Fall 2020 Final Exam

 

Fall 2020 Final Exam

Diplomacy 742: National Security Policy

November 30, 2020

 

Please answer one of the following three questions.  Submit your completed final to Dr. Farley by 2:15pm today.

1.  Should the United States embrace a policy of Containment against China?  Outline the positives and negatives of pursuing such a policy, and consider whether the United States is capable of maintaining Containment in the medium and long term.
2. Has the power of the executive over national security overwhelmed the bounds set by the Constitution?  Contemplate the arguments for and against executive supremacy in the national security sphere, and describe reforms that might better delineate responsibilities across the US government.
3. How well does the existing architecture of the national security state enable the United States to use all of its tools for international influence? 

Is America Winning the Fight Against COVID-19?

As the end of 2020 slowly draws near, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Moderna has announced that they are applying for FDA approval for their COVID-19 vaccine. This is the second company to apply for such approval. Now having two separate vaccines available prior to the end of this year would be monumental for American citizens. Another vaccine could and would most likely allow many aspects of everyone’s lives to get closer to being the way they were prior to this pandemic. The increased success of these companies working on vaccines exemplifies that this global health crisis could be ending soon. 

Not only did another vaccine come closer to being released, but also President-Elect Joe Biden’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, saying that America and the Biden administration will “put its foot down” regarding China and making “public health a national security issue”. As the transition to this new administration continues not only do American citizens see that Biden will take measures to ensure public health is addressed but the world also sees this trend. Sullivan continued his remarks by alluding to the fact that Washington cannot let Beijing allow for something like this to happen again. These statements and others made by Sullivan illustrate that the Biden administration will pressure Beijing to control its public health better, along with ensuring that American public health is a top priority moving forward. 

America is taking steps to combat the public health crisis that is COVID-19, and this new vaccine is another step to hopefully defeating this national security enemy. Adding yet another vaccine to an administration (starting January 20th) that will actively fight this pandemic shows that not only is the world getting closer to winning, but America more specifically is getting closer to winning this fight against COVID-19. 

Make Think Tanks Cool Again

Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German teen with a large online following. However, her fame hasn’t come from TikTok dances or makeup tutorials: Seibt has instead garnered notoriety online from her videos discussing climate change. Specifically, Seibt has been billed as the “anti-Greta,” or climate skeptics’ answer to Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teen climate-change activist. Though Seibt is significantly less famous than Thunberg, her niche within the online punditry sphere has garnered her a speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference and interviews with Piers Morgan and Dana Perino, among others. 

How is this relevant to the issue of think tanks? For the early part of her career, Seibt was a fellow at the Heartland Institute, a think-tank specializing in climate skepticism. She was officially announced as a fellow at Heartland in February 2020, though she has since broken ties with the organization. Heartland is well-funded (the think tank has ties to the formidable Mercer family) and well-connected; on top of that, they have arguably expanded their reach much further through their connection with Seibt. The nature of Seibt’s content fits well with the auspices of a think tank’s mission: Seibt frames her criticism of climate science (including “debunking” IPCC reports) as mere skeptical inquiry or at most pushback against the supposed hegemony of consistent scientific evidence.  She frames her own analysis as cool, detached "realism" in contrast to Thunberg's more emotive "alarmism." 

Though Seibt’s content and views may be of concern, the Heartland-Seibt partnership may offer a new model by which think tanks can potentially expand their relevance. (This model would likely be limited to think tanks that have a clear “angle” on a widely known issue, as even the most adept influencer is unlikely to capture an audience by discussing the finer points of tax policy.) Seibt’s platforms–YouTube, CPAC, Fox News–are likely to capture the attention of mainstream audiences; the former two in particular will net young audiences. Even if Seibt’s audience doesn’t necessarily transfer to Heartland, her influence could begin to shift the opinion of a young cohort in Heartland’s preferred direction–and a young cohort engaging with political content online is likely going to vote. Specific ideology aside, the Heartland-Seibt partnership arguably provides a blueprint by which similar organizations can take advantage of social media and influencer culture to expand their reach, increase their relevance, and possibly even fundraise in the future. 

Iran: Recent Assassination

 

We are just now learning that this previous week Iranian scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was assassinated. He was traveling via vehicle in the east district of Tehran when his passenger vehicle was overtaken by a Nissan. There was apparently an open gunfight between the vehicles followed then by an explosion, which resulted in the untimely death of the famed nuclear scientist. This comes at times of already strained relations between Iran, Israel, and the United States. No one has taken actual claim for the assassination, but several have commented on the affect that this incident will have upon Iran, their infrastructure, and the peace work that has been done in order to bring about ceasefires in the holy land.

“Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also said the country would retaliate and pointed to Israel”, this should come as no surprise as there has been an ongoing battle between the two countries. If a retaliation did occur there is no predicting what warfare would be expected. Countless lives from both sides have already been lost between the countless back and forth. Israel being a neighbor puts them in much riskier position with blame being tossed their way as they will face the effects watching from their back doors. This attack, however, could be the final piece capable for Iran to declare that there is no option for peace when incidents, like the assassination, continue to happen. This leads to the belief that there is a much bigger plan unfolding and that this was not an isolated incident.

In the upcoming weeks, with tensions high and continuing to rise, one can only speculate what may transpire. It goes without saying that Iran will seek justice in some way or another against whomever turns out to be the one or ones responsible for the killing. What their punishment will be able is yet to be determined, but there will be repercussions.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/middleeast/iran-mohsen-fakhrizadeh-nuclear-scientists-killed-intl/index.html

China Takes One More Step Past America

 The Chinese government has launched an unmanned spacecraft to a previously unexplored part of the moon. Beijing is working to become the first country in decades to reach the moon. The purpose of this mission is to help scientists better understand the satellite and planets beyond Earth. Within the Long March-5 rocket that was sent early on Tuesday morning was four different modules; which are the lander, the ascent vehicle, the service capsule and the return capsule. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) called the launch a success. They further went to explain how the rocket flew for 37 minutes prior to sending the spacecraft on the intended trajectory. A main priority for this mission is to study lunar samples from the moon, these samples would be sent back via the return capsule. The CNSA has acknowledged some challenges to this mission; nonetheless, this mission is anticipated to be a success. Beijing having a successful exploratory mission of the moon of this caliber could give China an advantage on the US satellite systems.  Following the launch of this rocket even NASA scientists have acknowledged the implications of this mission. David S. Draper, the deputy scientist at NASA stated "this is a really audacious mission". China is expanding their arena of influence and research to somewhere that Washington has not explored in decades. A successful mission like this allows the CNSA to have a better understanding of satellites that are orbiting Earth gives them a new perspective on all aspects of these satellites no matter what country uses them. A successful mission would afford Beijing the opportunity to have a different look on these satellites that could shed light on how Washington is using its satellites. This launch shows that China has surpassed the US in yet another aspect by successfully sending a mission to the moon about 4 years prior. Not only does this launch challenge the safety of US satellites, but also, its global hegemony from China that has been vying for global hegemony recently and this is just one more step towards accomplishing its goal.  

The OST at crux of Presidential and Congressional power on Natl Security Issues

Today, November 23, 2020 marks the first day the U.S. is no longer party to the Treaty on Open Skies. The treaty started as an idea by Eisenhower during the time aerial reconnaissance with U-2 spy planes became popular following World War II and the spread of nuclear proliferation. However, George H.W. Bush is credited with the current Open Skies Treaty after first outlining its principles in a speech at Texas A&M University in 1989. Bill Clinton’s administration carried the torch and successfully garnered Senate ratification in 1993. The George W. Bush administration had already taken power by the time the other Party states ratified the treaty, thus birthing a new era of aerial reconnaissance between Cold War states. 

As most know, Congress holds the constitutional power to declare war, regulate armed forces, restrict war aims, procure weapons, and alter strength of the different services. Yet, forming alliances, agreeing to strategic arms control, and entering into free trade agreements requires Congressional approval for ratification. Article II Treaties (POTUS brokered international  specifically require a 2/3 Senate majority for ratification. 

What makes Congressional action within the Open Skies context now is incredibly unique –what are the rules for leaving? Writing this question, I immediately think of all the difficulties witnesses still with Brexit and how the authorities are having to develop exit procedures as they explore options to leave for the British to exit the European Union. Congress in the 2020 NDAA (Natl Defense Authorization Act) inserted a provision into Section 1234 setting preconditions on any Trump administration effort to withdraw requiring SecDef and SOS to submit a notification of withdrawal in the best interests of the U.S. to congressional foreign affairs and defense committees at least 4 months before notifying Open Skies Parties of U.S. intent to withdraw. The Trump Administration notified Open Skies Parties on May 22, 2020 of U.S. withdrawal without notifying Congress. This in itself tears at the constitutionality of Congressional vs. Presidential authority over national security and foreign affairs. Goldwater v. Carter (1979) effectively determined that Congress had not engaged and been at an impasse requiring judicial interference. Thus, it is likely challenges to Trump’s actions will not result in a win to the Democrats and few Republicans in the Senate who support the Open Skies Treaty. However, will this change the behaviour of Congress in the future? 

It is interesting that the House’s version of Section 1234 in the NDAA possessed more explicit terms for Congressional participation in Open Skies withdrawal. However, this was watered down significantly in the Senate final edit. Given the START II expiration in 2021, could we see Congress try and pass bilateral legislation explicitly parsing power from the executive branch in regards to exiting treaties? Maybe. I think the majority of this interest stems from President Trump’s disillusion with arms control agreements, and in this arena we will likely see a renewed interest by Congress in foreign affairs. Since Vietnam Congressional interest in international relations as it relates to national security has consistently decreased, but given the lack of restrictions on nuclear weapons between former Cold War states, we could see this decline reverse. Will Congress begin taking the stage alongside the President to determine U.S. foreign relations, maybe not. Will Congress learn from this and challenge the executive branch to maintain and install arms control agreements with Russia, I think this is likely. President-elect Biden has publicly stated his support for things such as New Start. I believe Biden will not run from Congressional insertion in these issues, but should Congress enact legislation to accumulate more control in the U.S. withdrawing from arms control agreements, I believe future administrations could face conflict with Congress over influence. 

For reference:

• When Can the President Withdraw From the Open Skies Treaty?
• Goldwater v. Carter
• Trump administration pulls out of Open Skies treaty with Russia

Strategic Considerations of Missile Defense Technology

This past Monday a Standard Missile Interceptor 3 (SM-3) successfully shot down an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile. This is the first successful test of its kind for the SM-3, making it just the second U.S. interceptor technology to demonstrate this capability alongside the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. 

There could be long-reaching consequences from the U.S.'s development of this capability. 

Officials in Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang perceive missile defense technology such as this as strategically destabilizing, undermining their strike capabilities to an extent that their deterrent posture is put into question. 

Strategic stability is eroded when the United States continues to pursue absolute military advantage over its adversaries by pursuing technology like this. Instead of reinforcing the perception of mutual vulnerability that has been the cornerstone of deterrence between nuclear powers, U.S. missile defense systems destabilize the strategic landscape by limiting the retaliatory capabilities of adversaries. 

Development of this technology could draw the U.S. into an arms race as adversaries feel incentivized to develop new technology that can counteract these defense systems. This has already begun with regards to the development of hypersonic technology by China and Russia or the large road-mobile ICBM unveiled by North Korea this year that may be capable of overwhelming missile defense systems with multiple entry vehicle technology. 

The U.S. should be mindful of the perceptions of  other countries like China and Russia when developing missile defense technology. The development and deployment of these U.S. systems will likely result in only more threats. 

So long as nuclear powers believe that national security relies on their ability to retaliate, missile defense technology will interfere with efforts to reduce these weapons. These defenses are moreso a dangerous stoking of the security dilemma between the U.S. and it's adversaries than a realistic solution. 

Stimulus Package Amongst Political Confusion

With rapidly increasing amounts of COVID cases in the United States, multiple states are reinstating lockdowns or restrictions, especially with the holiday season approaching. For many, this year has been financially devastating, with lost wages, jobs, and savings. While Congress passed a stimulus package that provided a majority of adult Americans with a $1,200 check, this was a paltry amount for the prolonged financial stress most are under. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) failed to reach a deal on a second stimulus package prior to the election despite some support from President Trump, due to McConnell’s obstinacy. After his re-election, McConnell signaled his willingness to work together to pass a package. 

 

The Democrats originally proposed a bill of 3 trillion USD with the Republicans countering with a $1 billion plan. Both have now scaled their proposals down to 2 trillion for the Democrats and a possible 500 billion for Republicans. It still is unclear which party will control the Senate, with runoff races occurring in Georgia in January which presents a potential threat as neither party wants to fully proceed until they can ensure they have enough power to bargain for their demands. However, there is renewed support from business groups to pass a bill immediately as well as growing demand from the American people who are struggling to make ends meet. 

 

While McConnell has now decided to work to pass a bill, he has attached a great deal of caveats for the Democrats to meet. McConnell is anxious to pass a bill before President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in and before the Georgia races are decided, in case, he loses his leverage in the Senate. For his part, President Trump is focused not on passing a stimulus package, but rather, a far-fetched legal attempt to identify voter fraud and invalidate the results of the election. 

 

McConnell’s actions are disappointing as a stimulus package should not be political. As a senator, his loyalty should be to the people, and specifically his constituents. There have been nearly a thousand deaths in Kentucky, and, as of November 20^th, some lockdown measures and restrictions have been reinstated. While some people were able to return to work when restaurants reopened in the summer, many are now once again facing layoffs as indoor dining is banned. These people should not be victims of McConnell’s personal dislike or Washington politics. 

Emergency Use Vaccines: Do We Really Want It?

Pfizer Inc, one of the leading COVID-19 vaccine research and production companies said Friday it is asking U.S. regulators to allow emergency use of its COVID-19 vaccine. This would start the clock on a process that could bring limited first shots as early as next month and eventually an end to the pandemic. The action comes days after Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech announced that its vaccine appears 95% effective at preventing mild to severe COVID-19 cases. The companies said that protection plus a good safety record means the vaccine should qualify for emergency use authorization, something the Food and Drug Administration can grant before the final testing is fully complete. In addition to Friday’s FDA submission, they have already started “rolling” applications in Europe and the U.K. and intend to submit similar information soon. But what does emergency use of a COVID-19 vaccine mean? It is when regulators allow shots to be given to certain people while studies of safety and effectiveness are ongoing. Before any vaccine is permitted in the U.S., it must be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, which requires study in thousands of people. Normally, the process to approve a new vaccine can take about a decade. But the federal government is using various methods to dramatically speed up the process for COVID-19 vaccines. During a health crisis, the FDA can loosen its normal scientific standards to allow emergency use of experimental drugs, devices, vaccines and other medical products. The first vaccines to get the provisional green light in the U.S. are almost certain to be made available under this process, known as emergency use authorization. However, what does this status of an "emergency use" drug mean to the general public? Backlash regarding the safety of the drug may occur due to its rushed nature. In contrast, government promotion of such a vaccine could be detrimental to public trust. If the vaccine were to have unforeseen widespread negative affects or failure rates it could cause a problem worse than the pandemic. An even further rift between the public and the government is likely to form if emergency COVID-19 vaccinations become mandatory. In the age of anti-vaxers and growing disinformation/misinformation campaigns a rushed drug mandated by the federal or even state governments will likely be met with significant resistance, further slowing the race to a cure. Regardless however, we must remain vigilant as the time of emergency use vaccines draws near in an attempt to stifle even larger issues which may arise from it. 

Dwindling Support for Trump's Challenge to America's Democracy

Since the likelihood President Trump will concede to Joe Biden, who most acknowledge as the President-Elect, dwindling by the minute, the remarks made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that directly contradict Trump’s rhetoric does not bode well for the current President. President Trump and his administration along with his campaign have made it seem as though they will fight to the very end that they in fact won the election despite no such evidence. Not only is there very little evidence to support the Trump camp’s claims, their legal actions have been stifled. In Pennsylvania, many of the lawsuits filed by Trump campaign have been thrown out of court. The President is running out of options to challenge the results of the election. 

He has used rhetoric to suggest that he would use certain actions that would in fact lead to the involvement of military personnel. These statements have been directly countered by General Mark Milley whose remarks made it clearly evident that he sees the oath taken by anyone in the military that they serve the Constitution of United States rather than any President who serves as Commander-in-Chief of these service members. 

Having exacerbated almost all of the legal resources at his disposal, Trump would have to rely on support from the troops that he still commands. At least until the President-Elect Joe Biden is sworn in on the Inauguration Day in January. President Trump has faced more opposition by his immediate predecessor, former President Barrack Obama said in a 60 minutes interview that Trump and his administration are “delegitimizing democracy” by disregarding the win by the Biden campaign. 

Those who have been condemning the actions being taken by the Trump administration have used similar rhetoric to President Obama and have even made remarks that coincide with what General Milley said. Perhaps the best way to put it, is that Trump does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the results of this election. His own Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff has made very public remarks ensuring that the military does not serve him but rather the Constitution and will protect that over him or any future President. 

Trump's desire to fight the election results have created another rift in this country and hurts the respect of America's democracy held by our allies and international institutions. 

A Q by Any Other Name...

Q, the anonymous figure at the center of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory–whose members will be represented in Congress come January–has reportedly gone quiet. This radio silence isn't entirely surprising given that Q predicted a massive Trump victory that did not come to pass. The Daily Beast also notes that "this silence isn't Q's longest; the person went silent for a month in 2019." 

The conspiracy theory specifically around Q's posts–which poses a national security threat–may lose steam as a result of the one-two punch of Trump's defeat and Q's long absence. However, the threat posed by the Q-Anon conspiracy should not be considered to have abated if the conspiracy no longer revolves around Q. After all, few beliefs within the schematic network of the Q supporter are original to Q-Anon. 

Most notably, the belief that there is pervasive child trafficking among prominent "elites" (Q "code" for celebrities and high-ranking Democrats) goes back to the 2016 Pizzagate conspiracy, which resulted in a shooting at D.C.'s Comet Ping-Pong. Conspiracist suspicions of child trafficking (obviously a real and tragic phenomenon; conspiracist beliefs are erroneous with regard to its location and prevalence, not its existence) reared their ugly head again during the Wayfair conspiracy of 2020. Finally, an emerging belief within the Q-Anon network is that prominent celebrities traffic children in order to access a compound in their blood known as adrenochrome; this belief is also unlikely to abate in the absence of Q. 

Simply put, it is important that those studying Q-Anon not focus too narrowly on Q themselves (the Soufan Center has arguably done a good job of this). Given that Q could disappear permanently at any time–and with it, its attendant gatherings of supporters, both online and in-person–quelling the Q-related security threat requires taking the focus off of Q and placing it back where it belongs–on understanding and interrogating the full complement of its supporters' beliefs and their willingness to act on them.

Biden's Transition Team

President-elect Joe Biden has begun the process of establishing transition teams for his administration despite President Trump’s reluctance to admit defeat in the election. His teams are set to be the most diverse yet with 46 percent of the team people of color and 52 percent women. Overall, the team consists of around 500 people with a variety of backgrounds represented. Biden has repeatedly stated that it is important to him to have a transition team and Cabinet that reflects the makeup of America and is not solely elderly white men.

Much of the transition teams come from think tanks, perhaps most notably, the team for the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD team will be led by Kathleen H. Hicks who is currently the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a prominent think tank located in Washington DC. Others on the team currently work for, or have previously worked for, the RAND Cooperation, New America, and the Center for a New American Security. While think tanks are not a part of the government, the work they do is often cited by members of Congress or governmental departments. It theoretically is unbiased and independent research. However, many think tanks rely on massive donations from corporations that have a vested interest in what the research says. This may lead to less impartial research as employees wish to keep receiving funding.

 

While it is not problematic for members of the transition team to have worked at think tanks, it is important to be cognizant of possible links between officials and organizations and to recognize the greater problem within funding for research.

Kosovo and the question of future U.S. military interference abroad

In 1999, NATO and the United Nations intervened and participated in major bombing campaigns during the Kosovo-Serbian conflict. Depending on the definition of national security, I think it can be argued Kosovo is of particular interest to the United States for several reasons, albeit indirectly effecting the U.S. public and homeland: human rights abuses such as ethnic cleansing, the spread of terrorism and guerilla factions in an unstable region on NATO’s doorstep, and maintaining economic ties to a developing region. The rise and fall of Kosovo will not lead to the total destruction of the U.S. However, a key national security strategy within DC since the end of WWII has been maintaining collective security and peace on the European continent. In 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump facilitated an economic normalization deal in order to better infrastructure and economic links between Kosovo and Serbia. This deal does not push Serbia closer to recognizing Kosovo’s sovereignty, but it is a step forward for these two countries with tumultuous recent history. 

That work may be undermined given the new indictments brought by the International Criminal Tribunal against the Kosovar President Thaci last week. Thaci has since resigned from his post as President and is currently in the Hague pleading not guilty to a variety of war crimes perpetuated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (PLA) during the Kosovo conflict in 1998-1999. The tribunal was set up in 2015 to handle cases relating to the war that led to Kosovo’s independence from Serbia a decade later in 2008. The court is governed by Kosovo law but staffed by international judges and prosecutors.

Thaci is cooperating with the international community in confronting these charges, but these proceedings and his resignation may lead to instability in the young Kosovo democracy. Additionally, the war crimes included in the indictment such as murder, torture, organ harvesting, etc. contradict the U.S. international image as a global police officer and advocate for human rights. The U.S. hailed Thaci as a hero during his time with the PLA battling the ethnic cleansing inflicted by the former Serbian leader Milosevic. Therefore his implication in atrocious acts of violence by the International Criminal Tribunal could further erode the history’s analysis of U.S. military interference abroad. Kosovo, Georgia, and Iraq remain primary examples of U.S. interference without a “direct threat” to the U.S. justified through human rights and non-proliferation, Thus the U.S. justification for interference in Kosovo on the grounds of preventing ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, the U.S. could be seen as an unspoken collaborator in the war crimes committed by those it attempted and succeeded in propping up within the new Kosovo republic.

There isn’t yet a statement from the U.S. on this issue, but the U.S. may not be able to go without comment for long given the cooperation of the Council of Europe in bringing about these charges. Lastly, it is important to note Amnesty International and Serbia welcomed the charges for revealing the truth regarding actions during the conflict and bringing solace to those who encountered such violence. However, despite the International Criminal Tribunal being supported by Kosovar law, many in Kosovo disagree with the indictments putting Kosovo’s "liberators" on trial. 

President Elect: Lack of Congratulations!

 

With the recent buzz of the American election it is easy to see how anyone could become swept up in the chaos. However, one would expect officials who are leading countries, especially those who share common goals and daily life, would want to be on good terms with one another. This recent election was a very close election that left Biden as the next President of the United States. In light of this despite many congratulations coming in, there are powerful nations who have decided not to extend any congratulatory sentiments for Biden just yet. Such areas as, Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico have in the past openly spoke on matters with the Trump administration and even extended congratulations in advance to the swearing ceremony.

What could this mean for upcoming President-elect? Does this mean that the United States will have upcoming issues with these countries? Is there a bigger-picture situation being held behind closed doors?

It could be very easy to see why someone like Trump would not acknowledge the defeat of his campaign yet, but if countries truly have no issue with dealing with the recently chosen President then why have that not followed suit?

Some countries are following the suit of Mexico, where they “are going to wait for all the legal issues to be resolved… We do not want to act lightly” (CNN, link at bottom). This is the way to prevent saying anything in event the election results be reversed, but this could hold something foreboding for the relationship with president-elect if election results stand as is. The next few weeks should bring about many answers for all tuned in.

The Election and the Courts

 The election has finally ended after an appropriately endless-seeming Election Day and Joe Biden is officially the President-Elect. However, President Trump has refused so far to concede and, instead, has announced his intent to pursue a legal battle. It is somewhat unclear on what grounds Trump plans to fight Biden’s victory, especially as he seems to hold expectations that the Supreme Court will intervene. He has alleged election fraud; however, there is no proof any fraud occurred.  

 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a single case with ties to the elections. This case focuses on ballots that arrived after 8 pm on Tuesday in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania decided to allow three extra days for receipt and processing, a decision to which Republicans filed an appeal. The state received around 8,000 late ballots which are being held and counted separately until the Supreme Court rules. Ultimately, this case will not affect the election results in any substantial way since Biden has received enough votes to win the state without the added late ballots. 

 

While Trump continues to explore his options, it seems unlikely that anything he could try to pursue would pan out. Biden is projected to finish with 306 electoral votes, a number well over 270. Even the expected recounts that will occur will probably favor Biden. The small number of cases related to election issues that are currently being heard by state and federal courts also will not offer Trump much hope of a legal victory for a second term.

Civil-Military Relations in Thailand

Protestors in Bangkok, Thailand

Thailand has experienced weeks of student-led protests in opposition to the current prime minister and former general, Prayuth Chan-ocha, and his government's crackdown on political opposition and dissent against the monarchy. In the wake of this unrest, rumors have sprung up about the possibility of another military coup by the Thai military. General Narongpan Jittkaewtae, the military's new Army chief, responded to such rumors with assurances that "the chance of making a coup is zero," as long as no particular group instigates a situational or violent conflict. But one can infer that if such a group does arise, even among the ongoing protests, the military could very well respond with force. 

The Royal Thai Armed Forces has a history of political intervention--for example, there have been 30 attempted coups in 80+ years. Its generals have consolidated much domestic power through a close relationship with the monarchy and extensive influence over Thai society, including in schools (military regimentation, conscription) and the government's Civil Service. The military also appoints all 250 members of the Senate and is the country's largest landowner after accounting for the government's national parks. Generals justified Thailand's most recent coups, in 2006 and 2014, as necessary to protect the royal family; in turn, for protection and an armed eye on domestic unrest, the king grants legitimacy to the military, even during coups. 

Compared to other countries, and specifically other democracies, Thailand's civil-military relations are unique--both in the king's and military's quasi-codependence, and the military's clear influence over civil society. As the protests continue, the Thai military may have another opportunity for political intervention--but given popular sentiment towards both civil government and the monarch right now, the military's generals may experience decreased legitimacy as well as a lack of popular support. In the meantime, calls for democratic reform will continue. 

The Military and the Election

 With the election just two days away, there is growing fear on both sides that there will be widespread civil unrest no matter the results. These fears are inflamed by President Trump who recently floated the idea at a rally of using an executive order to stop Joe Biden from ascending to the presidency, should he win. Although the legality of such an order is incredibly murky and would undoubtedly incite national rage, there is a very real possibility for the military that they may be called upon to defend democracy and the president. The only question is who is the president they are beholden to defend? 

 

Historically, the military operates apart from the political system. Officers are chosen on merit, not appointed by a president. However, over the past few years, President Trump has appointed multiple military or former military officers to positions within his administration. While this in and of itself is not problematic, the actions of the administration have prompted other current or retired officers to criticize it and President Trump. This increased politicization of the military is highly problematic as the military must function as a unit and not be spilt along ideological lines. Recently, there has also been infighting between top military officials and Trump after comments by the president stated the military prefers to fight wars in order to please weapon manufacturers. 

 

Should Trump refuse to accept election results (assuming he loses), the top officials in the military will face an extraordinary conundrum. There will almost certainly be widespread protest, similar to this summer after the murder of George Floyd. They will have to decide if the National Guard should be deployed or if even more aggressive military tactics are required, all while keeping in mind the optics of deploying a country’s military on its own people.