Thank you, President Obama, for making a stand against Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65989.html

Obama will deploy troops to Africa
By: Josh Gerstein and Charles Hoskinson
October 14, 2011 02:38 PM EST

President Barack Obama informed Congress Friday that he’s deploying a force of 100 U.S. combat troops to Africa to help local forces take out the leader of a militant group accused of atrocities and terrorizing civilians, the White House announced Friday.

The U.S. contingent will aid local forces fighting Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, Obama said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

“Although the U.S. forces are combat equipped, they will only be providing information, advice and assistance to partner nation forces and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense,” Obama wrote. He said the goal of the mission is “removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA.”

A senior defense official said Friday that the U.S. group would consist primarily of special operations forces trained in promoting “foreign internal defense.”

“They bring the experience and technical capability to train, advise and assist partner security forces in support of programs designed to support internal security,” said the official.

Kony and his top advisers are under indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. He and his army have been responsible for murdering, raping, and kidnapping “tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa,” Obama said in his letter.They have also drawn international condemnation for their use of child soldiers, often kidnapped from their homes.

Kony claims to be Christian and insists that his group is fighting on behalf of the Ten Commandments.

“If you ever had any question if there was evil in this world, it’s resident in the person of Joseph Kony and in that organization,” the commander of U.S. forces in Africa, Gen. Carter Ham, said in a speech earlier this month. Ham said a small number of U.S. personnel have been facilitating intelligence and local forces had achieved some successes but made few inroads against Kony and his top aides.

“My best estimate at present is that Kony and the senior leaders are probably in the Central African Republic,” Ham said in his Oct. 4 remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’re hopeful here and the very near future to be able to increase the number of U.S. military advisers and trainers in that regard.”

Obama said in his letter that the first American troops taking part in the expanded effort landed in neighboring Uganda on Wednesday. Over time, the U.S. troops are expected to deploy to the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan.

Fighting in those countries - and atrocities - have been going on for years, and Obama gave no precise explanation for the timing of the U.S. deployment. The president said simply that “regional military efforts have thus far been unsuccessful in removing” Kony and that deploying the U.S. force would advance “U.S. national security interests and foreign policy.”

Obama said he submitted the letter to lawmakers “consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” the 1973 law through which Congress seeks to regulate the deployment of U.S. troops in “hostilities” abroad.

Are We Competing? ­ The U.S. - Korea Free Trade Agreement

By Chloe Colbert

The U.S. pushed and worked diligently to make sure that by the November 2010 G-20 Summit, President Obama would be ready to sign off on a free trade agreement with the South Korea. However, kick came to push, but the ride did not go as far as one wished, and the U.S. returned home empty-handed without a free trade agreement.

What could have happened? The U.S., with a mighty trade policy that emphasizes more exports and accessing the markets of potential trade partners like the ‘Asian tigers’ (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), claimed that restrictions in the auto industry for American automobile workers and in the beef industry prevented the trade agreement’s passage, according to the Asahi Shimbun news.

The White House signed a trade agreement with the Republic of Korea in 2007 during the Bush presidency, but the U.S. federal government did not move forward in passing it. For the past three years, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has worked diligently in trying to pass a version of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), but it irreconcilable differences in the auto and beef industries prevented this passage.

The failed attempt in not passing KORUS did not only prove a loss for the U.S. in accessing the Korea market, but it also proved detrimental for the U.S. in aggressively interacting with the “Asian tigers”. The U.S. is seeking to include more of its Asian economic counterparts in its pending Trans-Pacific Partnership. U.S. trade officials recently attended the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) in Japan this past week. But can the U.S. really garner what it needs to engage with these Asian economic powers?

In the next 20 years, the U.S. will see a change in Asian countries that not only will have become stronger economically but also better educated. To engage in trade agreements would show how the U.S. seeks to boost its own economy as well as create a brighter future for the employees and the families those export-based jobs support. The U.S. cannot just sit by the sidelines and wait for the Asian tigers to come to them.

The European Union will enact its free trade agreement with Korea in July. There is no time to waste. In an age where competition is no longer solely based on military strength but also on economic strength, a country must diversify its economy to involve international trade if it truly wants to compete. The passing of the KORUS agreement is still a hurdle for the U.S. to overcome, and it could be that overarching predictor for the future of U.S. trade relations and international economic competition. China currently has the second –highest gross domestic product. Let’s move forward, America, less we fall behind.

**Written for GW’s International Affairs Society (IAS) – The Informer

Current Foreign Finance: The Dollar Strikes Back (A little)

The dollar has seen to be making a little bit of progress already in a dismal recession. According to marketwatch.com increased by .239 points from 87.782 to 87.543 in "the North American trade late Thursday."

This is quite the hopeful look compared to the Euro that seems to continue to worsen in value. According to marketwatch.com the Euro decreased to the amount of $1.25 this past week, and economists hope it increases, yet it still seems to be dropping.

The reason why the dollar has been doing better in foreign finance is because traders were more cautious with their money-spending and investments, according to marketwatch.com.

Although the Euro may have dropped in value, there is no hint of right now if one of the 16 countries participating in the European Union will drop out and start producing its own currency for the sake of saving, according to marketwatch.com. Germany's prime minister doubted that any country would leave the EU, but then Germany has not insisted to financially help other ailing EU countries that need financial support.

In general, the U.S. dollar seems to be on the rise (a little) as long as more people are cautious with their spending and investments but not overly-cautious. Spending is what stimulates the market, but it is also what can break the market. By saving more Americans will learn when they do make bad decisions in the market, they will have some money to rely on. Hopefully, other countries like those in the EU and the U.K. will also follow suit.

For now, this is Chloe Colbert reporting on foreign finance for The Colbert Report.

(Picture provided from www.flickr.com)

Between the period of 1969 and 1971 the unemployment rate grew by 1.6 million, but that was at the cost of more college graduates and the baby-boomers who were new in seeking for jobs. Today unemployment is higher as of a result that from 2008 to present 2009 more than 2 million jobs have been lost but not at the cost of more people seeking jobs.

I still believe that unemployment is a key issue in the American economy, but natural unemployment is normal if it's between 2% and 3%. An economic stimulus package would only add more to the debt that we are already in. China currently holds bond in the American federal banks, and a stimulus package may not create those jobs that would account for this debt. The way that America decreased its employment in the early 70's was by creating more jobs for the college graduates, and at that time there was more versatility for people to do new jobs because those previous one did not exist.

This economic bailout is trying to prepare itself for worser times while still trying to spend more to help give jobs. Yet, according to Times.com the economic bailout began by including "$780 million for pandemic flu preparation and $14 million for cybersecurity" but had to remove those two topics because they were found to be irrelevant.

According to the actual bailout document, some of the proposed programs to which the money will be given to are programs like infrastructure construction, agriculture, and energy and waste programs. The fact that programs that improve infrastructure are receiving money is a little deterring because it is now completely practical of how these programs will create more jobs. To hypothesize, if the improvement of roads and highways makes pathways more accessible for businesses and work, then people will spend more and therefore create jobs to supply those services. Yet, because many Americans are more focused on saving, investing their money into long-term investments, and pay off debt, then it would be quite impractical to develop better infrastructure that would indirectly encourage Americans to spend more of their money when they actually want to save them.

Unemployment Rate Difference: 1969 to 1971

Actually the real reason why the number of jobs available in 1971 grew by 1.6 million yet the unemployment nearly doubled was because more people were looking for jobs than were available. The baby boom children just had been born between 1946 and 1965, so many of them were just graduating from college. Therefore, many students were looking for jobs and trying to be incorporated in the successful work-force, which in this time had more technology and provided more opportunities for jobs. Yet, the baby boom population was already so massive, and with the natural unemployment rate, there were just enough openings for every college student and already working or 'looking-for-work' non-college people. Because the new students were looking for jobs too, they added to the total number of people looking for a job. Because the same amount of people still had jobs yet many more people were unemployed, the 3.4 unemployment rate doubled to 5.9 unemployment rate.

Update on Foreign Finance

Update on Foreign Finance

As the economy continues to downfall other countries are affected too. China has been involved in the downturn too because the Yen has decreased severely at the hand of America. According to FXStreet.comHowever "the Chinese currency was pinned again at just above 6.8 for every USD." Currently the new Obama administration wants to accuse China for its wasteful spending because it has overspent and abused its right in economic free trade. Yet, according to the BBC China is still expecting new growth with its increase in technology, which will make it even more ahead of the U.S. dollar.

Current Foreign Finance

It seems that the world markets are still behaving poorly but will hopefully look brighter in a new year...a new age. According to x-rates.com for one dollar a person can receive 0.727033 pounds, 1.26607 Canadian dollars, 0.774593 Euros, and 1.5443 Australian dollars. These rates are still dismal but higher than they were in last August of 2008. Around the world stocks are falling desperately into more astringent situations. According to an article on the washingtonpost.com, Singapore businesses may have to expect less success than they wanted because of "unemployment and industrial production in the U.S. and Europe, and falling Asian exports." Because Americans are consuming less, this effects the material markets in other countries, especially the ones that make many of our everyday things like clothes. When the markets in the U.S. failed, countries were also less likely to invest in them because they too would not be making a profit. Even in terms of sponsorship, the American domestic business, AIG, has declined to continue funding the uniforms for the UK Manchester United soccer team ever since it had to borrow money from the U.S. government in threat of going bankrupt, according to CNNMoney.com. Without the means of monetary funds to support domestic businesses in one's own country, it becomes even harder for those countries' businesses to support other international businesses. Especially in this time for the U.S. companies have had to reduce consumption of materials from Asia and other parts of the world. Business and the monetary exchange rates will rebound as soon as governments and businesses realize their faults and make better budgets. I believe it is time for change, and maybe that change can begin in America.