On November 13, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for international athletics events (track and field, marathons, etc.) announced it was provisionally banning the Russian Federation from international events, effective immediately. The ban will prevent Russian athletes from competing in any competitions, including the 2016 Rio Olympics, stops Russia from hosting any IAAF-sanctioned events, and calls for lifetime bans for five athletes and five coaches.

Russia has been given the opportunity to prove that its athletics programs and drug-testing procedures have been reformed in order to have the ban removed in time for the 2016 Olympics. However, the scandal continues to cast a long shadow over international athletics, calling into question the results of prior competitions (such as the 2012 London Olympics) and raises suspicions of other countries’ athletics programs. Read on to see the allegations against the Russian Federation, the concern of institutionalized doping programs in other countries, and where Russia and athletics as an international endeavor can go from here.

The Secrets of Doping and the WADA Independent Commission Report

In December 2014, the German television channel ARD released a documentary featuring journalist Hajo Seppelt titled “Top-Secret Doping: How Russia Makes its Winners.” The documentary alleged collusion between the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, the Russian Athletics Federation, and the Russian national laboratory. Most troubling is that all of these organizations are funded by the federal government, suggesting their awareness of the cheating, which caused the documentary to declare the cheating “state-sponsored.” The documentary was based around allegations from Russian whistleblowers Vitaly Stepanov, a former Russian Doping Control Officer, and Yuliya Stepanova, a world-class 800-meter runner. The hour-long documentary provided the names of several athletes, coaches, other officials, and a doctor who used or provided banned substances.

The documentary provided the spark for what turned into a media firestorm and a debate about doping in international swimming was inadvertently started. Sports officials the world over began reconsidering their punishments and procedures to deal with doping in their own sports. Athletes accused in the documentary had to worry about potentially forfeiting medals and other prizes. As would be expected, Russian officials decried the film and whistleblowers, calling into question the legality of their recordings.

The documentary rocked the athletics world and triggered an independent investigation from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The agency established an independent commission with the mandate to investigate “serious allegations of doping practices, corrupt practices in doping sample collection and results management, corruption and related ineffective administration of anti-doping processes.”

On November 9, the independent commission (IC) released its final report concluding:

The IC has identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant… the IC has recommended that the IAAF suspend ARAF.

The report found that Russian athletics had a “deeply rooted culture of cheating,” exploited athletes for financial gain, confirmed the widespread use of banned substances by actively competing Russian athletes, confirmed the involvement of coaches, doctors, and laboratory personnel, and found evidence of corruption and bribery in the IAAF.

Finally, the report concludes that it would be naive to assume that athletics is the only Russian sport affected by the state-sponsored doping program. The commission offered no conclusive opinion on other sports in Russia but stated that while no written evidence currently implicates the Russian government, such an extensive cheating program would not have been possible without some level of government approval.

On November 13, the IAAF announced it had voted 22-1 in favor of suspending Russian athletics from international events. Russia’s IAAF council member was allowed to participate in the vote.

Additional Allegations

Currently, the allegations against specific athletes are unproven. Two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans have said they will pursue legal action. Specific allegations against Russia’s anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) include the tampering or destruction of at least 1,400 test samples, giving advance notice to athletes before drug tests, and intentionally scheduling tests immediately before athletes began doping regiments. Russian athletes are currently banned from competition and the country is no longer eligible to host the scheduled 2016 World Race Walking Cup or the 2016 World Junior Championships, both of which were to be held in Russia.

The independent commission’s report also criticized the way drug testing was handled leading up to and during the 2012 London Olympics, alleging that testing failures sabotaged those games. Russia came in second in the medal count behind the United States in 2012. This has also started whispers that the United States and other large countries ought to be investigated regarding athletic doping.

Midway through 2015, ARD, the German television channel, released a follow-up documentary titled “The Secrets of Doping: The Shadowy World of Athletics.” Both ARD and The Sunday Times acquired access to the test results of 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012. In addition to providing evidence that further implicates Russia, the documentary turned its attention to Kenya. In the last three years, 33 Kenyan athletes have failed drug tests, some escaping penalties and still managing to compete when they should be facing bans. WADA has suggested that Kenya could soon face a four-year ban for the myriad of problems with its drug-testing program.

Russian Response to the Suspension

Key figures on the Russian side have sent mixed messages since the WADA released its report and IAAF handed down its ban. While most Russian officials have pledged to cooperate with IAAF and WADA to ensure the program is reinstated in time for the Olympics, several have criticized the report and its findings. The director of the Russian anti-doping Agency denounced the report. According to current officials, the management of the ARAF was changed in the spring of 2015, meaning the current heads of the federation aren’t responsible for the faults found in the report. However, it should be noted that according to the second ARD documentary, ARAF has a history of keeping removed coaches and doctors around to provide athletes with performance-enhancing drugs while not officially being a part of ARAF.

What’s Next?

While the threat of suspension looms large for countries like Kenya, a full ban on international athletics competition is the reality for Russia. WADA has removed their endorsement of the Moscow lab that was identified as being the primary culprit for sample tampering. From top to bottom, the process of preventing doping in Russian athletics will receive oversight from WADA personnel. Additionally, an IAAF team will begin work next year to see if Russia can be readmitted to the international community of athletics. At least two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans are planning to appeal.

The IAAF has also faced some criticism for its investigation. The question has been raised of how much geopolitical issues may play in major sporting federations like the IAAF and FIFA, which has been going through its own highly-publicized scandal. Former IAAF officials have also been implicated in the WADA report though details have yet to be released due to the nature of the legal proceedings.

Based on the data on athlete drug tests from 2001-2012 acquired by ARD and the Sunday Times, an estimated one-third of medals in endurance events were won by athletes with suspicious test results. One in seven of those athletes named have tests that suggest doping or some other abnormality. Ten medals from the London games were won by athletes with suspicious results. From 2001-2012, 80 percent of Russia’s medals have been won by athletes with suspicious test results and 18 of Kenya’s medals were given to athletes with suspicious test results.

Conclusion

The world of international athletics is facing a full-blown crisis rivaling that of FIFA’s. The disturbing trend of suspicious tests from Russian and Kenyan athletes appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Most alarming is the evidence of state-sponsorship of doping in the case of Russia. While Russia is working to become compliant with standards set by WADA and the IAAF in time for the 2016 summer Olympics, it is entirely possible that one of the foremost powers in global athletics may not send a team to Rio. Meanwhile, the IAAF has its own problems that it must sort through in order to secure the integrity of a sport that has been much maligned in the past year. There has always been suspicion of drugs and cheating in athletics, but the WADA report and ARD documentaries put hard evidence in the spotlight.

Resources

Primary

WADA: The Independent Commission Report #1 Final Report

IAAF: Provisionally Suspends Russian Member Federation ARAF

Additional

BBC: Athletics Doping: Russia Provisionally Suspended by IAAF

BBC: Athletics Doping Scandal: Russian Runners say they are Innocent

BBC: Athletics doping: Wada Commission Wants Russia Ban

BBC: Leaked IAAF Doping files: Wada ‘Very Alarmed’ by Allegations

BBC: Lord Coe Role in Eugene 2021 Worlds Decision Questioned

al Jazeera: Two Kenyans Suspended for Doping at World Championships

al Jazeera: Russia Reacts After ‘Systematic Doping’ Accusations

CNN: Russia Could be Banned from 2016 Olympics after Doping Report

The Guardian: Russian Athletics Chief ‘Prepared to Resign’ as Olympic Ban Risk Grows

The Guardian: IAAF Confirms Investigation into Allegations of Kenya Doping Cover-up

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: how Russia Makes its Winners

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: the Shadowy World of Athletics

RT: Russia’s IAAF Expulsion about Geopolitics and Prelude to War – Not Doping – Tony Gosling on RT

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State-Sponsored Doping in International Athletics appeared first on Law Street.

In 1990, the nation now known as Myanmar (renamed from Burma in 1989) held its first election since the 1962 coup that brought a repressive military junta to power. The elections were swept by the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi. But the power transition from military to civilian rule never came and by the end of 1990 many of the major figures in the NLD, including Suu Kyi, were arrested.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted and a transition plan established in an attempt to convert Myanmar from military rule to democracy. The country held its first elections under the new constitution in 2010, which brought Thein Sein to the seat of the presidency. On November 8, 2015, general elections were once again held and the NLD and Suu Kyi were once again in the national spotlight. But will anything actually change? Read on to learn about the elections and the current situation in Myanmar.

Military Rule

Following its independence from the British Empire, Myanmar attempted to cultivate a bicameral, multiparty democracy. Elections were characterized by infighting among the political parties and general instability. In 1958, Army Chief of Staff Ne Win was tasked with establishing a caretaker government to restore order.

In 1962, Ne Win launched a coup, declaring Burma was unfit for parliamentary democracy. The constitution was suspended and the legislature was dissolved. From that point, the army established a strong grip on the government of Myanmar, a grip it still holds today. Many private areas were brought under government control, and the Burmese Way to Socialism was adopted. This new philosophy essentially fused the Marxist practices of central planning with traditional Buddhist and Nationalistic sensibilities. Under the new ideology, Myanmar became one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Ne Win would effectively rule the Union of Burma through various roles–Prime Minister, President, and head of the ruling Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP)–until 1988.

After the coup, the government engaged in the brutal repression of opposition and free speech. Student protests frequently occurred but were crushed by the military. A notable protest occurred in December 1974 at the funeral of U Thant, the country’s former permanent representative to the United Nations who later became the U.N. Secretary-General. The unrest culminated in the 8888 Uprising, which started on August 8, 1988. That year, Ne Win enacted a series of currency denominations, effectively eliminating many people’s life-savings. The uprising was led by university students who marched on the capital city of Rangoon. During multiple days of violence between students and security forces, an estimated 3,000 people, mostly protesters, were killed. The protests eventually led Ne Win to resign and in 1990 the country held elections, but despite that momentary progress the military maintained its control over the country.

The 1990 Election

In 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar from the United Kingdom. Heavily influenced by the movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, she helped orchestrate the anti-government rallies stressing nonviolent protest. For her roles in the protests, she would spend 15 years between 1989 and 2010 under some form of incarceration.

When the military agreed to hold open elections in 1990, Suu Kyi mobilized the National League for Democracy. The NLD swept the election claiming a projected 80 percent of available seats despite numerous efforts from the government to hamstring the opposition parties. The limitations included a ban on campaign rallies and strict rules for the media that the opposition groups could distribute to voters.

Despite the overwhelming victory of the NLD in 1990, the elections were never honored by the military government. According to Human Rights Watch,

Burma’s military government refused to recognize the result of the 1990 elections and claimed that the vote was only to form an assembly to draft a new constitution, not for a parliament. In the ensuing months, the military government arrested and imprisoned dozens of opposition parliamentarians, while scores fled Burma to seek refuge abroad.

The 1990 elections concluded with a series of arrests of multiple leaders of the opposition parties, including Suu Kyi. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar.

The 2008 Constitution and 2011 Transition

In 2008, the military government announced a renewed effort to bring democracy to Myanmar and open the country to the rest of the world. Since the 1962 coup, most western nations refused to trade with Myanmar, forcing the country into an unwilling dependence on China for foreign trade. In 2008, a cyclone struck Myanmar and triggered one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history. Many argued that this event led the military government to realize the need to be a part of the larger international community.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted, creating a bicameral elected legislature. However, the government gave itself a powerful position with the constitution. The military party was guaranteed 25 percent of the seats in both houses of the legislature (the Hluttaw). Additionally, in order for any change to the constitution to be ratified, more than 75 percent of all members of the Hluttaw must approve the change. This leaves the military with effective veto power on any proposed change to the constitution.

Elections were once again scheduled, but the NLD boycotted the elections due to a now-infamous provision in the constitution, article 59 F. Regarding limitations on who can hold the office of president, the article states that the president:

Shall he himself, one of the parents, the spouse, one of the legitimate children or their spouses not owe allegiance to a foreign power, not be subject of a foreign power or citizen of a foreign country. They shall not be persons entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of a subject of a foreign government or citizen of a foreign country.

This effectively disqualified Suu Kyi from contention for the office of president because her husband was a British national and her children possess British passports.

The 2010 elections were subject to similar restrictions placed on the 1990 elections, much to the chagrin of independent observers. The Union Election Commission evaluated the opposition parties during the registration process and blocked several from legally running. Numerous ethnic minority groups, particularly Muslims, were disenfranchised and remain to this day ineligible to vote. Amidst rampant fraud and violence, voter turnout was low but the results were honored by the military. In 2011, Thein Sein came to power as president. In 2012, by-elections were held and the NLD participated, claiming most of the available seats, one of which was claimed by Suu Kyi herself.

The 2015 Election

Despite criticism of the constitution, which many claim contains undemocratic articles (primarily article 59 F), the government insisted that the constitution will remain in place. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the general election and dominated the polls, gaining an outright majority in both houses of the Hluttaw. The government has promised a smooth transition of power and the NLD will choose next president of Myanmar. Although she is ineligible for the position, most believe that Suu Kyi will lead from parliament with the president serving as a proxy.

The major losers in the election, aside from the military party, were the ethnic opposition groups and their Mon National Party. Largely popular in the ethnic, fringe villages, the party could not compete with larger population centers that favor the NLD while multiple MNP candidates split the vote. Voter disenfranchisement was also a major factor in several regions that were key for the MNP.

Expectations

The primary question after this election is who will become the next president of Myanmar. However, the answer to this question isn’t overly important as whoever is chosen by the Hluttaw will likely just serve as Suu Kyi’s proxy. To select a president, each of the Hluttaw houses and the military will nominate a candidate. The candidates will then be voted on in a joint session of the legislature with the two losers serving as vice-presidents.

At the outset, it looked as if Speaker of the Hluttaw U Shwe Mann was the clear favorite for the office of president. Although he is a member of the military faction, Suu Kyi may support his candidacy in exchange for constitutional reform. However, Shwe Mann has since lost favor with the military, and was removed as head of the party in an August “soft-coup.” At present, there are numerous contenders for the office, though it is unclear which direction Suu Kyi and the NLD will go. Any alliance with the military party will likely be for the sole purpose of reforming the constitution.

Current president Thein Sein, who could still garner support for another term, has promised a smooth transition at a gathering of political parties in the week following the election. Both the NLD and the current ruling party are expected to hold reconciliation talks to help bring about the smooth transfer of power and begin a reform process.

Conclusion

The NLD’s convincing victory gives Suu Kyi a mandate to seek the constitutional and democratic change she has spent the last 27 years campaigning for. Despite being unable to claim the office of president for herself, she is expected to run the country by proxy from the Hluttaw. However, any change will likely be slow and gradual and a smooth transition remains difficult in light of the country’s history. The military also retains effective veto power to any proposed change in the constitution.

Myanmar still faces a variety of problems regarding its treatment of ethnic minorities, widespread impoverishment, and persistent electoral issues. While the government has promised a transition, similar promises were made in 1990 and later reneged. Time will tell if 2015 and 2016 will be any different.

Resources

Primary

Myanmar: Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar

Additional

BBC: Myanmar’s 2015 General Election Explained

BBC: Profile: Aung San Suu Kyi

CNN: November Date set for Landmark Myanmar Elections: What’s at stake?

Al Jazeera: Myanmar Promised ‘Smooth and Stable’ Transition

The Irrawaddy: Mon Parties Count their Losses after NLD Rout

The New Yorker: Can Myanmar’s New Government Control its Military?

The Huffington Post: Burma’s 8888: A Movement that Lives On

James F. Guyot: Myanmar in 1990: The Unconsummated Election

Oxford Burma Alliance: The Ne Win Years: 1962-1988

Burma Fund UN Office: Burma’s 2010 Elections: A Comprehensive Report

PBS NewsHour: Inside the Charge for Change Toward Democracy in Myanmar

Journeyman Pictures: Road to Democracy – Myanmar’s Election Struggle

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated correct U Thant’s history. Thant served as Burma’s permanent representative to the United Nations and later the U.N. Secretary-General. He was not the country’s prime minister.

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advancement or Regression? The 2015 Elections in Myanmar appeared first on Law Street.

On October 26, Jimmy Morales defeated former first lady Sandra Torres in a runoff election, taking 67.4 percent of the vote to become Guatemala’s president-elect. Scheduled to take office in 2016, little is known about Morales’ plan for his government other than that he is a conservative who believes in minimal government interference.

The general election was held as scheduled despite the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina a few days before after he was indicted on corruption charges that had claimed his prior vice-president and numerous members of his cabinet.

Despite the fact that he lacks any former political experience aside from a failed mayoral run in 2011, read on to understand the making of Morales’ rise to the presidency.

The Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996) and Aftermath

In order to understand Guatemala’s recent election, it’s crucial to first discuss the country’s history of conflict and the connection to its recent corruption challenges. During the 1940s and early 1950s, elections in Guatemala brought popular, leftist leaders into power. In 1954, a United States-backed coup, headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, brought a military regime to power. In the 1960s, conflict between left-wing guerrilla groups and the military sparked a civil war that lasted for decades. In the 1970s, military rulers began a campaign to eliminate guerrilla leaders, causing approximately 50,000 deaths. Numerous atrocities, including genocide and forced disappearances, were committed largely by government forces. The state-sponsored atrocities killed an estimated 200,000 civilians during the nation’s civil war.

Despite the signing of peace accords in 1996, Guatemala continues to face issues like extreme poverty, illiteracy, and racism against indigenous peoples. Political tension has remained a constant, as shown by the recent turbulent election of a television comedian to the office of president. Numerous ex-government officials and landowners who assisted paramilitary groups have been convicted for their roles in the atrocities during the civil war. The internal debate over whether acts of genocide were actually committed continues, and was disputed by former president Molina.

The Road to Morales (1996-2015)

As suggested above, the transition period from civil war to peacetime democracy was slow and rocky and may still be underway. In late the 1990s and early 2000s, the government focused on cracking down on crime and protecting the human rights of civilians victimized by the past wartime governments. However, the post-war government was challenged with high crime rates, corruption, and violence directed at human rights groups and journalists.

Efrain Rios Montt, a former military leader, was permitted to run for president in 2003 despite a constitutional rule that prevented anyone who had attempted to overthrow the government from running for election. Montt had become the national leader in 1982 following a coup and oversaw the escalation of violence in the countryside. He lost the 2003 election to Oscar Berger, who later allowed the United Nations to help create the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The group was tasked with assisting national law enforcement prosecute organized crime and drug trafficking.

Otto Perez Molina was elected president in 2011, a position that he held until earlier this year. In April, the CICIG released a report implicating numerous members of Molina’s government of corruption, most notably Vice-President Roxana Baldetti. The scandal, which became known as La Linea, revolved around officials taking bribes from importers in exchange for tariff reductions. The tactic dates back to the civil war, when military officials used payoffs finance their counter-insurgency operations. In a protest that was largely organized through social media, tens of thousands of people came out in the streets of the capital urging Baldetti to resign. After a few days, she complied.

Since Baldetti’s resignation, the corruption case has claimed more than 20 government officials, including members of opposition parties. On August 21, the CICIG issued a report which presented further evidence putting former Vice-President Baldetti and President Molina at the head of the La Linea operation. Guatemalans once again took to the streets, demanding Molina’s resignation. On September 1, the Guatemalan congress voted unanimously to withdraw the president’s protection from prosecution and two days later, Molina resigned and was arrested. On September 7, the general election was held with Morales the clear favorite heading into the runoff.

The election was held despite concerns that the La Linea scandal polluted the lead-up to the election with accusations against the candidates. Others insisted that the election should go ahead to avoid a power vacuum.

Jimmy Morales and the Election

With the slogan “Neither corrupt, nor a thief” and waning voter enthusiasm, Morales won the election. Nearly half of Guatemala’s 7.5 million registered voters did not cast ballots. Of those who did, many cited a lack of satisfaction with the current government and low expectations for any future regime. Morales’s victory is likely due to the fact that he is a political outsider who could present a contrast to the officials claimed by the La Linea scandal. He had 13 opponents in the general election but won with a plurality of the vote. Because neither of the three leading candidates met the 50 percent threshold, a runoff election was held shortly after the general. Morales’ won the runoff with around 68 percent of all votes cast.

Manuel Baldizon was considered the front-runner in the election as recently as April, but his association with the established government hurt his campaign after the scandal came to light. He finished in third place in the general election but quit the race prior to the runoff election leaving Morales and Sandra Torrez as the two remaining options.

Morales’s dominant victory in the runoff has been viewed as a rejection of the status quo by voters. However, it must be noted that Morales’s party, the National Convergence Front (FCN) only claimed 11 of the 158 available seats in Congress. Despite his landslide victory, he now faces an uphill battle as he will need to establish a coalition in the among legislators in order to advance his policy agenda.

What to Expect

Although Jimmy Morales was elected with around 68 percent of the vote, his campaign did not offer many specifics about his plans for the country. As BBC notes, his campaign manifesto is just six pages long and contains few details about policy positions beyond fighting corruption.

His campaign website emphasizes his interest in strengthening three areas: employment, education, and public health. His political ideology appears to be strongly influenced by Reaganism and a desire for minimal government interference–in fact, the “about” section of his website features a long quote from Ronald Reagan.

Expectations heading into Morales’s presidency are low given the lack of support he’ll have in Congress on day one. While his specific policy positions remain unclear, reports highlight his emphasis on religion and small government. He has stated his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the legalization of recreational drugs. Women’s rights and gay rights groups have come out against of Morales for his views, and his controversial characters in a popular sketch comedy show raised questions about his position on social issues.

Another notable area of concern is his Party’s ties to military leaders during the civil war, whom many associate with violence and corruption. In response to criticism, Morales defended his Party by issuing a clarification on his website, which noted that much of the Party leadership was replaced when he joined in 2013.

Morales has said that will not be able to make Guatemala’s economic and government problems disappear on his own. While he touted his inexperience and background to win an election that claimed many old guard politicians as victims, those virtues may now act as limitations as he attempts to build a governing coalition.

In the meantime, interim President Alejandro Maldonado has voiced support for the protesters and has backed the charges against former President Molina. Maldonado hopes that the recent developments will help the country deal with its corruption issues as it transitions to a new government. He will serve as the interim President until Morales takes office in January.

Conclusion

On the surface, the results of the Guatemalan election may appear curious, but the reality is that the election of former comedian Jimmy Morales is the result of deeply seeded distrust in the political system. Despite his background in comedy, Morales hails from a conservative party with ties to controversial leaders during the civil war. While he has not given many specifics about what his presidency will look like, it is clear that Guatemalans chose him as an alternative to the status quo. Yet, despite his landslide victory on election day, voter turnout was particularly low, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the current system.

The people of Guatemala are desperate for any form of change, rejecting established political elites for an inexperienced but popular comedian. The populace remains split between those who a cynical of any Guatemalan government and those that remain cautiously optimistic for real change.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala

Additional

The Washington Post: The ‘Donald Trump of Guatemala’ was just Elected President

The Washington Post: Guatemalan President Resigns After Judge Orders Him to Face Corruption Charges

Reuters: No joke: Guatemalan Comedian Wins Presidency in Landslide

BBC: Guatemala election: Jimmy Morales Elected President

BBC: Timeline: Guatemala

New York Times: Jimmy Morales is Elected New President in Guatemala

CNN: Guatemala election: Presidential Runoff set for October; Comedian is Frontrunner

LA Times: Guatemala Presidential Candidate Quits Party, Drops Out of Race

Victoria Sanford: Victory in Guatemala? Not Yet

Jimmy Morales: Campaign Website

Regina Bateson: How Local Institutions Emerge from Civil War

Daniel Schloss: Elusive Peace, Security, and Justice in Post-Conflict Guatemala: An Exploration of Transnational Justice and the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)

Vox: Guatemala’s Crisis, Explained: Why the President Just Resigned

John Oliver: Guatemala’s Election

Al Jazeera: Talk to Al Jazeera: Showdown in Guatemala: Ending an Era of Impunity?

Journeyman Pictures: An American Genocide: Guatemala

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guatemalan Elections: How a Comedian Became President appeared first on Law Street.

Since Wikileaks released an early draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive international free trade agreement, many groups have raised concerns about its potentially negative consequences, particularly when it comes to intellectual property. Most of the concern has focused on the potential expansion of copyright protections for pharmaceutical companies as well as the potential for stricter punishment for copyright infringement. A wide coalition of groups has since come out against the deal, including free internet groups, medical professionals, Youtubers, video game modders, and journalists.

The agreement involves 12 Pacific Rim nations (Canada, United States, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore) which combine to make up about 36 percent of the global economy in terms of GDP. The objective was to lower trade barriers and access to goods in all countries involved, as well as to present a strong economic front against China.

Critics of the Intellectual Property (IP) Rights chapter see dangers to fair use of copyrighted works, corporate watchdogs, whistleblowers, and patients dependent on drug treatments. The new opponents to the TPP provide a contrast to the traditional opposition found in political and labor circles in the United States. Even Wikileaks founder Julian Assange criticized the IP chapter saying, “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs”

Political Objections to the TPP in the United States

In the United States, presidential candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties have come out against the TPP deal signed by President Obama. Both primary front-runners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have spoken publicly against the TPP in the wake of its finalization. Despite the president’s signature, the bill still needs to pass Congress with a straight up-or-down vote. Congress voted away its right to amend the bill when it passed the TPP Fast Track Bill in June. Once they receive the document, members of Congress will have 90 days to read, debate, and ratify the treaty. According to the bill, the text of the agreement is to be made public within 30 days of the president’s decision to sign it.

Notable progressive figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have a long history of protesting the TPP. Skeptics on the right claim that the treaty doesn’t do enough to reign in other countries’ use of tools like currency manipulation, which can give domestic businesses an advantageous playing field. Skeptics on the left point to the perceived failure of past trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and their consequences for American labor. People on both sides have also criticized the shroud of secrecy that has gone along with the negotiations.

Senator Sanders cited former trade agreements and the loss of American jobs as a result of the agreements. He also questioned whether any company would invest in the United States when they can freely go abroad to countries that allow for lower wages. He claims that the primary supporters of the agreement are large, multinational corporations and the primary victims of the deal will be American workers.

Those defending the TPP claim that the lowering of trade barriers will allow American companies to sell more of their products abroad, increase revenue, and provide for more jobs. President Obama argues that the deal will lead to the elimination of approximately 18,000 customs taxes from American goods.

The IP Rights chapter is designed to protect companies that invest in innovative products, treatments, and services and promote innovation. For countries like the United States and Japan, whose economies focus on technology and innovation, it is important to expand intellectual property rights internationally to maintain the competitiveness of domestic companies.

The TPP is also generally seen as President Obama’s attempt to level the playing field in the Pacific with China. While critics point out that China isn’t even involved in the deal, the TPP was intentionally left open-ended, which would allow it to join in the future.

Medical Objections to TPP

Doctors Without Borders voiced concern over the IP Rights chapter of the TPP, particularly when it comes to drug patents. The United States and numerous pharmaceutical corporations spent the negotiations attempting to export the current U.S. model, which allows for 12 years of data protection. For the most part, other signatories of the TPP resisted lengthy protections, but the most recent draft includes a five-year protection (Article QQ.E.16). Skeptics argue that this as a direct attack on the generic drug market and an attempt to limit competition, which could prevent other companies from potentially driving the cost of a drug down.

There is also debate over whether patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry actually promotes research and development or hampers it. Supporters of the trade deal say that these protections will ensure companies view such investments as less risky from a financial standpoint, as they provide a guaranteed period to make a profit on groundbreaking drugs. Critics suggest that the regulations will make it more difficult for scientists to build on the work of others and could stifle the exchange of information.

It is important to note that it often costs drug companies hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug to the market. A controversial example of this is a hepatitis C drug that cost $500 million in private investment to get to market, in addition to publicly funded university research. That drug sells for $84,000 but only costs between $70 to $140 to produce.

Internet/Content Creator Objections to TPP

The IP Rights chapter also led to concerns among people whose internet habits are based around the United States copyright doctrine of Fair Use. In short, Fair Use is the concept that a copyrighted work may be copied and used in a transformative way for the purposes of comment, teaching, scholarship, or research without being in violation of copyright. While the TPP does encourage member nations to promote Fair Use-like protections for journalists, parody writers, and consumers, these protections are not mandated (Article QQ.C.4). Additionally, the TPP includes provisions that would criminalize the act of piracy or the divulging of trade secrets with fines and jail time.

These provisions have groups ranging from journalists to amateur manga writers concerned over the TPP. While there isn’t as much concern in the United States regarding fair use, there is the question of how violations of copyright and trade secrets would play out if an international corporation is involved. Gamers also fear that the provisions in the TPP could make game modding effectively a criminal offense, as software would fall under the category of “trade secrets.”

However, these fears seem somewhat unfounded given Australian Trade and Investment Minister Andrew Robb’s assurance that his country would only support the provisions that are consistent with the existing government. It seems unlikely that the TPP will force the wholesale change of member states’ copyright laws to the extent feared.

Views from Around the World

Canada

The recent election in Canada shed some light on where the country currently stands on the TPP. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper viewed the deal as crucial, particularly for Canada’s auto industry. Current Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau’s main point of contention with the TPP is the secret nature of the negotiations. He hasn’t committed to approving or rejecting the agreement until he’s carefully evaluated the deal.

The TPP’s predicted beneficiaries in Canada are its agriculture industry and its consumers of foreign imports, particularly from Japan, as many tariffs will be removed over the next five years. Most of the deal’s partners view Japan as a major potential marketplace for agricultural products.

Australia

A major part of the TPP for Australians was the assurance that they wouldn’t be subject to additional penalties for online piracy. As stated above, it appears unlikely that the current Australian government will alter its piracy and copyright laws to criminalize offenses critics fear. However, the language in the IP Rights chapter still has some alarmed with the potential damages that film and television companies could seek for illegal downloads of their products.

New Zealand

Medical professionals in New Zealand responded to the leaked IP Rights chapter with concern over rising prices of pharmaceuticals and the installation of potential patent extensions. Potential cost increases could place a heavy burden on the country’s healthcare system and cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, New Zealand has strong price protections for drugs in order to prevent high costs for consumers, but the agreement could lead to a challenge of those protections. The country’s prime minister acknowledged that under the TPP, drug prices will likely go up due to its data protections, but he argued that those costs would not significantly affect consumers.

Japan

The primary concern for Japan is how the TPP will impact the state of its agriculture industry. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe argues that the agreement will allow Japan to boost its agricultural production, despite Japan having to increase its annual imports of tariff-free goods from TPP members. Japan’s large corporations are also expected to benefit significantly from the agreement, perhaps most notably auto manufacturers who will benefit from new markets.

Conclusion

For now, the debate regarding the TPP will rage on in all 12 of the countries that hashed it out over the last five years. In the United States, the deal faces significant opposition from both parties, notably the Democratic party, as well as support from many Republicans and large corporations. Across the Pacific Rim, doctors and healthcare agents have raised concerns over the language found in the IP Rights chapter and are warning of rising costs in the drug market.

Journalists and other professionals who are dependent upon Fair Use view the punishments allowed for in the TPP for divulging trade secrets and copyright infringement as deterrents to doing their jobs. Concerns have even been raised in the gaming community, who feel threatened by the expansion of copyright protection internationally.

Given the language of the document and the assurances of political leaders across the Pacific Rim, it seems unlikely all of these fears will come to pass. However, the detractors also have reason for concern as international copyright laws will likely face some change.

Resources

Primary

Wikileaks: TPP Treaty: Intellectual Property Rights Chapter

Additional

Politico: Leaked: What’s in Obama’s Trade Deal

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Office of the United States Trade Representative: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives

Doctors Without Borders: Statement by MSF on the Conclusion of TPP Negotiations in Atlanta

NY Times: Trans-Pacific Partnership is Reached, but Faces Scrutiny in Congress

News.com.au: Wikileaks Releases TPP Agreement Which Gives More Rights to Film Studios over Copyright

The Sydney Morning Herald: No New Penalties for Australian Internet Pirates under Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Globe and Mail: The ABCs of TPP

The New Zealand Herald: Dr. Joshua Freeman: Free Trade Deal Sold us a Monopoly

The Japan Times: Too Early for TPP Cheers

Kotaku: Japanese Fan Comics Could Die Under New Trade Deal

BBC News: Trans-Pacific Partnership: What is it and What Does it Mean?

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Trade Deal Should be Public Before Congress Votes on Fast Track

Bernie Sanders: Sanders to Senate: No on TPP

UpTakeVideo: Obama Pitches Trans-Pacific Partnership to American People

Tarmack: The TPP Effect on the Video Game Industry

RT America: Sanders, Trump Lead Charge Against TPP

PBS NewsHour: Hilary Clinton says she doesn’t support Trans-Pacific Partnership

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trans-Pacific Partnership: Why is the IP Rights Chapter Receiving So Much Criticism? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler became the third person this year to hit Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with a cease-and-desist letter for his use of music on the campaign trail. A month earlier, R.E.M. bassist Mike Mills voiced his displeasure at Trump’s use of one of his group’s songs and in June Neil Young asked Trump to stop using his music.

American presidential campaigns have a long history of using music to evoke emotions in audiences. It’s a practice that dates back to the early 1800s and possibly earlier, all the way back to George Washington. Perhaps the most famous example is Dwight Eisenhower’s “They Like Ike” advertisement, which yielded his famous campaign slogan “I like Ike.”

Over the past few decades, however, there’s been a growing trend among songwriters and artists who have come out against campaigns for using their music. The reasons for artists issuing cease-and-desist letters range from disagreeing political views or presenting an image of false endorsement to simply not wanting music played without their permission.

Securing the appropriate legal permissions to use particular songs on the campaign trail is not always enough. Copyright law and fair use are only part of the equation when it comes to a politician’s right to use music. Many states provide protections for famous artists in regards to their image and false endorsement. In fact, it is possible for a politician to legally possess the minimum permissions to use a song and still face a lawsuit from the artist. Read on to learn about the history of music in campaigns and the legal questions that come up time and time again on the campaign trail.

A Brief, Recent History of Campaign Music Fights

Reagan and Springsteen (1984)

As Ronald Reagan campaigned for reelection in the summer of 1984, much of the nation, and in turn Reagan’s presidential campaign, was swept away by Bruce Springsteen’s hit “Born in the USA.” Conservative columnist George Will made a claim to “Born in the USA,” calling it a patriotic, hardworking man’s anthem. Reagan quickly pounced on the opportunity to use the song in his campaign. He was promptly denied the rights to play the song but invoked Springsteen in a speech nonetheless. In a 1994 speech Reagan said,

America’s future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts. It rests in the message of hope in songs of a man so many young Americans admire: New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.

The left responded by saying that Reagan and conservatives had misinterpreted the song, claiming that it was a form of protest against the changes that Reagan brought about. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale even believed that Springsteen supported him. However, the song was intentionally crafted to contain both arguments and to be a conflicting piece of music. Ultimately the piece proved to be about disconnection, not belonging to any side, and as a result, probably not the most appropriate campaign tune.

Bush, Petty, and Hall (2004)

The trend in bands and songwriters protesting the political use of their music greatly increased in the 21st century, particularly within the last several election cycles. In 2004, George W. Bush used the songs “Still the One” and “I Won’t Back Down” by John Hall and Tom Petty, respectively. Both artists took offense to the use of their songs for President Bush’s campaign. Hall, later elected as a Democratic congressman in New York, publicly noted that neither he nor his music supported Bush’s reelection efforts.

McCain, Browne, and Mellencamp (2008)

John McCain received several complaints from artists concerning his use of their music, most notably from John Mellencamp for the use of “Our Country,” and  Jackson Browne for “Running on Empty.” Browne went so far as to sue the McCain campaign claiming that the usage of the song was not only without permission, but it also suggested that Browne supported the McCain campaign. As a Democrat, Browne naturally objected to supporting the campaign in any way. McCain would eventually settle with Browne and apologize.

Palin and Heart (2008)

Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, faced a backlash from the band Heart for her use of their song “Barracuda.” Ann and Nancy Wilson (the band’s lead singer and guitarist), asked the campaign to stop using its music, noting, “Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image.” Despite their desire to be left out of the campaign, the use of their song continued, most notably at Palin’s introduction at the Republican Convention in 2008. After its repeated use, the sisters issued a statement saying,

The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.

Charlie Crist and The Talking Heads (2010)

During his senate campaign against Republican candidate Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist used the song “Road to Nowhere” by The Talking Heads on his campaign website and in video advertisements. The group responded with a lawsuit that culminated with Crist issuing a formal apology.

Walker and the Dropkick Murphys (2012)

Both Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Speaker of the State Assembly Jeff Fitzgerald used the Dropkick Murphys cover of “I’m Shipping up to Boston” at tour stops in 2012 for their campaigns. The band responded to Fitzgerald’s use of their song at the Wisconsin GOP Convention by comparing it to the use of a gangsta rap by a white supremacist.

In 2011, Scott Walker led a campaign to eliminate collective bargaining rights for most state workers, which led to a massive backlash from pro-union organizations and Democrats. A recall election was held in 2012 in which Walker retained his post. Earlier this year, Walker played the same song prior to his speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit resulting in a backlash from the band. Dropkick Murphys, a notably pro-union band, tweeted their response:

@ScottWalker @GovWalker please stop using our music in any way…we literally hate you !!! Love, Dropkick Murphys

— Dropkick Murphys (@DropkickMurphys) January 25, 2015

Obama, Moore, and Lauper (2008 and 2012)

The Obama campaign faced some backlash from Sam Moore, of the band Sam & Dave, for its use of the song “Hold On! I’m Comin'” at rallies. Moore objected to the use of his song by the Obama campaign because he had not publicly endorsed Obama’s election bid, noting that his vote is a private matter. However, Moore did send a letter to Obama proudly noting the historic nature of his campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign used Cyndi Lauper’s song “True Colors” in an ad criticizing Mitt Romney and his record. While Lauper was not a Romney supporter, she did not agree with the use of her song in a negative advertisement.

When Can Campaigns Use Music?

To use music in advertisements (television and internet), a campaign needs to receive legal permission from both the song’s publisher and the artist’s record label. The use of music at a live campaign event requires a “public performance” license, generally attained from one of the United States’ performing rights organizations. These organizations track the use of music and help distribute royalties from such events.

Technically, campaigns do not need to receive explicit permission from the artist to use their work, but it should be noted that even if a politician has all the requisite legal permissions the artist can still sue the campaign. The author(s) could make a claim to their “Right of Publicity,” which is a legal protection many states give celebrities and artists. The right of publicity generally protects the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial reasons. However, this right is not yet nationally recognized. On the federal level, the Lanham Act protects an artist’s trademark or brand by offering protection against false endorsement in which the use of an artist’s work can imply the artist’s support. Politicians and their campaigns also need to acquire proper licensing from the publisher, record label, and venue.

What About Fair Use?

One of the most crucial pieces of U.S. copyright law, created to ensure the protection of free speech, is the doctrine of fair use. Fair use is defined as the copying of copyrighted material done for a “limited and ‘transformative’ purpose,” which may legally be done without the artist’s or license holder’s. However, fair use is loosely defined and limited by various court decisions.

There are two general categories of fair use. The first is commentary, in which a copyrighted work can be used in limited instances to provide examples and clarity–this is most commonly seen in scholarly works. The second category of fair use is parody, in which large sections of an original work may be copied and used in a satirical manner. When fair use claims make it to court, judges employ a four-point test to evaluate how the material was used and what the consequences were. Fair use claims are particularly strong when the use was for educational or informative purposes, or when the original work has been significantly modified to create something new.

When used to set a mood or accompany a politician’s platform, the use of music on a political campaign is generally not protected under fair use. The parody of a popular song for a campaign may constitute fair use, but otherwise artists would still be entitled to the protections established above. Although campaigns are not often afforded fair use protections, these claims are looked at on a case-by-case basis. While there may be some cases in which fair use protects campaigns, generally speaking, that is not the case.

Conclusion

Musicians’ recent outcry against the use of their work for political campaigns is nothing new. However, the number of complaints issued by artists has grown significantly over the past election cycles. These issues may have arisen over the evolution of the fair use and its interpretation in the courts, particularly for music and film. However, it is important to note that political campaigns often do not meet the transformative requirements to constitute fair use when playing music at events or in advertisements. Even if the proper licenses are granted by publishers and record labels, the performing groups themselves may be entitled to protections under the right of publicity and the Lanham Act, meaning their permission is essentially required as well.

In short: if you want to use a song to promote your campaign, talk to the song’s artist, and his or her record label first.

Resources

ASCAP: Using Music in Political Campaigns: What you Should Know

Daily Kos: When Politicians use Music Without Asking Permission

Jefferson R. Cowie: Stayin’ Alive: Book 2, Chapter 8: “Dead Man’s Town”

USA Today: Candidates Carry a Tune on Campaign Trail

BBC: Aerosmith Protest over Trump Campaign Using their Hit Dream On

The Guardian: REM blasts Donald Trump for Using their Music in US Presidential Campaign

NY Times: In Choreographed Campaigns, Candidates Stumble over Choice of Music

Time: A Brief History of Campaign Songs

Boston: Wisconsin Recall Battle Finally Goes to Voters

Kevin L. Vick and Jean-Paul Jassy: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

Stanford University Libraries: What is Fair Use?

Cornell University Law School: The Lanham Act (15 U.S. Code), Subchapter III, Provision 1125: False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden

Battlefield Sources: 1952 Eisenhower Political Ad – I like Ike – Presidential Campaign Ad

HardMusicTV: Bruce Springsteen vs Ronald Reagan

Law12345100: Charlie Crist Official Apology to David Byrne for Copyright Infringement

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Music and Fair Use: What are the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of November, UN delegates will gather in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) and engage in the annual Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nearly two decades after the Kyoto Conference and 10 years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations is still struggling to create a legally binding solution to climate change. As Paris looms, there’s a sense of cautious optimism that this conference may finally promote the action to avert the climate change threat on the horizon. Read on to find out about the major events of the conferences over the last 18 years and the impacts they have made.

What can we expect from this year’s Climate Change Conference?

Why Climate Change Matters to World Leaders

Scientific consensus has concluded that the human production of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) beginning with the industrial revolution have impacted, and are continuing to impact, the global environment. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

A 1995 report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” In 1997, the Kyoto Conference produced the Kyoto Protocol, which attempted to establish caps on industrialized nations’ carbon emissions. Most European countries agreed to the legally binding treaty, but the U.S. Senate failed to ratify it. In 2001, the Bush administration formally rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

Climate change currently holds a prominent place in the U.S. Intelligence Community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment. Global climate change threatens strategic resources, habitable coastal regions, food supplies, promotes the spread of infectious diseases, leads to more extreme weather events, and exacerbates humanitarian crises. The generally accepted figure for average global temperature rise in the last century is 0.8 degrees Celsius and the projected rise in the next century will be an additional 1.2 degrees. However, many scientists fear the temperature rise could be more severe, projecting as much as a 4 degrees Celsius rise from pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Such an increase would reduce the amount of habitable land available, cripple agriculture, and lead to major flooding in coastal regions. Nations previously resistant to the idea of a severe climate change threat are coming around to engage in the international discussion.

History: Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Kyoto (1997)

After the 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the evidence supports the existence of human-influenced climate change, the United Nations sought to create a treaty to deal with the issue. In 1996, U.S. undersecretary for global affairs Timothy Wirth stated that the Clinton Administration accepted the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and called for legally binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions to be drafted. In 1997, the Conference of the Parties met again, this time adopting the Kyoto Protocol. The conference acknowledged that the majority of the burden to halt climate change fell on the industrialized Annex-I countries (developed countries like the United States, Japan, Russia, and most of Western Europe). Several developing (Annex-B) nations also accepted the stipulations of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol introduced mechanisms such as emissions trading, a global fund–to assist developing countries to minimize their emissions–and a monitoring system to measure emissions and ensure compliance. Nations that ratified the agreement had to independently find solutions to cut their emissions. However, the Protocol allowed for flexibility, acknowledging that the cost of reducing emissions varied among countries.

Enforcement of the Protocol was relatively weak, but still present. A nation failing to hit its initial emission reduction target would be required to increase its secondary target by 30 percent and would be barred from the emissions trading program.

Although President Clinton signed the agreement, the Senate refused to ratify the Protocol due to the exemption of countries like China and India, which the protocol classified as developing. Ultimately, the United States feared that the protocol would damage its economic competitiveness.

Bonn (2001)

Early in his presidency, George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol for the same reasons the 1998 Senate refused to ratify it. The United States also did not participate in the 2001 Climate Change Conference held in Bonn, Germany, choosing to observe.

The previous conference in the Hague in 2000 devolved rapidly into an argument over enforcement policies and political disagreements. The disagreement created between the United States and the European Union eventually caused the talks to be suspended and resumed at a later date. As a result, there were low expectations for the 2001 conference. One of the major remaining issues was the role of carbon sinks in net carbon reduction (championed by the United States) versus direct source reduction (preferred by the E.U.). With the U.S.’s withdrawal in 2001, many feared the Kyoto Protocol would collapse.

The Protocol could only be ratified if agreed upon by nations making up 55 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from 1990. The United States was responsible for 35 percent of GHG emissions in 1990, so its withdrawal meant that countries such as Russia (17.4 percent) and Japan (8.5 percent) had strengthened negotiating positions. Without either of these two nations, the Protocol would likely collapse.

Despite the high stakes and low expectations, an agreement was reached. The Bonn agreement allowed for nations to use various mechanisms, such as carbon sinks, to achieve their target emissions reduction without necessarily reducing their GHG production. The agreement tackled forest and crop management which had proved significant to negotiation breakdowns at The Hague, allowing for countries to credit land allocations toward their GHG reduction, but included a hard cap to these credits. The success of the negotiations at Bonn set the Kyoto Protocol on the path to international ratification.

Nairobi (2006)

In 2005 in Montreal, Canada the Kyoto Protocol entered into force at the first annual Meeting of the Parties. The Protocol was extended beyond its initial 2012 expiration and set in motion plans to negotiate deeper cuts to GHG emissions. The optimism for the future of the Kyoto Protocol dimmed a little in Nairobi the following year. While certain steps were taken to include developing nations in the Protocol, the negotiations also faced criticism. Observers like BBC corrospondent Richard Black criticized many delegates for failing to effectively discuss cutting emissions for fear of economic costs and competitiveness. This has been a recurring criticism of the global effort to reduce GHG emissions.

In order for countries to pursue solutions based on national interests, they would need to see climate change mechanisms as opportunities to increase economic growth rather than costs. The concern is always that making money, rather than reducing emissions, is the priority for governments at these conferences. The Nairobi conference also raised questions as to whose climate problem the U.N. is solving. The responsibility to reduce emissions lies largely with the wealthy, developed nations while the impact is most strongly felt by poorer, less developed nations.

These concerns eventually led the international community to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol and begin new negotiations on emissions cuts, suggesting global emissions would need to see a 50 percent cut in the near future. Work on technology transfer to developing countries was extended but only on a limited basis.

Copenhagen (2009)

Prior to the 2009 Meeting of the Parties, most anticipated that an emissions reduction goal would be agreed upon, as the first commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol was to end in 2012. However, leading up to the conference, world leaders elected to put off the crafting process for a later date. Most of the major negotiations fell short and one of the few takeaways from the Copenhabgen conference was an external agreement between the U.S., China, South Africa, India, and Brazil. This conference is widely considered a failure by those preparing to attend the 2015 Paris Conference.

Because the five-nation agreement was external, it was not considered binding by the U.N. Although it calls for individual nations to track pollution-related goals and allocate funds for developing nations, the agreement failed to produce the long-term goals. Developing nations felt excluded, as did the E.U., while all parties felt the conference itself was sub-optimally organized and run.

Durban (2011)

The Durban conference set in motion the events leading up to the Paris conference of this year. It was agreed that a legally binding deal would be ratified by all countries in 2015 to take effect in 2020. Additionally, the framework for the Green Climate Fund (GFC), which had been established the previous year, was adopted. The GCF would assist poorer countries adapt to the climate change challenges. The president of the conference declared the Durban Meeting of the Parties a success, though scientists warned that more drastic action was needed to avert the 2 degrees Celsius increase predicted for 2050.

What to Expect from Paris

So far, 148 out of 196 countries have met the U.N. deadline to submit emissions reduction plans leading up to the Paris conference. The U.N. argues that if more countries submit these plans, it is more likely that the conference will result in a strong global treaty. India’s plan drew attention by stating that the country would require 2.5 trillion USD to meet its emissions goals. While it is unclear how much of that money India intends to draw from foreign investments, it is clear that it will have to be a significant amount.

As more plans are submitted, temperature predictions have been established and updated. At present, the current projection for global temperature rise is 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels–an improvement from the earlier projection of 3.1 degrees Celsius.

The IPCC has also elected a new chairman for the first time in 13 years. Hoesung Lee of South Korea will chair the Paris conference. While it is still very early, many have approved of the selection, suggesting he could serve as a link in negotiations between the developed and developing countries.

The Paris conference will be tasked with ratifying a legally binding treaty much like the one produced at Bonn in 2001. While almost all of the U.N. member nations have accepted the reality of human-influenced climate change, there will likely be intense debate over how net emissions ought to be reduced. As always, the weight of economic and competitive costs will weigh on the minds of delegates from developed countries while delegates from developing countries will continue to press for climate change adaptation funds. There is currently a very real sense from the global community that something must be done and a cautious sense of optimism that something will be.

Conclusion

The history of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change is long and messy. While most agree on the necessity for global emissions reduction, there are numerous disagreements over how to do so and who is primarily responsible. Most agree that the primary blame for climate change lies with the developed nations, but there are questions regarding how much these nations should help those that are currently developing. The role of emissions sinks has been contested before and may come up again in Paris. Meanwhile, India, China, and the United States will play major roles in determining the success of the Paris conference, and the ultimate effectiveness of any agreement reached. While the UNFCCC has been successful in reducing global emissions over the last 10 years, there is still much more work to do, and only time will tell if the nations of the world are up to the challenge.

Resources

Primary

UNFCCC: Durban Climate Change Conference

UNFCCC: The Green Climate Fund

UNFCCC: Provisional Agenda for the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties

The White House: President Barrack Obama at UN Climate Change Summit

The White House: President Barrack Obama’s Climate Change Plan 2015

105th Congress: Byrd-Hagel Resolution

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2014 Report

Senate Armed Services Committee: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community

IPCC: Climate Change 1995 The Science of Climate Change

UNFCCC: The Kyoto Protocol

Additional

BBC: Climate Talks a Tricky Business

NYTimes: Many Goals Remain Unmet in 5 Nations’ Climate Deal

NYTimes: Leaders will Delay Deal on Climate Change

The Guardian: Durban Deal will not Avert Catastrophic Climate Change, says Scientists

Hoesung Lee: The Risk of No Action

BBC: UN Battle Looms over Finance as Nations Submit Climate Plans

BBC: Paris Climate Summit: Don’t Mention Copenhagen

BBC: Why did Copenhagen Fail to Deliver a Climate Deal?

Matthew Vespa: Climate Change 2001: Kyoto at Bonn and Marrakech

Ehsan Masood: United States Backs Climate Panel Findings

BBC: Kyoto: Why Did the US Pull Out?

TedxTalks: Climate Change is Simple: David Roberts

TedxTalks: The Reality of Climate Change: David Puttnam

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Paris Climate Change Conference: What Should We Expect? appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of September, the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain held local elections for the regional legislature. The election was called for in January by Regional President Artur Mas to serve as a public referendum for Catalan independence. If pro-independence candidates received enough support, that would constitute a mandate to pursue formal independence from Spain–and they did. The two parties supporting independence received a majority of seats in the local election, validating Catalan voters’ desire for independence. But that election was municipal, and it remains unlikely that parties supporting independence will get a majority when the national elections come in November. Also, any attempt to make Catalonia an independent state is still prohibited under the Spanish Constitution. So, what does the recent vote mean for the potential for an independent Catalonia and why do they want to break away in the first place? Read on to learn about the background behind the movement and its prospects in the future.

A Brief History of Catalonia (1714-1975)

On September 11, 1714, the Catalan capital of Barcelona fell to King Philip V of Spain. In the aftermath, Spain imposed its own laws on the conquered territory, replacing the historical laws and government of Catalonia. Many believe this was an early attempt to replace the Catalan language with Spanish. Future Spanish governments would eventually ban the use of Catalan in schools, newspapers, film, and eventually (under Franco) everywhere. People caught speaking Catalan faced stiff penalties including imprisonment, fines, and beating. In the 1960s, a policy of encouraged migration from the rest of Spain was enacted by the Franco regime.

Reading books in Catalan and speaking the language in public eventually became a form of civil disobedience. September 11 became a day on which Catalans gathered to recognize their own historical heritage and further their desire for autonomy. With their own language, a history dating back over 1,000 years, and more than 7.5 million residents current residents, Catalan have a legitimate claim to independence.

The Rise of Separatist Rhetoric in Catalonia

In 1978, three years after the death of Francisco Franco–the country’s dictator from 1939 to 1975–Spain adopted a new constitution that granted some autonomy to various communities across the country, including Catalonia. However, the constitution also solidified the indivisibility of Spain, making any attempt at breaking away from the Spanish nation illegal. In fact, the constitution explicitly entrusts the military with the responsibility to keep the country whole. The post-Franco period was characterized by a swift and seamless transition to democracy, as well as Spain’s quick entry into NATO and the European Union. The transition also led to the devolution of power, giving more power to individual regions within Spain, yet Catalans remained dissatisfied with their lack of formal control.

The Spanish constitution divided the nation into 17 autonomous communities, several of which had historical and cultural legitimacy–like Basque Country and Catalonia–while others were artificially created, like Madrid. These communities form a somewhat loose confederation centered around Madrid. The Catalan people have a longstanding dissatisfaction with the current autonomous community model largely based upon the financial and historical realities of the Catalonia region.

Separatist parties in Catalonia have won a lot of support in local elections, culminating thus far in the September 2015 election, which witnessed major gains by the Junts pel Si (Together for Yes) coalition. At present, groups in favor of secession from Spain have an outright majority in the Catalan Regional Assembly. Catalan President Artur Mas has spent the last several years organizing town-by-town, non-binding referendums on Catalonia’s independence. On September 29, Mas was summoned by the Catalan high court regarding a 2014 referendum, accusing him of abuse of power, embezzlement, and disobedience. The Catalan regional government denounced the charges, claiming that they are politically motivated.

Although the 2014 referendum was non-binding, officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of Catalan independence from Spain. However, the turnout for the referendum was only about 40 percent, and the  Spanish government considered the vote illegal according to the constitution.

Arguments for Catalan Independence

Catalonia’s apparent desire for independence encapsulates much more than a cultural and linguistic heritage. Historically, Catalonia has been a prosperous region for Spain, launching its own industrial revolution in the 19th century while the rest of Spain attempted to maintain an agrarian economy based off of large landholders. Catalonia demanded public money for infrastructure that would allow for its modern, industrial economy. In response, the Spanish landholding elite viewed the Catalans as leeches on their economy. Today, the consequences of social and economic disagreement have led to many anti-Catalan stereotypes. Many conservative Spaniards still view Catalonia as a region that receives and demands too much public money.

Statistically speaking, Catalonia contributes approximately 20 percent of Spain’s GDP, making it the most productive region in Spain. Catalans argue that the Spanish government takes more in taxes than it gives back in public funds. This sentiment is generally pretty inaccurate. When compared to other prosperous regions across Europe (such as Bavaria, Germany and Paris, France), Catalonia’s fiscal deficit is significantly higher than those similar regions. Catalonia remains one of the highest taxed regions in all of Europe.

When the global recession hit in 2008, these financial deficits were brought into the forum of public discourse, with Catalans believing they were paying too much to cover the rest of Spain. While the regional budget in Catalonia is €22.5 billion for 2015, a Reuters article from 2012 found that Catalonia contributed at least €12 billion to the rest of Spain in taxes. Over the last 12 years, Catalonia’s share of the national budget has fallen from 16 percent in 2003 to 9.5 in 2015. Building on an existing desire for political and cultural autonomy, recent economic trends have bolstered the movement for independence.

The Political Climate in Spain

Catalan independence is a particularly controversial subject among Spaniards. Soccer matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have become open forums for either anti-Spain or anti-Catalonia sentiment, depending on who’s hosting.

Historically, two major parties have controlled the political sphere in Spain. The Socialist party and Popular Party (PP) have traditionally traded control of the government back and forth since 1978. Spain has had very little experience with compromise, as Franco maintained unilateral control before his death. Coalitions are rarely formed and winning parties often feel a mandate to govern–even without an absolute majority. Given the May 2015 elections, which led to the rise of the Podemos and Ciudadanos parties at the local level, many Spaniards believe a new era of compromise politics is coming. However, that remains to be seen as national elections won’t be held until November.

In the meantime, the inflammatory rhetoric of Spain’s historically diametric political system will continue to put a strain on both Madrid and Catalonia as tension over independence mounts.

Influences of the 2014 Scotland Referendum

The referendum for Scottish independence, which was held at the end of 2014, did not go unnoticed in Catalonia. While 55 percent of Scots rejected independence from Great Britain, Catalans came away inspired. Many people in Catalonia want Spain to offer them the option to vote, as the UK did for Scotland. The Catalans say they simply want the right to the same self-determination that the Scots received.

.@Zerohedge explains the difference, until now, between #Scotland & #Catalonia http://t.co/BZV4CiuUua #democracy pic.twitter.com/fAEkVRiLuw

— This is Catalonia (@ThIsCatalonia) September 22, 2014

Leading up to the 2014 referendum, there was a growing percentage of Scots in favor of secession. However, in polls conducted shortly before the election that number was only around 40 percent. In Catalonia, recent polls suggest that an estimated 60 percent would vote in favor of secession.

The Scottish campaign was never as strong as the Catalan campaign is now. Leading up to the referendum, most Scots were divided over whether separation from the UK would be beneficial or harmful. Additionally despite a strong sense of national identity in Scotland, even the population that defined itself as purely Scottish was not overwhelmingly in its support of independence.

Most Catalans believe their state would be better off as an independent nation than it currently is. Those who identify as purely Catalan are overwhelmingly in favor of secession.

What Comes Next?

Although national elections are slated for November, it remains to be seen whether the new parties will able to experience success on a national level. However, it seems unlikely that any third-party group will be able to win an outright majority. Spain appears headed for its first confrontation that requires meaningful compromise in domestic politics. In the meantime, independence advocates in Catalonia will likely continue pushing for independence and changes to the Spanish constitution in order to allow for legal referendums.

It’s unclear what an independent Catalonia would do for Spain or the European Union financially. What does seem clear is that if Catalonia achieves independence, it could lead to similar movements in other regions of Spain such as Galicia and Basque, and possibly the dissolution of Spain as we know it.

Conclusion

Catalan separatists have scored a major victory by winning an outright majority in their regional assembly. Non-binding referendums have been held and there appears to be a significant interest in the Catalan people to form their own country within the EU. However, the separatist movements face staunch resistance from the rest of Spain and the Spanish Constitution. The inflammatory nature of rhetoric on both sides and Spain’s own lack of experience with internal compromise will likely pose a problem for the country. Spain will face mounting tensions up until the national elections in November. The results of those elections could determine not only the fate of Spain in the coming years but also the very union upon which the nation is built.

Resources

Endboard Productions: Spanish Secret Conflict

BBC: Spanish Elections: Podemos and Ciudadanos make gains

BBC: Catalan Election: Looming Independence or Little Change in Spain?

BBC: Catalonia’s Push of independence from Spain

BBC: Catalan Independence: Mas Called to Court over 2014 Referendum

The Guardian: Scotland Independence Referendum: The View from Catalonia

EurActiv: Local Elections Send Shockwaves through Spain’s Political Establishment

New York Times: Vote Fails to Settle Dispute on Secession by Catalonia

Montserrat Guibernau: National Identity, Devolution, and Secession in Canada, Britain, and Spain

Angela K. Bourne: Europeanization and Secession: The Cases of Catalonia and Scotland

Seth Jolly: Voting for Nation or State: Determinants of Independence Support in Scotland and Catalonia

Kieran McConaghy: Scotland and Separatism: Reverberations of the Scottish Independence Referendum on Separatist Politics

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Secession in Spain: The Fight for an Independent Catalonia appeared first on Law Street.

In January 2011, South Sudan became the newest member of the international community following an overwhelming referendum in favor of secession from Sudan. Despite initial turbulence with its northern neighbor, by the middle of 2013 South Sudan looked ready to transform its wealth of natural resources into prosperity and stability. Then in December 2013, Vice President Riek Machar was forced to flee the capital of Juba following an alleged coup against President Salva Kiir. The violence has since spilled out across the country, killing an estimated 50,000 and displacing nearly two million more. The violence is highlighted by civilian massacres, ethnic violence, and other atrocities, despite seven failed peace attempts. While a recent peace agreement has at least temporarily stopped the violence, many challenges remain for the country. Read on to learn about what is going on in South Sudan’s civil war and the international peace process accompanying it.

A Brief History of South Sudan (1955-2011)

The history of what is today South Sudan is a long and bloody one, going back as far back as the second half of the 20th century. In 1955, the first Sudanese civil war broke out between the predominantly Muslim-Arab north and the largely Christian-African south. After 17 years of conflict, the fighting was halted in 1972 and the South Sudan Autonomous Region (SSAR) was formed.

Peace lasted until 1983, a couple years after oil was discovered in the south. The war resumed, or depending on who you ask, the Second Sudanese Civil War began. For several years, the North began wearing away at the agreement that created the SSAR. The second conflict emerged after Sudan assumed control of oil-rich land in the South while also imposing a strict version of sharia law. In 1991, in the middle of its conflict with the north, a South Sudan rebel group led by Riek Machar split from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). Other groups split from the SPLA, often along ethnic lines, but Machar’s was the most prominent. In total, the second civil war killed nearly two million and displaced another four million between 1983 and 2005.

The conflict was negotiated to a settlement in 2005 by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional group. The settlement included provisions for a referendum on South Sudanese independence to be held in 2011.

The Referendum (January 2011)

In January 2011, the people of the South Sudan Autonomous Region, including refugees and ex-patriots in other countries, voted with 99 percent in favor of secession from the Republic of Sudan. A government was formed with Salva Kiir appointed as the president (representing the majority Dinka population) and Riek Machar as vice president (representing the Nuer population). Resource revenue–largely from the oil reserves located predominantly in South Sudan–were to be split between the Republic of Sudan (North) and South Sudan.

In July 2011, South Sudan was recognized by the international community as an independent state. Despite tension between both countries, direct conflict never broke out. The relatively orderly division of Sudan was hailed as a breakthrough in international conflict resolution.

The Recent Conflict (December 2013-August 2015)

In December of 2013, President Salva Kiir claimed that a coup had occurred from within the royal guard orchestrated by Vice President Riek Machar. Machar, who to this day denies that any coup attempt was made, fled the capital before he could be captured, going to the Upper Nile region to be with the Nuer people. He then waged an increasingly chaotic and violent struggle against Kiir’s government.

Efforts to control the violence faced significant challenges. In January 2014, U.N. peacekeepers were directed to not engage with either side of the conflict, only to protect UNMISS compounds and NGOs. Chief of Public Affairs at the U.N.’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations Kieran Dwyer best summarized the difficulties the peacekeeping and humanitarian groups were having in South Sudan saying, “It’s 11 million people across a country the size of France. How could we promise that we could protect everyone all of the time against everybody?”

The ethnic nature of the conflict has led to civilian massacres and revenge killings, which often perpetuate each other. The fighting, when combined with the climate, has led to starvation among groups of civilians. Additionally, the loose control that both Machar and Kiir exhibited over the groups under them has led to a general lack of organization and chaos. Because Machar represents all the rebel forces for the purposes of negotiation his control has been limited–there were rebel war chiefs and combatants who only had a distant allegiance to him and may have been fighting for different reasons. As a result of the chaos, there have been numerous reports of human rights violations and potential war crimes.

The following video by The VICE Report paints a picture of rebel life near the front lines of this conflict. The video does contain images that are graphic in nature, so viewer discretion is advised.

According to Laia Balcells, a political science professor at Duke University, if two sides of a conflict are close to each other in regards to power, civilian atrocities are more likely to be committed. Additionally, her research on violence against civilians in civil wars suggests that initial instances of violence correlate strongly to future instances of civilian violence. Given the relative parity demonstrated between Machar’s forces and Kiir’s throughout the conflict, the patterns Balcells predict seem to apply. That is to say, South Sudan finds itself in a vicious cycle of violence against non-combatants.

Agreements and Breakdowns

In January 2014, the two sides agreed to a ceasefire negotiated by IGAD. The agreement was initially hailed by the international community, including praise from the UN and the United States. But the deal quickly fell apart within a day of coming into effect as rebels accused the government of continuing the violence. Six additional ceasefires had come into effect only to be violated within days of being signed.

Some experts see these failed cease fires as a sign that the conflict will be prolonged. For example, Barbara Walter, a political science professor at University of California San Diego, hypothesized that civil wars are more likely to re-emerge when they are ended by partition or compromise rather than with a decisive victory for one side. Additionally, shorter wars are more likely to see renewed conflict than longer wars (with longer wars being defined as longer than 4 years). However, crucial to the peace process is that rebel opportunity costs must be increased to deter reenlistment. Opportunity costs in civil wars are often defined roughly by quality of life statistics (e.g. infant mortality rate, quality of education, national/regional GDP, etc.).

In South Sudan, we see a relatively short war combined with repeated peace processes, which attempt to create a compromise between Machar and Kiir. With neither side disarmed and both sides less than happy, war could likely return after each negotiation. This problem, coupled with a population that faces lower and lower opportunity costs to join the rebellion creates a very challenging situation for South Sudan.

The Current Ceasefire (August 2015) and the International Peace Process

In August 2015, both Kiir and Machar signed a new peace deal that includes the demilitarization of major settlements, including the capital Juba. Additionally, the deal calls for Machar to be reinstated as Vice President. While Kiir and Machar seem to be doing their best to uphold the agreement, there already have been accusations of violation of the peace agreement. Even as he was signing the deal, Kiir expressed doubts over the language of the agreement and reservations, which he set aside to avoid sanctions. It should be noted that while the peace is fragile and teetering on a razor’s edge, it is holding.

As recently as September, the U.N. Security Council has attempted to coerce the two sides into upholding the peace with sanctions targeting key figures in the conflict. However, Russia and Angola have blocked these sanctions. Recent efforts include the July sanctioning of six generals, three from each side. However, human rights groups have criticized these sanctions for not effectively targeting higher ranking officials, arguing that the sanctioned individuals had very few assets outside of South Sudan that could be seized.

There are a few possible explanations for a lack of international involvement in this conflict. Stephen Gent, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina, hypothesized that the international community often suffers from a collective action problem when it comes to intervention. When outside groups have shared beliefs about what should be done to intervene, there’s an incentive to “free ride,” and hope another country is willing to bear the cost of intervention. Gent’s models also predict a lack of international intervention in the case of humanitarian crises (e.g. South Sudan, Darfur).

Meanwhile, the IGAD has attempted to reestablish its influence in negotiating a settlement by bringing in the African Union, United Nations, European Union, and others. The thought has been to present a united international front against the conflict. However, it has failed to gain effective backing given the international community’s general disillusionment with South Sudan.

Conclusion: Is There Hope for South Sudan?

Although South Sudan has managed to initiate a peace agreement, a lot of questions remain for the country. Thre have been several recent ceasefires and all have eventually collapsed. Furthermore, Salva Kiir’s reluctance to sign the agreement is certainly not a good indicator. Given the nature of the agreement and the country’s history, violence may quickly return. If that happens, increasing numbers of individuals will likely be displaced and in danger of starvation. Without centralized command on either side, peace talks will likely continue to fail and the currently negotiated truce appears unlikely to hold without significant intervention from the international community. Barring direct international, military intervention the relative parity between the rebel and government forces could lead to continued civilian massacres.

Resources

BBC: South Sudan Backs Independence – Results

Inter Press Service: U.N. Peacekeepers Overwhelmed in South Sudan

Al Jazeera: South Sudan: Birth of a new Country

CNN: South Sudan, Rebels Reach Cease-Fire after Weeks of Fighting

New York Times: South Sudanese Rebels Accuse Government of Ignoring Day-Old Cease-Fire

Relief Web: 50,000 and not Counting: South Sudan’s War Dead

Voice of America: Russia, Angola Delay UN South Sudan Sanctions

Foreign Policy: South Sudan’s Peace Deal Never Stood a Chance

Sudan Tribune: UNMISS Condemns Violation of South Sudan Peace Agreement

Defense News: US Warns South Sudan Warring Parties on Ceasefire

Enough Project: Sudan: Independence through Civil Wars, 1956-2005

United Nations Security Council: Resolution 2155 (2014)

International Crisis Group: South Sudan: Keeping Faith with the IGAD Peace Process

Stephen E. Gent: Strange Bedfellows: The Strategic Dynamics of Major Power Military Interventions

Laia Balcells: Rivalry and Revenge: Violence Against Civilians in Conventional Civil Wars

Barbara F. Walter: Does Conflict Beget Conflict? Explaining Recurring Civil War

VICE: Saving South Sudan

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Sudan’s Continuing Pattern of Reneged Peace Deals appeared first on Law Street.