The Rational Actor (The North Korea Problem)

Traditional conceptualizations of rationality describes a thought process that is based on reason and fact. Competing modern theories offer a different idea, where the concept of rationality does not make an objective judgement on the quality of the process, but rather considers the thought process within the circumstances of the actor, and how certain choices may be more likely in a given situation. In Political Science, the concept of rationality is often used to explain actions of a state, or in the case of authoritative governments, the actions of a single entity (dominant party or individual). This is a useful tool for political analysts to quantify the decisions of their subject as well as to create predictive models for their future actions.

This alternative conceptualization of rationality is especially critical when trying to understand the actions of "rogue" entities. Given the unique circumstances in which these entities often operate in, it can be very difficult for western born and bred analysts to fully understand seemingly "irrational" actions by these actors that might as well be completely mad. This can be attributable to one of the most common cognitive traps for intelligence analysis, where one's own perspective and values are projected onto the subject.

In the case of North Korea, it can be especially frustrating trying to understand the motivations behind their threats of war and military actions that only lead to tarnishing the North Korea's international reputation and economic prosperity as they are stamped with sanctions and admonished for their hostility. The issue of analyzing North Korea has been more important than it has ever been as they increasingly take the role of the belligerent against South Korea, Japan, and the US by their continued missile tests, and threats of war.

Within the past two years, North Korea has increasingly stepped up their nuclear weapons research and continues to make improvements to their missile delivery capabilities. With each successive test, North Korea has been met with harsh criticisms and economic sanctions. Given the importance of economic prosperity in maintaining a non democratic rule (there is a correlation between relative economic prosperity and the attitude of the populace towards non democratic governments), it would seem folly in knowingly act in a way that would garner further economic sanctions.

However, North Korea is in a unique situation where the general population has exceedingly low capacity for revolution for a number of reasons, leaving the military and the Worker's Party of Korea the only possible avenues of threat to Kim Jong Un's position. When this is taken into consideration, the relative economic prosperity of the country as a whole may be less threatening to the existence of the regime than strife from the upper echelons of the government and military.

By taking the role of the belligerent, North Korea accomplishes two goals; appeasing the military by adherence to the Songun principle, and consolidating hard power into the hands of the top leaders of the military (as Kim Jong Un is considered the commander in chief, this would mean development of the highest grade of military might is in his direct purview of control). In addition, once the long range nuclear missile capabilities of North Korea is realized, it acts as the ultimate tool of deterrence and potentially preventing any direct military actions against the regime in the foreseeable future.

The interesting question then is at which point does military belligerency become a less favorable course of action over diplomacy? From my conjecture, North Korea has to meet several key conditions. First, it must feel secure, which should be facilitated by completion of their ICBM program, allowing them to deliver their nuclear warhead across the Pacific Ocean to hit key areas of the US. Second, the continued degeneration of the cult of personality as the generational divide from Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. This will force North Korea to seek additional sources of legitimacy over grand idolization of their supreme leader. Third, increased standard of living, via economic prosperity and increased access information from outside of North Korea. Currently, it is only the social and political elites that enjoy the privilege of having access to goods and information from outside of the country, but even if the regime does not specifically seek to raise the overall standard of living, it will inevitably climb as North Korea as a whole becomes more prosperous (even if their relative GDP does not increase, given sufficient time, their absolute wealth should increase). Having met basic needs and having greater awareness of the world at large, the revolutionary capabilities of the general population will rise, which will make appeasing them a greater priority for the regime.

While I do not believe that the North Korean regime will eventually self destruct, playing the waiting game with North Korea is a risky approach given the destructive capability it holds against South Korea and potentially Japan and US if it refines its ICBM technology. If posed with an extreme existential crisis, it is not unfathomable that they would be willing to risk extreme military action in a bid for survival at great cost. There could be two possible scenarios in which such a case is possible. Internal dissent, causing North Korea to instigate action to assert internal solidarity, and external threat, causing North Korea to play brinkmanship to gamble for respite.Given that a general principle that should be followed is that one should not corner North Korea with an ultimatum that threatens its existence.

Songun, a State at the Barrel of a Gun

Originally, I had intended to write about the topic of rational actors and North Korea, but in a recent event (3-18-2016), North Korea had launched another missile into the Sea of Japan. This has been one of many missile launches that the country has been testing in recent years, and coupled with renewed vigor in nuclear weapons research (shown by their recent underground detonation tests), it only bodes ill for the security in the East Asian region.

Given the complexity of this particular subject, I will limit the focus of this article to a brief overview of the Songun ideology to identify the motivations behind North Korea's actions. Songun is North Korea's "military-first" policy, where the state prioritizes the Korean People's Army in the allocation of resources and political decision-making. While the ideology did not officially become state doctrine until 1995 after the death of Kim Il Sung, the basic idea of placing great importance behind the military has been part of the state's ideological apparatus since the division of the peninsula.

In similar fashion to Mao's ideological slogan of "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", the historical circumstances leading to the creation of the North Korean state, and consequent ideological war (Korean War, 1950-53), the existence of the state was contingent on its ability to protect itself militarily from South Korea and the United States. Coupled with the concept of Juche, calling for the self reliance, much of the state's legitimacy hinged on its ability to remain a sovereign and independent nation (the Worker's Party of Korea is fundamentally a revolutionary party with its basis in overcoming its oppressors).

With the death of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il enacted several policies and ideological declarations to solidify his power base and legitimacy and Songun was instrumental in accomplishing that goal. Internally, there were only a few limited ways in which Kim Jong Il's position could be supplanted, and his actions ensured that these were not possible. First, the cult of personality developed around himself and his father ensured his popularity with the general populace, making him a crowd favorite, and likely martyr if he were to be removed from his position by a political rival. Second, his position as the supreme commander of the military and his policy of "military-first" ensuring his popularity with the military and making an armed coup unlikely.

The important point to take away from this is the inseparable connection between the military as a source of legitimacy for North Korea's leaders. As part of its narrative among the people and the state, North Korea's leader must display strength with internally and externally. Kim Jong Un is also tied to the same source of legitimacy that his father had built up and must maintain a military-centric attitude. Though I had initially thought that he would seek to build an economic source of legitimacy much like the People's Republic of China after the death of Mao (I raise the idea that North Korea's source of legitimacy from a cult of personality and military focus is not sustainable for a variety of reasons, including economic unsustainability and gradual erosion of cult of personality due to a generational drift from the original "supreme leaders"), North Korea remains adamant in maintaining a "military-first" attitude.

In the continued validation of its existence, the North Korean state must show itself, its people, and the outside world that it is militarily capable of providing sufficient deterrence from hostile forces from within and without. And what better way than to get your hands on a weapon that could serve as the ultimate deterrence, the nuclear weapon. While North Korea has been suspected of having nuclear capabilities for some time (through their claims, as well as observations of their detonation testings), the mere ownership of nuclear capacity is not sufficient to stand as an effective tool of deterrence. Only once the nuclear weapon has been given a proper delivery system does it become a credible threat. Given that reasoning, it is not surprising that North Korea is pursuing precisely such a course in research.

CNN - North Korea launches ballistic missiles
CNN - North Korea may have tested components of a hydrogen bomb
The Diplomat - Kim Jong-un's Nuclear Bluster May Be for Home, not Abroad

Some Thoughts on Statehood (Part 3: Is ISIL a State or a Terrorist?)

Switching gears, I want to briefly talk about a particular real world example in which a pursuit of statehood by an entity is being systematically hindered and its lack of status as a state being used against it. I am talking about the organization that is known as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The self proclaimed Islamic State meets many of the criteria of a sovereign state, as it exerts authority within its claimed territories (at least temporarily, until they are forced out by opposing forces, which makes its claim to territories contentious) and is recognized by a handful of organizations (granted, these organizations not internationally recognized as sovereign states themselves).

What is the significance of the international community's refusal to recognize the self proclaimed Islamic State as an official entity, and what benefits are there to the opposition? There are both political benefits as well as practical benefits to denouncing the group as a properly recognized state. For example, by denouncing the group as a terrorist organization, the narrative of fighting the entity changes that from a sovereign state to that of an "evil" organization that does harm to the world. This makes it much more practical when organizing a coalition force to destroy said entity.

Though it is without a doubt that from the perspective of ISIL, the status of statehood is crucial in their assertion for ideological legitimacy, especially considering their ideological claim to being the one true caliphate and other sects of Islam being false/corrupt, making conformity to their brand of Islam an absolute requirement.

With that said, I conclude this brief tangent on ISIL as a sovereign state. I touched upon a lot of different ideas here without delving too deep, and I want to explore each individual part in greater depth in the future. The concept of a nation in the Middle East is especially fascinating as it is a reoccurring issue that has plagued the region and is currently playing out in the form of the Syrian Civil War and the ongoing conflict with sectarianism and various militant organizations. However, for the sake of breaking up the action, I'm currently planning on discussing the concept of rational actors and North Korea.

Some Thoughts on Statehood (Part 2: Why be a State?)

In part 1, we discussed what makes something a state. Now, we will explore why being a state is important in today's world. For newly forming states, international recognition of their existence is one of its primary concerns in establishing itself long term. But what is it about being a state makes it so attractive that it is so dearly coveted?

Let us consider again what it means to be a state. A state is an entity that has high authority within its territory(s) and typically has the means of maintaining (protecting) its status as the primary jurisdictional power. As such, it would be a fair assumption that said entity would not vanish overnight in a power struggle, at least not over night. Given that international trade and cooperation is contingent upon predictability and stability, such a trait in an entity would be desirable (one of the tenants of international trade agreements is in conformity of trade laws and regulations, which lower the potential cost to transactions and reduce the risk of unpredictability in change to regulatory laws). It goes without saying that any modern state requires international trade to prosper as it opens up new markets, resources, and goods that the state otherwise would not have under a self sufficiency principle. Furthermore, inclusion into larger international organizations such as the UN opens up access to various preexisting trade agreements that apply to member states.

In similar fashion to trade, maintaining diplomatic ties is contingent on the stability of the entities in question. If the primary provider of authority within a given region were to change regularly, it would make little sense to maintain diplomatic ties when the efforts and political capital expended could become for naught over night. And again, diplomatic agreements are often benefits granted by inclusion into larger international organizations (the North Atlantic Treaty, leading to the creation of NATO, says the following in Article 4, "The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.").

Now, it should be clear why being internationally recognized as a state is such an important status that is crucial for the development and growth of an entity. Without proper recognition, a state will lack the proper access to trade and thus hampering its potential for economic growth, and without proper channels for recourse when facing incursion by hostile forces.

Some Thoughts on Statehood (Part 1: What Makes You a State?)

The concept behind a state and all of its variations have always been points of much political and social debate. This was especially true in the 1900s during the two World Wars where the League of Nations provided sovereignty provisions to territories previously under the jurisdiction of greater powers and the devastating effects of the Second World War made it increasingly difficult for the European "Empires" to maintain dominance in minor/weaker territories. Self determination and sovereignty were "given" by drawing boundaries on the map (most notably, much of the states in the Middle East were originally part of the Ottoman Empire, divided after their dissolution in the conclusion of the First World War).

But what exactly defines something as a state? The most elementary definition of a state is that it is an organization in which it exerts some level of authority within its territory(s). Depending on the exact circumstances of the state, it may or may not be the absolute authority, such as the case of the US where individual states are secondary to the federation. In the case of a state under a federation, it is clear that the state derives its authority from the federation, which acknowledges its existence and authority within its territory. However, what about the federation itself? Or in the case of an independent sovereign state, who acknowledges it?

If we were to examine a more traditional formation of governing body, the question of legitimacy were commonly answered through divine right (or hereditary right, which was often related to divine right) or through the tip end of a sword. Regardless of the method used, the governing body has the consensus (though it may be coerced consensus) of the people to exert its authority on the people. Once a state has the legitimacy as the authority within its territory, it would need to be able to enforce its ownership of the territories it holds by the use of force (or more often, mere deterrence by sheer force potential) from those without. By its ability to maintain its territory by force (alternatively, by diplomacy at which point both parties recognize each other), the state is effectively validates its existence from external forces.

In a contemporary setting, in addition to the state's ability to enforce its borders, it must also garner approval from the international community, typically by attaining membership status within the UN (however, there are definitely cases where an entity would be considered a sovereign state by typical standards, but is not fully recognized by everyone within the UN, as is the case for Taiwan). It is important to note that as according to more modern interpretation of sovereignty (rooted in the Atlantic Treaty of 1941), any group of "nation" that seek self determination should be granted so. If we were to abide by that principle, it is entirely possible that a sovereign state can exist without meeting the traditional conditions of having authority within its territory.

Let's recap what we've discussed. A state is an entity that derives its powers from the legitimacy to exert its authority over its territory. Typically, this legitimacy is borne through force, and additionally through acknowledgement of its existence as a valid body of authority by others. However, in the modern world, there are many "states" that do not fit this typical bill and may be lacking consistent command of authority or territory. An interesting comparison to statehood is friendship. I can claim to be a friend of someone, but if they do not reciprocate and reaffirm my claim that he/she is my friend, this "friendship" may as well not exist. In part 2, we will explore why the international recognition of statehood is so important and coveted.

Why do Grocery Stores Waste Food? (Part 2: Liability and Logistics)

In part 1, we explored how grocery stores might come to have excess supply. In part 2, we will explore why a store simply do not donate their excess food instead of wastefully throwing them away.

When looking at corporate liability of the grocery store, we have to examine the goods in question. The food items in question are being thrown away because they are deemed no longer fit for sale, whether that be due to regulation on how long a particular type of good is lawfully allowed to be on the shelf for sale before being considered unfit for consumption, or in the case of pastries, no longer having the texture/taste desirable to consumers that make it salable.

Given the HUGE variety of ingredients, packaging, storage, and other legal considerations, it is not a simple matter when it comes to deciding what food goods are no longer fit for sale,  but also are no longer fit for healthy consumption.

Given the complexity of health safety standards and laws that businesses have to abide by, the possibility of incorrect distribution of foods leading to a health concern is certainly well within the realms of corporate concerns, as the burden of responsibility for causing said health issue would lie with the source of the distribution of food that are not fit for consumption.

With that in mind, let's consider what is at stake versus what is at risk. Donating excess supply of goods is an act of CHARITY, as in there is no monetary gain for the business, while there is HUGE risk in being hit by various lawsuits and even potentially being shut down. While everyone loves to evangelize selflessness and social charity, especially as it pertains to the "evil" and inanimate entity that is corporate businesses, it is important to realize that ultimately, businesses are a venture of self gain(I am NOT moralizing whether this is "good" or "evil", but am just making an observation on the motivations behind why people create/conduct businesses). If businesses were nothing but selfless, they simply would not exist in the first place or go out of business.

Lastly, let's explore the issue of logistics in the effort of distributing excess supply of food goods. In the case of Tesco, they are cooperating with charity organizations in distributing the goods to those who need them. However, there is a problem in the logistics of entrusting a third party organization with the handling of consumable goods, especially ones that are perishable.

While there are indeed charities that handle distribution of food to homeless and the likes, the circumstances in which these charities handle the food is vastly different from that of a grocery store that has prepackaged/precooked foods. Charities typically handle direct production of food goods and other types of consumables that are much easier to handle and store such as canned food.

In order to ensure compliance with food safety standards, the charity would require hiring of food experts, access to large amounts of specialized storage for different types of foods, and massive redistribution networks. Bottom line: these are not free. Given the non profit nature of charities, it is unlikely that they would have the sufficient financial capabilities of undertaking such a task, and would require significant assistance from the grocery store. Again, we increase the cost for the project for what is essentially zero benefit to the store.

While I am not against the idea of making use of existing goods rather than wastefully throwing them out, it is important to consider the difficulties that challenge such a venture before jumping the gun to criticize corporations for throwing away food. This is not a new issue either, as the problem of logistics have been an ever persist challenge for everyone since the realization of a post industrial world where a single unit of people are not fully self sufficient anymore and require the cooperation of other units. Certainly, this is a challenge that many cite as the primary blocker to stopping world hunger, as the world is sufficiently capable of producing enough to feed everyone, but are challenged from doing so by the logistical challenges in feeding someone half way across the world. With that said, if this is a successful project, I am hopeful that it will set a precedence for other major corporations to look at engaging in similar projects to help those in need.

This is my first set of articles and I am looking forward to writing more about a wide variety of subjects, including international politics, video games, and perhaps weightlifting. I am thinking of the following topics for the next article, but I haven't quite decided which one I want to write first.

• Rational Actors and Political Leaders (North Korea and Syria)
• Tribalism(sectarianism) Versus Nationalism (Middle East Division)
• Competitive Video Games and RNG (random number generator)
• The Phenomenon of "Herbivores" (What is it, what caused it, and what is it not?)
• China's Foreign Policy Strategy (What are their immediate goals?)

If you have any preferences, or suggestions on any topic that you would like for me to discuss, please let me know.

And of course, I am open to any comments or criticisms about my writing. I am always looking to improve my writing skills as well as my political knowledge.

Why do Grocery Stores Waste Food? (Part 1: Supply and Production)

Recently, Tesco announced (as per article below) a project to donate excess food from its stores that otherwise is disposed of. This means that certain non (or less) perishable food that were designated for disposal from its stores will be distributed in some fashion (an important point that we will discuss down this article) to the homeless, needy, and whoever else that might meet the criteria of the project. I noticed that there were many questions regarding this news on the Reddit thread (linked down below), so I decided to explain in layman words to some of the most common questions I saw.

This only sounds like a good thing, right? Why do stores have so much left over food? Why do they throw them away instead of donating them to people that need them? We will explore these two questions using the following concepts: over production, economies of scale, corporate liability, and logistics.

Let's tackle the first question, why do stores have so much left over food? If they have so much more than they sell, shouldn't they be having less? (in the case of Tesco, the second largest grocery retailer in the world, they reported 55k tonnes of food thrown away in 2015)

This is in part due to the mechanics of businesses projecting potential sales and maintaining a supply relative to said projection. As such a projection operates on an average, there are always the possibility of over production and under production depending on various circumstances (for example, consider the fact that the consumption of coffee is predominantly a morning activity on workdays, and weekends will likely have different levels of demand for coffee than weekdays).

However, as businesses operate under the principle of economies of scale, as in as quantity of goods produced rises, cost per unit goes down (generally speaking), it is in the businesses' interest to slightly over stock as opposed to under stock (especially when considering the business model of low profit yields but moving high volume, maintaining the image of dependability and availability would far outweigh the cost of over stocking). In addition to this, the logistics of maintaining a predictable/stable number of goods transported also has a positive effect on the overall cost efficiency of the business (as we will later discuss in part 2).

NOTE: When I discuss over/under production, I am not talking about the economic theory of over/underproduction where excess of goods results in rippling negative consequences to sales, and prices. Rather, I am simply describing in literal terms a situation where there are too many goods in stock for any particular given day, resulting in them being wasted.

Getting back to our point on grocery stores, they are no exception to such processes of maximizing operational cost efficiency. Let's take the example of pastries, as they are an easy food item to discuss. If a grocery store were to expect on average a total sale of 200 units of pastry goods per day, it is in their best interest to stock slightly over the expected amount. Let's assume that on a particular they, the grocery store stocked a total of 250 units of pastry goods, but had a total sale of only 180 units on that day. As a result, they have 70 units left over.

There we have it, we explored the reason (one of the primary reason, though I wouldn't go so far as saying the ONLY reason) why grocery stores have excess in supply, resulting in goods being disposed of. In part 2, we will look at the second question and explore why they simply throw these goods away instead of giving them away to people that need them.

Article: "Tesco to give all unsold food to charity after finalising deal"

Reddit thread: "Tesco to give all unsold food to charity after finalising deal"