a 'strongly dissatisfied' beijing

Analysts agree that North Korea’s third nuclear test will prove to be one of the more humiliating events in modern Chinese foreign policy. Following the emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi affirmed that China was “strongly dissatisfied and resolutely opposed,” to North Korea’s actions and called on the country to "stop any rhetoric or acts that could worsen situations and return to the right course of dialogue and consultation as soon as possible.” Although Mr. Jiechi’s statement exhibits the growing exasperation felt by Chinese officials towards their reclusive neighbor and its belligerent manner, it does nothing to herald the arrival of a necessary meaningful reaction. China has been far too silent, and the fear of the presumed bi-products of the collapse of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea do not justify prolonging the country’s muteness.

A fear of instability is at the root of China’s silence following the recent events in North Korea. North Korea both acts as a buffer to American interests in the South and its collapse threatens to destabilize parts of the northeast corner of China as an untold number of refugees cross the border. Not only does this pose a threat to the resources and security of the region, but moreover the huge influx of Koreans could lead to a call for independence reminiscent of that of Tibet. On these grounds, China has offered North Korea with diplomatic cover and large amounts of aid so that the country may subsist. Furthermore, China has promised to provide their paranoid neighbor with security should it choose to abandon its nuclear program - an offer not taken advantage of.

North Korea’s behavior has not changed and is itself a cause for instability and an increased American presence in Asia. This year’s State of the Union Address from President Barack Obama was marked with a vow to boost missile-defense capabilities in Asia and “lead the world in taking firm action in response to [North Korean] threats,” - news that needlessly to say was not well-received in Beijing. China’s dedication to peace in East Asia should encourage it to adjust the lens through which it views its neighbor. The 2010 attack onYeonpyeong Island which killed 4 South Korean citizens in addition to recent blunt threats to South Korea and the United States should be evidence for North Korea’s aggressiveness. Rather than a tool in maintaining stability, North Korea is itself the cause of a lot of China’s woes.

Regime change in North Korea should be presumed probable. There is hope for a stable evolution to a humane regime, and yet it would be reckless to not prepare for the worst. The collapse of the D.P.R.K. could be sudden. Despite this ominous future, Beijing has been very reluctant to engage in the dialogue needed to form a coherent plan for the inevitable. China is beginning to risk losing face with respect to the rest of the world and rather than an asset, North Korea has become a liability for the world’s emerging superpower. 

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, Feb. 26 2013

conservatives and same-sex marriage

The rights of same-sex couples in the western world has been marked with recent events in the UK and France. Within two days of each other both governments in London and Paris voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill allowing the marriage of same-sex couples - the 5th and the 2nd of February respectively. Despite this similarity, the public reactions in the two neighboring countries has been drastically different. In London, on the eve of the vote, there was very little public voice in response to the bill. In Paris however, hundreds of thousands of people, spurred on by by the conservative voices within the country, converged on the city in opposition to the new bill. The discrepancy between these two countries reflects a fundamental difference in conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. 

Conservative parties have traditionally had a turbulent relationship with homosexual rights - gay rights has traditionally been seen as a tenant of more liberally minded parties. Nicolas Dhuicq - a member of the French conservative opposition UMP - announced late last year that not only are homosexual parents incapable of teaching their child “what is right or wrong,” but that the children which they bring up are more prone to becoming terrorists. Although such slander thankfully does not reflect the consensus of the UMP, it does show the perceived incompatibility between conservatism and gay rights. 

Gay marriage does, however, fit into the greater conservative ideology of social cohesion and stability - with the family as the bed-rock of a functioning society. The government which passed same-sex marriage in the UK was in fact a conservative one and moreover David Cameron announced that he supported same-sex marriage “because he was a conservative.” The gap which nevertheless exists in the conservative ideology is the insistence that the family with homosexual parents is fundamentally different from the family with heterosexual parents. The reality, however, is that a child born to heterosexual parents has just as much of a chance in becoming a terrorist as a child with homosexuals parents. The value which conservatives find in the traditional family can easily be translated into an equal same value for the non-traditional family. Such an attitude is something which can and should be adopted by France and the United States.

The debate over same-sex marriage has become trivial. The rights afforded to you - as a human being - are not dictated by the person you love. Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony, but it is necessarily a civil one - and it affords married couples the civil necessities of a typical relationship. Rather than meager opinions shouted across the political chambers of western countries, such statements are slowly becoming accepted truths. As both sides of the political spectrum priorities the rights of citizens, this debate can no longer be aligned to a single political ideology. Gay rights is both a liberal and conservative pursuit. 

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, Feb. 14 2013.