Nigeria recently elected a new president, Muhammadu Buhari, in a prolonged fight for victory against current President Goodluck Jonathan. The election was postponed six weeks due to the instability caused by terrorist group Boko Haram.

Read More: Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change

To assist with stabilizing the region and achieving safety for civilians, Nigeria employed hundreds of South African and former Soviet Union mercenaries to fight Boko Haram. Initially, this was only rumored after pictures and allegations surfaced on social media.

President Jonathan was quoted as saying that two companies provided “trainers and technicians” to help Nigerian forces fight Boko Haram, though he was not specific in names, sources, or firms.

Eeben Barlow, the head of one of the private military companies working in Nigeria, confirmed that South African Defence Forces have aided in the training, equipment, and strategy for Nigerian forces against Boko Haram, as well as camping out in Northern Nigeria to forcibly take back territories.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Barlow’s South African private military firm, Executive Outcomes, has been influential in conflicts in Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho, and South Africa.

Unfortunately there may be an issue here: this is illegal. The 1998 South African Act of Military Assistance Abroad bans its citizens from directly participating in wars in other countries for private gain. They must act in an official capacity under the authority of the government in Pretoria.

The Act is explicit: “Regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident within the Republic, and foreign citizens rendering such assistance from within the borders of the Republic…”

South Africa is not alone. Georgia, which is a also a source of the mercenaries, has laws criminalizing participation in foreign military activities. South African Defense Minister Mapisa-Nqakula has even said that the country should charge the men under the regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.

Laws, policies, and guidelines are drafted and implemented in the name of justice; so would it really be bad if some foreign nationals were paid to fight terrorists? The lack of action or fuss from the international community proves that we’re willing to look the other way in the name of combating terrorism. For now, no action has been taken by or against the foreign mercenaries.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South African Mercenaries Fight Boko Haram in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

Since 1949, China and Taiwan have been considered by various parties either part of a single nation or two distinct countries. In this confusing existing dynamic, Washington has often acted as a go between. The United States has mainly balanced the two actors by maintaining its military dominance and deterring Beijing, while simultaneously boosting Taipei’s defense capabilities. Read on to learn about the history between China and Taiwan, the conflict that separates them, the United States’ role, and the current status.

Origin of the Conflict

It all started with two political parties and one civil war.

Chiang Kai-Shek was the leader of the Kuomintang (KMT) party of Chinese Nationalists. In 1927, he led an exploration to the north of China in the hope of dismantling the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The nationalist KMT almost defeated the CCP altogether, but ten years later Japan, desiring more power leading up to World War II, derailed KMT forces and completely disrupted the Chinese civil war. Japan was fighting both the KMT and the CCP, but the KMT took harder hits.

Upon Japan’s loss in WWII, the United States forced Japan to surrender Chinese land back to the KMT, including the island Japan had taken over. It was called Fermosa, and is the land that later became Taiwan.

Even with the support of the U.S. post-World War II, the KMT had suffered too many casualties against Japan. Using grassroots support, rising leader Mao Zedong strengthened communist ideologies, recruited soldiers from the countryside, and formed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Eventually with the rallied forces, the CCP took the KMT capital of Nanjing. Finally KMT leadership fled to Taiwan in 1949 and founded the Republic of China (ROC), or Taiwan.

With the KMT off the mainland, Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China (PRC), naming Beijing the capital. Still led by Chiang Kai Shek, the KMT declared Taipei its capital, but still held its claim to mainland China.

The Taiwan Strait Crises and Major Developments

In 1955 when the first Taiwan Strait Crisis took place, the United States sent troops to the strait because it was against the mainland Chinese communist regime taking over Taiwan.

The U.S respected the ROC because of its similarities with the U.S. political regime. At the time, ROC was represented at the United Nations and had a permanent seat on the Security Council. It was during this time that Congress agreed the U.S should provide Taiwan defense and support if Taiwan-China relations ever erupted violently.

But tensions remained high between Taiwain and mainland China. The two groups even came to an arrangement in which they would bomb each other’s garrisons on alternate dates. This continued for 20 years until the United States assisted in creating more normalized relations.

In 1971, the PRC procured the “China” seat at the United Nations through rallied power, replacing Taiwan. The United States declared that it “acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China,” in what is known as the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972. In the communiqué, finding language that both mainland China and the U.S. could accept was crucial to establishing diplomatic relations. The United States agreed that it would henceforth have only “unofficial” relations with Taiwan.

This left the United States with a problem–many believed that the U.S., as the guarantor of peace in Asia, had a moral obligation to provide some protection to Taiwan. To remedy this, Congress in March 1979 passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA declared that it is U.S. policy “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.” The TRA also mandated that the United States would sell Taiwan defense items “in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”

In a subsequent 1982 communiqué, the United States said it intended “gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan.” The Reagan Administration conveyed to Taiwan “The Six Assurances.” The six assurances were that the United States,

1. Had not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan;
2. Had not agreed to consult with Beijing prior to making arms sales to Taiwan;
3. Would not play a mediation role between Taipei and Beijing;
4. Had not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act;
5. Had not altered its position regarding sovereignty of Taiwan; and,
6. Would not exert pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with the PRC.

Washington continues to sell arms to Taiwan over strenuous Chinese objections, and both Washington and Beijing continue to plan for the possibility that they could one day find themselves involved in a military confrontation over Taiwan’s fate.

Current Status of the Conflict

China has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan if the island declares independence, encouraging Taiwan to keep improving its forces and conducting regular military drills. To simulate a Chinese air attack, Taiwan’s navy launched its premier surface-to-air missile from the deck of a warship very recently, its first test of the weapon in six years, destroying a drone.

Another point of contention comes from the fact that Taiwan wants a larger role in international organizations exclusively held for nations. Since Taiwan is not its own nation, compromises have sometimes been made to include Taiwanese leaders. Taiwan wants a bigger U.N. role–it lost its seat when the body recognized China in 1971. China was opposed to the U.S. idea that Taiwan be invited to the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly as an observer; and suggested that Taiwan participate as a guest. That was a great example of a compromise, and a move toward peace.

Currently, China is setting up an organization with a similar format to the World Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Taiwan requested membership, but the Chinese government will only allow membership under a different name–Chinese Taipei. This is another perfect example of the redundancy and tedious diplomatic ties between China and Taiwan.

Society and Culture in Taiwan 

One of the major changes affecting the balance between China and Taiwan has been the empowerment of the Taiwanese identity. Previously, Taiwanese people considered themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese, but people are starting to exclusively claim Taiwanese as their ethnicity. This is a problem for China, because that means fewer people are in support of Taiwan’s relationship with the mainland. Although many policymakers propose a joint or unified government between mainland China and Taiwan, this is threatened by the development of the Taiwanese identity.

Prospects for Future

America’s sale of arms to Taiwan often triggers a cyclical reaction: Washington and Beijing consistently fight back and forth over these sales before business returns to normal. This approach has worked reasonably well for more than 30 years, despite the occasional flare up in the strait, and has created an expectation that it will continue to be followed. However, there are some concerns about the sustainability of this relationship. China is steadily building up its military, and soon the U.S. may have a harder time matching the sophistication of weapons it sells to Taiwan. China’s ability to retaliate against the United States for arms sales to Taiwan is increasing. So, things may change soon, but for now the status quo appears to be holding relatively strong.

Conclusion

Ultimately the United States’ main interest in the Chinese-Taiwanese relationship appears to be peacekeeping, not peacemaking. In the present dynamic, Washington is a stabilizer, emboldening cross-strait interchange, warning both sides that it will counter any unilateral actions that may risk peace, and deterring Beijing by providing its military predominance, while supporting Taiwan’s security forces. In this complicated three-party relationship, none of that seems likely to change anytime soon.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei

Congressional Research Service: Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues For Congress

Congressional Research Service: U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues

Additional

Carnegie Endowment For Peace: China, Taiwan, U.S.: Status Quo Challenged

George Washington University: Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability

Council on Foreign Relations: If Taiwan Declares Independence and China Reacts With Force, on Whom Should the U.S. Lean Harder, China or Taiwan?

BBC News: Taiwan Rejected From China-Led Asia Bank ‘Due to Name’

Brookings Institution: Thoughts on the Taiwan Relations Act 

CSIS: Taiwan’s Quest for Greater Participation in the International Community

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China and Taiwan: A Balancing Act For the United States appeared first on Law Street.

California is in the midst of one of the worst droughts we’ve ever seen. The demand for water is exceeding the actual supply of water in the region, leading to big problems. The Southwest region of the United States has always been a dry area, and previously most Southwestern states nursed from the same water supply. Due to a decline in the water supply, those same procedures will not work in 2015 and beyond. Read on to learn about the changing policies for California relating to its water supply, and the potential effects of California’s drought.

Colorado River Sources

In order to understand the water problems occurring in California and the American Southwest as a whole, it’s important to understand the overall state of water in the region. The Colorado River and other water sources in the area play an important role, both historically and today.

According to the Glen Canyon Institute, here’s the background of the area: Seven states in the Colorado Basin signed the Colorado River Compact in 1922. The agreement allocated water rights between New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and California.

But now the Colorado River Basin is experiencing a natural disaster and water supply tragedy. That agreement almost 100 years ago was reached based on an overestimation of river flow, and an underestimation of water demand. As a result of the growing demand and unyielding drought, there is a water deficit of almost 1 million acre-feet a year in the Colorado River system.

To provide water for over 40 million people, the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams were built as a part of the Colorado River water management system under the 1922 agreement. This created the Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs. But now, both the Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs are half empty. Environmentalists doubt the reservoirs will ever naturally fill again.

As a result, the conservation and fate of the Colorado River system is directly linked to the environmental health of the Southwest.

How did this problem begin?

During the last century, more than a dozen dams were built which negatively affected the flow of the Colorado River, as a result, “hundreds of miles of canyon and countless archaeological sites have been flooded, and dozens of wildlife species have been endangered.” Glen Canyon Dam is one of the largest contributors to these issues.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 was meant to alleviate the negative effects the Glen Canyon Dam had caused; specifically to, “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.” Despite the fact that this act was passed 23 years ago, little implementation or success has been seen.

Lake Mead & Lake Powell

In Lake Mead, water levels have dropped to 1,085 feet above sea level, the lowest in 75 years, and only 10 feet above the level that would trigger cuts in water deliveries by the federal government to Arizona and Nevada.

The purpose of building the dams was to keep the lake reservoirs full. Some strategize to “Fill Lake Mead First” arguing it would benefit the people who depend on Lake Mead in major cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, this strategy appears to be largely going unnoticed by policymakers.

 California Water Policies

It was only in 2014 that the California government began to recognize the severity of the drought and began to enact serious policy changes. Governor Jerry Brown and California Democratic lawmakers “enlisted business support of a $7.2 billion plan composed mostly of new bonds for water storage and delivery to drought-stricken cities and farms.”

California Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills designed to regulate the pumping of water from underground aquifers. An aquifer is an underground layer of materials such as sand, silt or gravel from which groundwater can pumped up. Habitual digging for water has led to sinking–nearly 30 feet in some areas. Previously, aquifers provided 30-40 percent of California’s water supply. Since the drought, nearly 60 percent of the state’s water comes from underground. Scientists worry that it is possible to completely deplete the underground supply. Currently, there is no method to replace the underground water. In addition, a lack of underground water affects the species of animals who depend upon it. Without a diverse ecosystem underground, the quality of the dirt is also weakened over time.

Governor Brown first politely asked Californians to reduce their water consumption by 20 percent, but instead consumption rose. A water board survey of 267 water providers found consumption in the Bay Area dropped five percent. But in coastal California, consumption rose eight percent, leading to an overall one percent increase of water usage statewide.

As a result, Governor Brown ordered mandatory water use reductions –the first time such an action has been taken in California’s history. An executive order directed the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce a “25 percent reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies, which serve 90 percent of California residents.” However, owners of large farms, who obtain their water from sources outside the local water agencies, will not be subject to the 25 percent mandate.

The agencies are responsible for creating ways to monitor compliance and enforce restrictions to cut back on water use; some hypothesize there should be fines from $500-$1000 per violation. 

The federal government has made a contingency plan as well. According to Nova Publishers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers programs to help farmers nationwide “recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans.” These loans are typically less than $100 million per year.

Although state officials do not expect the executive order to result in an increase in farm or food prices; these assumptions can only apply to the immediate future. Long-term effects are still unforeseen.

What are the consequences of California’s water shortage?

Environment

While the entire Southwest region of the United States is facing challenges, California is seeing the most the extreme. Combined with extreme heat, and less circulation, the lack of rainfall has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and air pollution across the state. The smog is sticking around due to high-pressure systems, setting California back decades in terms of clean air and creating new health risks.

Jobs

A University of California-Davis research report estimated there would a direct cost to agricultural industry totaling $1.5 billion, a statewide economic cost of $2.2 billion and the loss of 17,100 jobs related to agriculture–rendering a 3.8 percent farm unemployment rate.

Prices

Observers are divided on whether California’s drought will make food prices rice. It seems logical that as farm acres become less useful, food would be more difficult to produce, thus making popular crops like tomatoes, artichokes, and broccoli more expensive.

The most affected crops will most likely be be rice, cotton, hay and corn silage. But crops like avocado, and mangoes which are mostly imported shouldn’t be affected.

Some retailers believe one of California’s signature products, wine, will see price increases in the coming months. The scarcity of water will likely increase prices for wines, especially some of the cheaper ones.

The U.S. is a geographically diverse nation, and does not solely depend on the Southwest for food production. For now, the globalization of food along with the nation’s agriculture industry has helped American consumers mostly escape higher food prices. These two factors continue to work to limit impacts on total food production and costs.

Why doesn’t Silicon Valley help?

What about reverse osmosis? Recycling water? All of those other terms we learned in biology? Technology should be able to solve this problem right? Well some efforts have begun.

California has started the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) to promote the beneficial use of water recycling in order to add to fresh water supplies in California. State funding is going towards water treatment facilities, while most of private and outside funding is going towards the tech community innovations.

Or take Tech startup TerrAvion. According to CNBC it “flies manned aircraft over farmland and gives growers thermal images that can show farmers potential trouble spots when it comes to irrigation” and give tips on how to manage water more effectively.

WaterSmart Software works with water utilities to supply easy-to-understand information to customers on their water use–for example, showing how much water their home may be using compared to another home of the same size.

Conclusion

According to National Geographic, “for many years, California’s powerful agricultural lobby resisted any and all legislative attempts to regulate water restrictions, or groundwater withdrawals.” But, the extent of the current drought, combined with the state’s increasing demand for water has led to new support for change. We are in a new era and California may actually start to look like a desert. Even with the 25 percent reduction push, and the possibility of tech companies saving the day, Californians still must make behavioral changes to reduce water consumption. Even if Californians do make these changes, saving 25 percent of the water supply is not a long-term solution. It’s time for real change in California.

Resources

Popular Mechanics: 6 Radical Solutions for U.S. Southwest Peak Water Problem

National Geographic: Record Drought Reveals Stunning Changes Along Colorado River

Stanford: Causes of California Drought Linked to Climate Change, Stanford scientists Say

National Geographic: Amid Drought, New California Law Will Limit Groundwater Pumping

New York Times: California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought

Glen Canyon: Fill Mead First

Arizona Central: States Expected to Reduce Water Taken from Lake Mead

CNBC: Silicon Valley Seeks to Help California

Fortune: The Consequences of California’s Severe Drought

Mercury News: California Drought Conservation Efforts Failing

KTLA: Heat, Drought Causes Significant Increase of Wildfires

LA Times: Heat, Drought Worsen Smog in California, Stalling Decades of Progress

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to The Glen Canyon Institute and National Geographic. 

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Drought: Costs and Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

Never before has a sitting president been defeated in a Nigerian election–until now. General Muhammadu Buhari ousted President Goodluck Jonathan in a decisive victory in the country’s latest election, and it is an incredibly momentous event in Nigeria’s history.

Courtesy of Chatham House via Flickr.

Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC) won 15,424,921 votes against President Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which won 12,853,162. Since independence from Britain in 1960, there have been numerous coups and many contrived elections–even this election has observers wondering.

President-Elect Buhari, a 72-year-old Muslim from northern Nigeria, won the presidency on his fourth attempt. Previously he ruled the country from January 1984 through August 1985 after taking control through a military coup.

Buhari lead the northwestern states, which have suffered the most by Islamist militant group Boko Haram. In Borno state, one of the worst affected by Islamist violence, Buhari won 94 percent of the vote.

For 16 years, PDP had been in power. This year Nigerians decided that the Opposition should have a go at sorting things out. Nigerians are accustomed to the incumbent fulfilling a second term; something rather big made them change their minds. The keyword is change.

Buhari now has to prove he really can change things. Boko Haram, the economy, and the unceasing cry of corruption are at the forefront of the list.

Boko Haram

Islamist militant group Boko Haram  has instilled so much fear in the Nigerian government that the Presidential elections were delayed for six weeks to allow time for the security situation to improve. Its existence is one of the biggest reasons that only 17 percent of Nigerians turned out to vote.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Boko Haram has been launching military operations since 2009 with the goal of creating an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians, and it’s terrorized Northern Nigeria, taken over cities, and infamously kidnapped 200 school girls in April 2014. Many people question the strategy of the Nigerian military, and criticize Jonathan for not challenging this threat.

The Economy

Nigeria is Africa’s leading oil producer, yet more than half of its people live in poverty. The market for stolen oil has increased violence and corruption in the Niger Delta–the home of the industry. Few Nigerians, including those in oil-producing areas, have benefited from the oil wealth.

Read More: The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices

Nigeria was badly hit by the fall in the oil price. Oil represents 90 percent of Nigerian exports and 70 percent of its government revenues; it’s hard to recover from a fall in the oil price. Additionally, the U.S. is no longer importing Nigerian oil because it has had such success in the shale revolution.

Corruption

The contentious issue of corruption undermines the trust in Nigeria’s government. Allegations of deception, fraud, and bribery include security funding, the legality of government officials, and enforcement of policies and elections. Past elections have been tarnished by serious suspicions of rigging. In 2007, observers said the presidential poll was not “credible.” In 2011 the vote was considered better, but fraud still took place.

This time the electoral commission took more steps to prevent rigging, including new biometric voters cards.

These are the changes the Nigerian people–and international community–call for and will be looking at closely. If there are significant advances toward counterterrorism strategy, economic schemes, and financial circulation, as well as more serious crackdowns on corruption, then we could look forward to long-term positive outcomes not only in Nigeria, but globally as well.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

While traveling in Egypt recently I met a man in Luxor who was eager to share his opinion on the state of Egyptian politics. “Mubarak is good, when Mubarak here I am never poor. They get rid of Mubarak. Then, I go sign my name for Morsi, they get rid of Morsi. I don’t sign for Sisi. I’m done signing for this country.” Is this man wrong to feel unenthusiastic, or even cynical about the stability of his newly democratic country?

It’s true that, at the very least, Egypt’s future is very much up in the air. The nation recently had essentially two different revolutions, complete with protests, military involvement, and government overthrows. The first revolution was in 2011 during the Arab Spring; the second in 2013. Given all of that turmoil, there are many questions as to how President Fattah al-Sisi will proceed. Read on to learn about the path that Egypt has taken in recent years, and some of the most pressing questions facing the nation today.

Revolution History

First, some background. After Mohamed Bouaziz, a Tunisian fruit vendor, lit himself on fire in protest in January 15, 2011, a movement spread through North Africa to overthrow leaders whom the public found to be corrupt or unjust. Egypt was one of the first nations to act.

The Egyptian President at the time was Hosni Mubarak, who reigned from 1981-2011. Due to cronyism, bribery, and a lack of opposition representation in parliament, many Egyptians were unemployed and unhappy with the dictator. Additionally, his British-educated son Gamal was being groomed to inherit the throne.

On January 25, 2011 the Egyptian people took to the streets. After 18 days of protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Mubarak submitted to the military’s ruling body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. The constitution was suspended and parliament disbanded. Egypt’s Islamist groups wanted to see elections first, while Liberals and secularists preferred to write a constitution first. The Islamists won, and elections were held.

By November 2011, Egypt began to vote in parliamentary elections, a six-week process in which the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the main forces behind the Arab Spring movement in Egypt, won the majority of seats. Ultraconservative Salafis took another quarter, rendering Islamist religious groups in control of more than 90 percent of the seats. By June 2012, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi became the first Islamist and civilian leader elected as head of state. He chose General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, former head of military intelligence, as his defense minister.

By December 2012, Morsi issued a decree allowing him to take any and all actions that he deemed necessary to protect the country. The Egyptian people interpreted this move as authoritarian, hearkening back to the Mubarak military regime. The new government’s conformity with Sharia law was also a large concern.

On January 25, 2013–exactly two years after the first protests to overthrow Mubarak–the people flooded to the streets to protest Morsi and his rule. Morsi claimed the minority should submit to the majority in a democratic fashion. Acting on behalf of the Egyptian people, al-Sisi appeared on state television, ordering Morsi to come up with a political solution within 48 hours. Morsi argued that he was legitimately elected, and could not be threatened by political opposition.

By July 2013 however, Morsi was removed as President by military coup. Islamist and Morsi supporters rallied and did not go out without a fight. By September more than 1,000 Morsi supporters were killed during protests. In March 2014, 528 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were sentenced to death in a mass trial for murder and attacks on property and people.

After al-Sisi’s appearance on television he was nominated as a Presidential candidate. Eventually al-Sisi won the pro forma presidential election with nearly 97 percent of the vote in May 2014, but with only 47 percent turnout.

Al-Sisi’s To Do List

Al-Sisi has now been in power for just under a year. While he’s made some progress with economic reforms, expanding the Suez Canal, and addressing concerns over the prevalence of sexual assault in the country, there are still issues that he will need to address moving forward.

The Shaky State of the Egyptian Constitution 

Cementing the Egyptian constitution has become increasingly important because it will define the new power balance between parliament and the executive office. While the constitution set up a system that includes both a president and prime minister, there are still many questions that need to be answered.

According to Human Rights Watch, “under Egypt’s 2014 constitution, all legislation enacted in the absence of a parliament should be reviewed by the new parliament when it takes office, but the constitution allows the members of the new parliament only 15 days for this review. That has raised concerns about the efficacy of the checks and balances in the system.”

Overall, aspects of the Egyptian constitution are up in the air as it is currently facing many changes. There are proposed amendments to Articles 277 and 289 of the criminal procedure code, which are primarily concerned with ensuring “access to prompt justice without prejudice to the rights of the litigants.” The changes would put “all matters concerned with calling or hearing witnesses” into “the hand of the court.” The amendments were drafted by the Supreme Committee for Legislative Reform (SCLR), a group of appointed officials created by al-Sisi. This vague language allows the Court all authority in calling witnesses; actions similar to the exploits of both Mubarak and Morsi, which proved detrimental to them both. While it’s possible the motivation behind the amendment is in the interest of speediness, critics claim it’s hard to see this in the true interest of justice.

Security Concerns

Under al-Sisi’s control Egypt has embraced a doctrine of active defense, changing its military posture. During the Mubarak years, Egypt generally responded to regional threats by working on its deterrence skills; however, since the coup against Morsi in 2013, Cairo has been more aggressive and ready in its approach to security and appears more willing to project force abroad, as seen in its recent involvement in Yemen.

In addition, the government recently passed a law that broadens the state’s definition of terrorism to include “anyone who threatens public order by any means,” and allows for security forces to accuse potential terrorists without a trial. Civilians are dying while in custody, and there are reports of brutalizing student protesters, and increasingly censoring journalists working in the country–by and large human rights groups are alarmed. On the other hand, many Egyptians would argue that the country did just experience two revolutions in three years, therefore increased security is necessary. Still, concerns remain that too much power is left in the hands of the military.

Additionally, even in Cairo there is increased military and police presence. There are consistent checkpoints with the intention of eliminating violent protests and uprisings. Whether those will remain or end up as a symbol of authoritarianism is another issue that needs to be addressed by al-Sisi.

Relationship With Israel

U.S. ally Israel should certainly enjoy the improved relationship with its southern neighbor. Under al-Sisi’s rule, thousands of tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza have been destroyed. Egypt also closed the formal border at Rafah. Without these two means of transportation, Gaza has no way of importing supplies, including goods and weapons. To al-Sisi, not only is Hamas a terrorist group, but also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Egypt sees the weakening of Hamas as a squeeze on Brotherhood support.The Palestinians are finding little sympathy from their Muslim neighbor. Destroying these tunnels may have been an attack on Hamas, but the tunnels were also used to bring food to the Palestinian people residing in the Gaza territory. It’s easier to identify the reasoning for disposing the tunnels; anyone can smuggle anything. However, why the legitimate cross point Rafah, was shut down isn’t as apparent. Some accuse Egypt of being indifferent to the suffering of the Gazan people. Regardless, the Egyptian actions certainly benefit Israel in its security operations.

Urban Development

Egypt has an overabundance of unfinished buildings. The rebar, or reinforcing steel, and pillars strike upward from the top of the residences with large piles of bricks sprinkled through neighborhoods. With cities so densely populated it would be logical to see some, but the tenements are so frequent it’s concerning. This isn’t a new problem, but it does raise the question for al-Sisi and governments moving forward as the country develops economically: how long can millions of unfinished buildings be tolerated in a developed nation? These policies are bound to change.

Return to Tourism

The revolutions left many Westerners scared to visit the country and as a result the tourism industry is dwindling. Investors recognize the fall, but they also recognize the potential for investment. Private companies are getting involved, such as Cairo Financial Holding, which is backing a $1 billion plan to revive Egypt’s tourism sector.

After the fall of Russian currency, the slowdown in the Euro zone, and continued attacks in the Sinai peninsula, hotels, restaurants, and tour operators in the region are struggling. In order to attract tourists, hotels have been forced to offer all-inclusive deals, which often include flights as well. A recent poll of hotels revealed that less than five percent of the hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh were holding out and not offering all-inclusive packages. At the current rate, hotels are netting an unsustainably low amount.

There are some other changes in the works. A project was announced at the international economic development conference held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The plan is to shift the capital from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh; meaning all new administrative, government, diplomatic, technology, and innovative parks would be built there as a part of a greater goal to alleviate the congestion and overpopulation in Cairo. These plans aim to bring in more business, tourism, and wealth.

According to Minister of Tourism Khaled Ramy, the tourism ministry’s objective is to reach pre-crisis tourism revenue of $11.6 billion by 2016 and $15 billion by 2018. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates pledged to offer $12 billion as investment aid to the country.

Conclusion

After the massive upheavals to every aspect of Egyptian life–including politics, the economy, and civil society–Egypt is obviously a changed place. Whether that’s for better or worse will have to be seen, but it is indubitable that al-Sisi still has an upward climb in front of him. From crumbling infrastructure to an unclear political system, there are many things that are still up in the air for this once-thriving country.

Resources

Guardian: Egypt Siding With Israel Cost Gaza Dearly

Foreign Policy: Mubarak’s Nine Biggest Mistakes

Time: Al-Sisi Wins Egypt’s Presidency But is Stumbling Already

BBC: Egypt Court Sentences 528 Morsi Supporters to Death

Human Rights Watch: Egypt Law Changes Would Threaten Fair Trials

Foreign Policy Association: Does the Egyptian Military Regime Work For the US and its Allies?

The New York Times: Egypt Says it May Send Troops to Yemen to Fight Houthis

Washington Institute: A New Era For Egypt’s Military

Telegraph UK: Egypt Implements New Real Estate Tax

Travel Weekly: Tourism in Egypt Boosted by $1bn Private Equity Fund

Al-Jazeera: Egypt Plans New Capital Adjacent to Cairo

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fattah al-Sisi: Challenges for Egypt’s New Leader appeared first on Law Street.

I’m an avid backpacker. While shopping for a new, sturdy backpack to travel across Southeast Asia, I asked my military friend for an old duffel bag or something similar to use. He responded, “No, it’s too dangerous. Wearing military gear through airports, or anywhere abroad can make you a target. Anyone with anti-American ideologies could rob you, heckle you, or kill you. So, no. Besides, we’re not supposed to.”

My friend is referencing the physical presence, but what about on social media? We might avoid posting our political views in fear of them affecting job prospects sure, but have you ever considered your online affiliations affecting your safety–your life?

This may be something the U.S. Government and Military personnel will have to consider in the digital age, especially since terrorist organizations all have social media pages.

A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division posted the names, photos, and addresses of about 100 U.S. troops online, calling for attacks against them. Those most likely to respond will be lone wolves. A term given to individual terrorists who carry out attacks alone in the name of a greater cause…whatever that may be.

Investigations are underway to understand the validity of the post, the methodology the group used to attain the names, and the credibility of the group itself.

In theory, ISIS or any terrorist group could see a military car decal, a Facebook profile picture, an online entry to a military spouse support group, or even see you open your wallet with a military I.D. After that they could find you, stalk you…and then what?

That’s an extreme. Let’s say no attack is ever carried out. At the very least, these terrorists are inciting fear in our military families, pressuring them to limit their online presence–the pride they have in their careers and country–and effectively go into hiding. That’s an issue in itself.

One such Twitter account posted, “We won’t stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!” The account has since been deleted. Twitter has been pretty adamant about suspending and deleting ISIS content. As a result, the group has sought refuge in Diaspora, a social site that consists of a group of independently owned pods, which makes it difficult for administrators to remove content.

It’s unfortunate we have to be vigilant against what’s exposed on social networks in the name of terrorism. We must continue to report graphic and hateful messages, and protect the honor of those like Steven Sotloff, James Foley, Kayla Jean Mueller–the list goes on.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Uses Twitter to Publish Hit List of U.S. Military Personnel appeared first on Law Street.