constraints, reputational effects, policy proposals, sanctions and verbal explanations in the media.

The image is a bar chart titled "Table 1: Government Sanctions to Media Allegations," depicting how different countries respond to media allegations through sanctions. The chart includes four categories of sanctions: Policy Related Sanctions Dismiss a lower-ranking official Demote a high-ranking official Dismiss a high-ranking official Each bar represents responses from three countries: Russia, Germany, and the USA (estimated), distinguished by different colors: Russia is represented by blue. Germany is represented by red. USA estimated is represented by green. The tallest bar under "Policy Related Sanctions" shows that the USA has the highest estimated sanctions, followed by Germany and Russia. The other categories have smaller bars, with Russia having more significant actions in "Dismiss a lower-ranking official" and "Demote a high-ranking official." The "Dismiss a high-ranking official" category has notable actions from the USA and Russia, with Germany contributing a smaller portion. The chart quantifies the frequency of each sanction type, with the y-axis showing numbers from 0 to 70.

Continue reading →

Iranian Presidential Elections: Does It Really Matter Who Wins?

Posted on by admin

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 2017

An indoor bazaar is. photographed. Fabrics and sacks lean against both sides of the corridor walls. A vendor is seated next to his goods. A car is parked in the background.

Grand Bazaar in Tabriz, Iran, 2015. Source: Jeyho Moon via Flickr.

Cyrus Nezakat
CEO of Stark General Trading LLC

As the conclusion of the Iranian presidential election looms, there have been a plethora of opinions from analysts, political experts and journalists regarding the implications of the outcome of the elections. The prevailing opinions are centered on the status quo differentiation of the progressive and conservative parties in Iran and their respective candidates: incumbent President Hassan Rouhani and his chief opponent Ibrahim Raisi.

Continue reading →

Two Decades of Asian Cooperation and Alliance Building, Followed by Retreat

Posted on by admin

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 2017

Chinese flag is photographed by the Shaanxi Government Building - Xi'an

Flag by the Shaanxi Government Building – Xi’an. Source: Will Clayton via Flickr.

David Wolfe

Asian Security Specialist and Consultant

The recent controversy regarding the location of the Carl Vinson Strike Group is analogous to current US Policy in Asia, rather than just another confusing announcement by the Trump Administration. The dysfunctional appearance is emblematic of a newly adopted regional retreat in many ways by the Trump Administration, and ceding territory throughout the region to Chinese aggression and hegemonic dominance.  The time period between the announcements of the US-India Nuclear Agreement back in 2006, right up to the recent withdrawal of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saw the United States’ Asian Policy focus towards consensus building, greater regional economic integration and an expansion of security partnerships.  However, given the recent withdrawal from TPP, the Trump Administration is reversing course from those alliances established to counter the hegemonic ambitions by the Chinese to one in stark contradiction of that policy overnight.  The United States’ proposed interests, strategic alliances and most importantly, a check to Chinese expansion throughout the region of South, Southeast and Northeast Asia, is now in jeopardy, and no one is more appreciative of this shift than China.  Unfortunately, given the short-term memory in today’s oversaturated news culture, most are either unaware or have forgotten the long-term strategic goals the US has sought to pursue, and how that is now setting up a dangerous scenario for regional allies.

Continue reading →