Between long security lines, picky customs agents, and all the other inconveniences that can come with air travel, seasoned travelers know that every minute can add up when flying. A relatively new program called “Global Entry,” which is run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is designed to help certain travelers receive expedited entry into the United States upon their arrival at certain airports. But what exactly is Global Entry, how does it work, and what changes can we expect to see moving forward? Read on to find out.

Who Qualifies for Global Entry?

Currently, U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents, Indian citizens, Colombian citizens, U.K. citizens, German citizens, Panamanian citizens, citizens of Singapore, South Korean citizens, Swiss citizens, and Mexican nationals can qualify for Global Entry. Canadian citizens can participate in the related NEXUS program, which gives them the same benefits as someone who obtains Global Entry.

But there are other requirements that need to be met in order to qualify someone for Global Entry, and there’s never any guarantee that a particular individual will receive it. For example, individuals who have been convicted of any criminal offense or currently have any pending criminal charges against them cannot qualify.

Children are eligible for Global Entry but must go through a process that is pretty much identical to the one for adults (more on that below). Everyone–regardless of age–needs their own Global Entry card. Children are not able to be included on their parents’ or guardians’ cards.

What Benefits Do You Get from Global Entry?

Essentially Global Entry is like a “fast pass” for customs when you’re flying internationally. Normally, when you arrive in the U.S. from an international destination, you have to go through the entire customs process, which includes disclosing certain information and (usually) waiting in line. But travelers who have Global Entry can just proceed straight to a kiosk and work through the process on their own. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

At airports, program members proceed to Global Entry kiosks, present their machine-readable passport or U.S. permanent resident card, place their fingerprints on the scanner for fingerprint verification and complete a customs declaration. The kiosk issues the traveler a transaction receipt and directs the traveler to baggage claim and the exit.

That doesn’t necessarily guarantee that someone who has Global Entry will not need any further screening. But for the most part, it should seriously expedite a user’s customs process.

Domestically, having Global Entry qualifies you for TSA PreCheck. TSA PreCheck allows a holder to move quickly through the security process before boarding the plane. If you are a PreCheck holder you don’t have to remove your jacket, shoes, belt, or other accessories when going through a security checkpoint. You can leave items like laptops and appropriate-sized liquids in your carry on, and you have access to a PreCheck line that is usually shorter than the regular security line. TSA PreCheck can also be obtained separately, for those who want access to that program but don’t need Global Entry.

How Do You Get Global Entry?

So, you decide that you travel enough that applying for Global Entry is worth it for you. How do you actually obtain it? It’s a somewhat lengthy process. You start by completing an online form with identifying information. You have to list details about your residency and employment history for the past five years–which can prove complicated for some people, including recent college grads who may have moved around a lot during that time period. The application is incredibly important because an error–even a seemingly minor or innocent one–can lead to a rejection from the Global Entry program.

You have to pay a $100 fee to gain Global Entry–although many travel-focused credit cards now offer to reimburse that fee as part of some sort of perks program.

The next step, if your application isn’t rejected, is an in-person interview at an “enrollment center.” At various points in the Global Entry program’s history, applicants have seen pretty significant wait times, particularly for the interview portion. For example, an AP article from June 2016 detailed months-long wait times in some American cities. In cities like Los Angeles and San Fransisco, applicants may have to wait months for appointments, whereas in other cities with perhaps fewer international travelers, walk-in appointments may be available.

In fact, the overall time burden for Global Entry is a frequent topic of conversation on travel blogs. Many travel bloggers post entries like “How to Get a Quicker Global Entry Appointment!” and “How I Got Approved for Global Entry in 20 Days.”

The interview process involves going back over the information included in your application. It has been theorized that the interview is somewhat of a formality. According to Quartz writer Zachary M. Seward, “You may be asked a few basic questions about how you travel, your employment status, etc. But you wouldn’t have gotten this far in the process if you weren’t already destined for a rubber stamp.”

Once you have Global Entry, it lasts for five years.

Global Entry Controversies and Concerns

Is it Actually Worth It? 

The biggest question usually asked about Global Entry is whether or not the program is actually worth it. It takes time and money to apply, so infrequent travelers might not actually get that many benefits out of it. Seth Kugel of the New York Times points out that Global Entry won’t save you that much time if your travel companions don’t also have Global Entry. While you won’t physically be stuck in the customs line, you’ll still have to wait for your travel partners, like friends, family, or colleagues to make it through the line. Additionally, membership in the program won’t help you get out of the airport any faster if you’ve checked a bag. And as Kugel himself reports, there’s always the chance that your Global Entry gets rejected for whatever reason, and then you get punted to the regular process.

Trump’s Travel Ban and Global Entry 

When President Donald Trump issued the original iteration of his travel ban in January, there were significant concerns about what it could mean for travelers coming from the countries listed. While none of the countries named in either the first or second version of the travel ban are technically eligible for the program, there were questions for travelers who hold dual citizenship. For example, British-Iranian health care entrepreneur Ali Parsa, who runs a company called Babylon Health, spoke to Business Insider about his concerns. Parsa has a U.K. passport, as well as Global Entry, but was concerned about whether or not he could enter the U.S. under the travel ban, because he also has Iranian citizenship.

While that version of the travel ban didn’t end up going into effect, and a recent iteration is still working its way through the courts, the scare raised the question: is Global Entry worth it if the situation is so unstable?

Conclusion

If you’re a big time traveler, Global Entry might be something to consider. But the program, which is designed to speed up travel for its members, is not as perfect as it sounds. From long wait times to obtain the certification to questions about whether it’s actually worth it, applying for Global Entry requires some reflection. But for those who think it’s worth it, it could be a big boon next time they’re ready to head out of the airport as quickly as possible.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the Global Entry Program? appeared first on Law Street.

As the civil war in Syria has escalated, American, Saudi Arabian, and Russian interests have played increasingly larger roles. The Obama Administration adopted the stance, shared by the majority of the U.N., that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of human rights violations and must be removed from power. Russia, on the other hand, has long been an ally of Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported Assad throughout the conflict. This has led to what is in part a proxy war, with Syrian rebels that have been trained and armed by Saudi and American militaries fighting against Assad’s forces, which are armed with Russian weapons and drive Russian tanks. Amid this turmoil has been the growing power of ISIS, opposed in different ways by both the United States and Russia.

As the war has carried on, it has grown increasingly bloody. By the end of 2015, the war had claimed a staggering 470,000 Syrian lives, representing a loss of 11.5 percent of the nation’s population. Even among the survivors, the damage to Syrian national security has been extreme; over half of the nation’s population has been displaced by the war. The Syrian conflict is vast and extremely complicated and both Russia and the U.S. have numerous reasons for their involvement.

However, it’s imperative to analyze one important but under-emphasized element of the war: the role of energy. Both the U.S. and Russia stand to influence the future of the global energy market if their side comes out dominant in this conflict. If the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, it will likely push ahead with current plans to build a natural gas pipeline running from Iran through Syria. The pipeline would be built by the Iranian government in collaboration with Russia’s major gas corporations, and would allow both countries to profit off of the largest gas reserve on earth. On the other hand, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an active interest in preventing this from happening to protect its share in the energy market, as well as the strength of the petrodollar, against Russian and Iranian competition.

President Trump has long denounced America’s anti-Assad position and previously discussed working with Russia, and possibly Assad, against the common enemy of ISIS. However, following the Syrian Air force’s chemical attack in the Idlib Province, Trump at least temporarily reversed his public position on Assad and Russia. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has grown increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia. Future negotiations will tell whether there is still a possibility for Russia and the U.S. to work together in Syria, and Trump’s ultimate stance on the Assad regime will heavily influence whether the Iranian pipeline is built. We are currently at a critical moment in the future of the Syrian conflict, and for the roles of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the global energy market. Read on to see what each side stands to gain and lose as we move forward.

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

The conflict in Syria is fueled by numerous religious and geopolitical divisions within the Middle Eastern Region and energy is far from the only relevant factor in American or Russian involvement. However, the importance of energy within the Middle East and its ever-present role in regional conflict is hard to overstate. Control of the global energy market means being able to exert huge influence on the international economy, and the Middle East’s vast fossil fuel reserves have always attracted the interest of international superpowers. The last two decades of constant regional conflict have been a consistently perilous struggle for power and market control, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest economies in the Middle East.

Syria has attracted international interest because its central location in the Middle East makes it a potential energy crossroads for pipelines that could transport natural gas across the region from the South Pars/North Dome gas field. Because of Syria’s critical position, the results of the war will likely determine who gains access to the gas field, and thus will greatly impact the future of energy sovereignty within the region. The oil and gas trade is very directly related to the strength of the American dollar and both the U.S. and longstanding ally Saudi Arabia are worried that Syria could become the construction site of a pipeline. A new major pipeline could upset the balance of the energy market, and subsequently the power of the dollar and the Saudi Riyal, which is pegged to the dollar.

Saudi Arabia, home to 16 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and the leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has long used whatever means are necessary to ensure that its business never shrinks. Recently, as foreign dependence on petroleum in the last few years lessened due to a boost in gas production abroad, the Saudis chose to ignore their 2014 promise to reduce output and actually increased their production up until 2016. This caused international petroleum prices to drop, keeping Middle East petroleum competitive, despite the fact that the price gouge also sent many of the poorer OPEC countries near collapse.

In order to maintain its status as the largest energy producer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has also spent the last two decades attempting to block energy infrastructure proposals designed to access the South Pars/North Dome gas field. The South Pars/North Dome Gas Field lies beneath the Persian Gulf, with the northern end of the field in Iranian territory and the Southern edge in Qatari territory. It is the single largest gas reserve on earth, and a pipeline that allowed cross-regional transport of its resources could dramatically change the future of the energy market. The first pipeline was proposed in 2009 and would have carried gas from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, although both the late King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria rejected its construction in 2009. It is sometimes falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia supported this pipeline, but the Saudis also opposed its development because a pipeline would have given the E.U. direct access to cheap gas. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with its then ally Qatar had at the time also grown unstable, and the Saudis were skeptical about a large scale business collaboration.

However, in place of the Qatari project, an alternative pipeline was proposed, which would be built avoiding Saudi land and would replace Qatar with Iran as the central supplier of natural gas. Saudi Arabia views Shiite Iran as its primary enemy within the Middle East and is determined to keep it from growing in power in the energy market. However, Assad publicly supported this pipeline, which would give Russian and Iranian business interests primary access to the gas field’s massive resources. Saudi Arabia lacked the veto power it held with the first pipeline, which forced Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to reach directly out to Putin, promising to ensure that the gas reserve would not be utilized in competition with Russia’s business if Putin abandoned his support of Assad’s regime. Putin refused and Saudi Arabia pushed forward with regime change in Syria by militarizing rebel Sunni groups, including the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nursa Front, and the organization that would become ISIS.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia is a tense and complicated one. Saudi Arabia has come under international criticism for its human rights record and the Saudis have continuously funded extremist Sunni groups that threaten the Western world. However, the economies of the two nations are tied together through the petrodollar. Petroleum is the most commonly traded substance on earth by volume, and globally, petroleum has been traded almost exclusively in American dollars for the last 40 years. If a country wants to buy oil, it must first purchase U.S. dollars, which increases demand for the dollar and dollar denominated assets. Because of this, the success of the oil industry and cooperation with Saudi Arabia very directly affects our domestic economy. The United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together in coordination for almost three-quarters of a century to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the establishment of the petrodollar system to the Persian Gulf War to both Yemen Civil Wars and the battle against Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia has also been a central customer of the U.S. defense industry for decades, although Obama ordered a weapons sales freeze following large-scale civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen. Some have accused this freeze of being largely political theater, since overall the Obama Administration sold over $46 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any president in the 71-year alliance. The State Department also went on to grant a pre-planned $3.51 billion initiative to arm and train the Saudi army to defend the Saudi-Yemen border, claiming none of this money would go the actual war it supposedly condemned. While the Obama Administration has been critical of Saudi Arabia, it also continued to support the country and many of its conflicts throughout Obama’s presidency.

While Assad is certainly guilty of human rights violations, the U.S. also has a critical interest in coordinated regime change because the current pipeline proposal would give unfriendly Iran dominant control of the largest source of energy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia’s three largest gas companies will play a large part in the development of the pipeline, meaning Russian interests stand to profit directly off the reserve. Russia and Iran are two of the few countries worldwide that refuse to use the petrodollar, so not only does control of the gas field give them a huge business advantage, the greater their share in the market the weaker the U.S. dollar and Saudi Riyal will become. While the United States and Saudi Arabia disagree on many things, the two nations are united geopolitically in their desire to prevent Russia and Iran from gaining greater regional power and control over the energy market through a coordinated business venture.

In 2014, following a meeting between John Kerry and King Abdullah of Jordan, the United States agreed to work with Saudi Arabia on a military offensive in Syria through Operation Timber Sycamore, with Saudi Arabia funding and arming the Free Syrian Army and the CIA training them in preparation for the war. While the stated purpose of U.S. involvement was to counter ISIS, the choice to fund the rebel group looking to overthrow the ruling Baath party reflects the Obama Administration’s consistent desire for regime change.

“Obama/Saudi Ties” courtesy of Tribes of the World; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Russian Involvement

Currently, Syria is Russia’s oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East, although Iran and Russia have grown increasingly closer throughout the last decade. Aside from representing Russia’s foothold in the region, Syria is also the location of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base. In exchange for this critical regional access, Syria has the support of one of the world’s largest superpowers. The long-standing connection between these countries makes it no surprise that Russia is willing to give political and military support to Assad.

However, Russia also stands to gain significantly moving forward if Assad can suppress the rebel forces. As long as the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, then construction of the Iranian pipeline should move forward as planned. Russia is the second largest producer of fossil fuels globally and recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s top crude oil producer. Together oil and gas exports account for 70 percent of Russia’s $550 billion annual exports. European natural gas imports from Russia dramatically increased from 48 percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2014, and Putin’s long-term plan is to become an even larger energy superpower, spiking production and exports by 2020 by increasing sales in Europe and expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. It is no secret that the E.U. dreads increasing its dependence upon Russia’s major gas giants. Because of heavy resistance to the Russian energy business in the West, Putin has been continuously looking for new projects in the East, notably in China and the Middle East. Iran has long been looking for international investors in its shale business, and in 2013, the Russian state-controlled gas corporation Gazprom signed a deal with the Iranian government to cooperate in ongoing energy infrastructure development. The infrastructure agreement makes Gazprom the third major Russian corporation to be heavily invested in Iranian energy, following Lukoil and Zarubezneft. The construction of the Iranian pipeline would give these corporations new ability to profit off of huge quantities of natural gas. By ensuring that the field is developed and utilized first by friendly Iran, along with Russian gas corporations, Putin can avoid dangerous new competition in the European energy market as was planned in the original Qatari pipeline, thus maintaining Russia’s position of market dominance.

Fear of Saudi Arabia and increased U.S. support for the Syrian insurgency pushed Assad to request greater assistance from Putin, which resulted in Russia joining the conflict in September 2015, mounting a series of airstrikes both against the Free Syrian Army and ISIS. What followed became an increasingly serious proxy war between the Syrian rebels, backed by the United States, and the Syrian military, backed by Russia. The bloodiest of these conflicts has centered around the City of Aleppo, where over 400,000 have died thus far. The FSA has suffered both massive causalities and the loss of members who have defected to join the more radicalized Al-Nursa Front and Jaysh Army. The Syrian Air Force’s chemical attack on Idlib came shockingly during negotiations that were expected to come out in Assad’s favor. President Trump sided initially with the majority of the Western world and voted in favor of a U.N. resolution to launch an investigation into the attack. The resolution was blocked by Russia and we are currently in a pause, waiting to find out how the conflict will move forward.

“Aleppo, Syria” courtesy of yeowatzup;  License: (CC BY 2.0)

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

While Trump has criticized Saudi Arabia in the past for its own role in funding radical Islam, he seems to have recently made a complete reversal on this stance and has even sided with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with U.S. ally Qatar. The Trump Administration and Saudi Arabia have also recently entered into a $110 billion dollar weapons deal, the largest in U.S.-Saudi history. Following the attack on Idlib, it seemed possible that Trump might decide to align with the anti-Assad stances held by the Obama Administration and the Saudi government. However, since the U.S. airstrike and the failed U.N. Security Resolution, the Trump Administration has not publicly emphasized Assad’s removal.

Currently, it’s uncertain whether Trump will side with reestablished ally Saudi Arabia or if his administration still plans to find a way to work together with Russia in Syria. The U.S. warned the Russians prior to the airstrike on the Shayrat base, allowing them to evacuate without casualty. There have also been accusations that the airstrike was essentially political theater to dispel the notion that Trump is compromised by Russian interests, given the fact that Russia chose not to deploy its anti-missile systems, effectively allowing an attack it knew was coming to take place.

While the future of the South Pars/North Dome gas reserve isn’t certain, at this point Assad has successfully dominated the majority of rebel forces in Syria. As long as the Assad regime is still in place, any major cross-regional energy infrastructure utilizing Syrian land will most likely be to the advantage of Assad and his ally Putin. If the Iranian pipeline does end up being built, the reverberations will be felt throughout the global energy market. Saudi Arabia may lose the upper hand in several markets where it competes with Iran and Russia, especially in East Asia where Saudi Arabia has struggled to maintain active business in the face of Russian competition. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Europe will ever be able to utilize the gas field as a cheap alternative to lessen its dependence on Russia.

If Iran and Russia become larger figures in the energy market, the petrodollar will weaken as less U.S. dollars are needed for oil transactions, which would affect the economies of both America and Saudi Arabia. How dramatic these effects will be is impossible to say. Saudi Arabia still has massive hydrocarbon reserves and is in no danger of being pushed out of the global fossil fuel trade. While the petrodollar has played a large part in the strength of the American dollar since the end of the Gold Standard, it is only one of many factors that contribute to and decide the strength and stability of the U.S. economy. We will have to wait and see what direction the Trump Administration takes American foreign policy in the Middle East to learn the answers to these questions.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Pipelines: The Influence of the Energy War in the Middle East appeared first on Law Street.

Late April saw a major reversal in what had been a long-running trend. Piracy on the high seas–not including the latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie–may be back on the rise after years of decline. Although recent attacks marked the first major assaults on merchant ships in nearly five years, the location of the hijackings, near the Horn of Africa, was normal. However, there has also been a rise in the number of attacks on the West Coast of Africa as well. This all comes despite major efforts following a recent peak in piracy attacks in 2008-2011. Read on to find out why these attacks are happening again and if this latest wave of pirate attacks is the beginning of a new trend or just an isolated spike.

A Brief History of Piracy

Trying to trace the history of piracy is similar to trying to trace the history of other crimes like theft or murder in that there really is no identifiable start date. Nevertheless, most estimates place the beginning of the practice sometime between 1400 and 1200 B.C. near the southeastern coast of present-day Turkey. The practice continued throughout the years, involving every Mediterranean empire and many important historical figures including Julius Caesar.

Piracy was a major tool used by the Vikings and later by the English, most notably when the Queen of England commissioned Francis Drake to attack Spanish ships during a war. The United States had its first brush with pirates in the early 19th century when Barbary Pirates from North Africa attacked its shipments and demanded tribute, which ultimately led President Thomas Jefferson to send the navy to fight back. While the frequency of piracy decreased after that, it was never eliminated outright–it mostly just shifted regions, first to Southeast Asia and ultimately to what is now Somalia.

Somali Pirates

Piracy near the Horn of Africa clearly has a long history for a number of reasons. Recently, its surge has been the result of many factors, notably the region’s significant population growth and failing economy, which is the legacy of various colonial governments cutting up Somalia into disparate parts. Additionally, many of the pirates themselves–who are generally men between 20 and 35 years old–have few employment opportunities and view piracy as lucrative means of employment. In fact, piracy has actually led to the development of many other symbiotic industries such as communications, mechanics, and food production. Pirate crews are often formed along clan lines and some believe that an important part of the reason why piracy is so prevalent in Somalia is due to the amount of illegal fishing in Somali waters. Illegal fishing has significantly depleted the resources available and is likely part of the reason why the local economy does not offer enough opportunity to young men, which forces many to seek alternative means of making money.

The video below looks at piracy in Somalia and some of its underlying factors:

Regardless of the specific reason, piracy exploded in this region and peaked from 2008 through 2011. During this time, more than 700 merchant vessels were besieged. At one point in 2011, as many as 758 individuals were being held for ransom and the costs to the shipping industry were estimated to be higher than $7 billion. Piracy became such an issue during this period that one high-profile incident even became the subject of the blockbuster movie “Captain Phillips.”  But in 2012 this trend slowed dramatically and there were no major hijackings until earlier this year.

Efforts to Fight Piracy

Although it seemed as if piracy in the area around the Horn of Africa just vanished, it was actually the result of several factors. These efforts started by land (and sea) with U.S. airstrikes and efforts by Kenyan security forces that pushed Al-Shabaab (Somalia’s Al-Qaeda offshoot) out of key areas, including the port of Kismayo. These actions along with efforts by local clans, which were irritated at the flashiness of the pirates, brought back some stability to the region.

The greatest effort, though, came from Task Force 151. As part of the U.S.-led force, NATO and the European Union sent ships to the area to protect merchant ships. This effort was joined separately by navy vessels from Russia, China, and India. The primary contribution made by these ships was deterrence, however, they did also attack coastal storage areas and capture pirates to bring in for trial. The coalition also shared vast quantities of information with merchant ships that proved very useful.

The merchant vessel operators themselves also contributed to the reduction in piracy through several actions of their own. According to Foreign Policy, those efforts include, “cruising at higher speeds, installed barbed wire on the lower decks, built ‘citadel’ safe rooms for crews, and toyed with foam machines, high-power water jets, and deafening sonic devices.” Notably, many also employed security teams, which usually consisted of people with military experience.

While it certainly seems like there was a reduction in piracy over the last few years, thanks to a variety of efforts, this may be somewhat misleading. Although Somali pirates generally refrained from attacking high-profile international targets since 2012, there have still been numerous attacks on smaller local fishing boats. In addition, some suspect that several attacks went unreported, suggesting the problem never really went away, but that rather it changed forms.

Latest Developments

Regardless of what happened during that period, piracy is unquestionably an issue in 2017. For the first time in years, a major hijacking occurred off the coast of Somalia when pirates captured the Aris-13 in March. Somali pirates also hijacked an Indian commercial ship in April. Last year marked the first time since 2010 that the costs associated with piracy have gone up, reaching an estimated $1.7 billion. The reason for this spike has been attributed to several causes. One is declining vigilance on the part of shipping companies–the Aris-13, for example, did not have private security on board and was also cruising in dangerous conditions. Aside from the shipping companies, the spike has also been attributed to famine and drought in the area along with the continued lack of stable government and law enforcement in Somalia.

At the same time, piracy is also increasing on the coast of West Africa. Namely, pirate attacks off West Africa nearly doubled in 2016, according to a report from Oceans Beyond Piracy, an anti-piracy NGO. Most of these attacks have occurred off the coast of Nigeria and have focused on attacking the country’s oil infrastructure. The attacks from Nigeria stem primarily from the country’s criminal gangs. The tactics employed by West African pirates differs, however, from their Somali counterparts. While Somali pirates tend to target large ships, West African pirates seek out the crew then go into hiding until they receive ransom payments. Part of this has to do with the nature of the local government. Nigeria, unlike Somali, has a functioning government and military, which makes seizing large ships more difficult. The presence of a functioning state apparatus has also made the need for an international coalition, like the one in Somalia, less necessary.

Conclusion

Piracy is one of those concepts, similar to terrorism, where it often seems as if the international community is pursuing the incorrect, reactive approach. Namely, instead of taking a step back and asking why people engage in piracy, we try to target individual pirate leaders in the hope that defeating them will end the scourge. In other words, we treat the symptoms instead of looking at the underlying cause.

When rates of piracy went down, the international community pointed to increased vigilance and became complacent. With the threat seemingly neutralized, protection decreased and ships started employing fewer armed guards. Unsurprisingly, piracy returned and now the community must grapple with the same problems again. If the world at large hopes to be more successful this time, it must understand the history behind this practice, and more importantly, this divided region. Above all else, though, greater emphasis will need to be placed on the cause, or at least offer an alternative, rather than simply trying to kill a few leaders and assuming that will solve the problem.

If the U.S. and its global partners really want to end piracy they need to establish a secure and functioning state in Somalia and address the food problem there. In West Africa, there is less to do since there is a functional government in place and pirates rarely try to seize entire boats, instead focusing on ransom payments for individuals. In that scenario, however, the government may need to look into addressing the inequality caused by mineral wealth that has left certain groups wanting. There is no one universal approach, other than working to target the reason why piracy exists instead of just reacting when piracy occurs.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Years of Decline, Piracy May Be on the Rise Again appeared first on Law Street.

On June 5, several Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia announced they were cutting off all relations with Qatar. Although terrorism was used as the main rationale for the fallout, alternative claims abound. Whatever the exact reason, this dissension in the ranks comes at a difficult time in the fight against terror, a fight in which Qatar is a maddeningly prominent player on both sides. It also creates an awkward position for the United States which has an important base in Qatar as well as one in Bahrain–one of the nations that severed ties. Most significantly though, this move may just be one more development in the ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose differing viewpoints of Islam are grappling for preeminence in the Muslim world. Read on further to learn more about the fallout and its various impact on Qatar, the United States, and the region at large.

Why the Split?

In total, nine countries have announced that they would cut ties with Qatar, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Maldives, Yemen, Libya, Mauritius, and Mauritania. According to these countries, the split is over Qatar’s support for terrorist groups and its close relationship with Iran. Specifically, these countries claimed that Qatar has either supported or protected members of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, Qatar has said that these claims have “no basis in fact.” Another related issue that may have sparked the fallout is a massive ransom payment that Qatar reportedly paid to recover a member of the royal family. The payment is rumored to be as high as $1 billion and Qatar’s neighbors fear that the money amounts to direct funding for terrorist organizations. Finally, the decision also comes shortly after the Qatari News Agency reported on comments allegedly made by the Qatari leader in support of Iran. The report prompted backlash from neighboring countries, but Qatar said that the news outlet was hacked and the report was fabricated.

There is some irony to the split, as Qatar is a Sunni-led, Sunni-majority nation, while Bahrain–one of the countries that cut ties–is actually majority Shia, the Muslim sect championed by Iran. As a result of the decision, Qatari citizens and diplomats will be required to leave many of these countries on very short notice.

The video below describes how the recent dispute unfolded:

Impact on Qatar

The Al Thani family has ruled Qatar from the mid-1800s onward. For most of that time, the country was relatively poor and undeveloped. However, with the development of the country’s vast natural gas reserves beginning a little more than half a century ago, the nation was transformed and attained the world’s highest per capita income in 2007. Despite accruing vast wealth, Qatar has had issues in the past due to its support for revolutionary movements and terrorist organizations, which has caused rifts with many of the countries it is currently clashing with in the past, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. (This support may also explain why Qatar was immune from many of the Arab Spring protests experienced by a number of countries in the Middle East.) At one point in 2014, those countries even recalled their ambassadors, but in that case, the differences were ultimately resolved.

In the most recent case, Qatar would benefit from a similarly quick return to good relations. This is true for several reasons. First, because Qatari flights are banned from these countries’ airspace, flight paths to and from Qatar need to be modified to take longer routes, which raises costs and could spell trouble for its airlines. Secondly, Qatar is a peninsula with only one land border, which is with Saudi Arabia. By closing this border, Qatar will have to funnel all food and other supply shipments in by air or sea. This is particularly a problem for Qatar because its climate prevents most domestic food production.

In addition, this move could also hamper Qatar’s construction industry. Qatar was chosen to host the 2022 Soccer World Cup, but many of the materials needed to build the facilities for the stadium and other projects pass through Saudi Arabia, which will now also need to be transported on a less direct route. This will also have consequences on both Qataris living abroad and citizens of other Gulf nations currently living in Qatar, many of whom have been ordered to return home. The impact of these concerns was felt immediately as Qatar’s stock market dropped 7 percent the day after the announcement.

These effects would only pile on the issues Qatar has had to deal with since the price of oil plunged in 2015. Specifically, the country already ran a $8 billion deficit, amounting to 5 percent of its GDP in 2016. To combat these changes, Qatar had already implemented austerity measures such as raising utility rates, levying fines, and scrapping programs, including a proposed national health care system. If this ban is long-lasting, it could have even more deleterious effects on Qatar.

Impact on the United States

As with so many other issues, the decision to ostracize Qatar has implications for the United States as well. One, potentially awkward connection between the recent fallout and the United States, is a speech recently given by President Trump in Saudi Arabia. In his speech, President Trump was very critical of Iran, which many feel emboldened Saudi Arabia to act decisively against Qatar, given its unorthodox relationship with Iran.

This also has a more practical impact on the United States. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Qatar and the United States reached an agreement that brought the countries closer militarily. This commitment was confirmed in 2003 when the United States moved its forward command base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. That base, known as Al-Udeid, is home to more than 10,000 American troops and is the site of U.S. Central Command. Despite the recent diplomatic fallout, the U.S. has reaffirmed its commitment to the fight against terrorism and has pledged to maintain its regular activity at the base. Nevertheless, the dispute puts the United States in an awkward position of being allied with both parties and having a major base in a country that has been ostracized by its neighbors.

Impact on the Middle East

As with many issues concerning the Middle East, Qatar and the countries trying to isolate it are also interwoven. While this move is meant to single out Qatar, it will also affect the entire region. This begins with regional organizations. The largest is OPEC, or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. However, cutting ties with Qatar is less of an issue within this organization given its history of internal conflict. For example, Saudi Arabia’s antagonist, Iran, is also a member and the two have been able to coexist. And at certain points in OPEC’s history, members of the organization have actually fought wars against one another. The conflict does seem to be affecting the price of oil though, as crude oil prices fell the day after the announcement. Investors cited concerns over whether OPEC members could adhere to their pledge to reduce production to drive up prices.

Qatar is also a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait (Oman and Kuwait have maintained diplomatic relations with Qatar). While this alliance is not threatened, some members, namely Kuwait, are calling for a quick resolution to the problem. These sentiments have been echoed by other countries such as Turkey, Russia, and the United States. In fact, although Qatar is the main subject in this situation, the reality, and the likely biggest impact in the Middle East, is to be felt in the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Specifically, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in an unofficial proxy war in countries across the Middle East akin to the Cold War. The two nations have taken opposite sides in a number of conflicts such as the ones in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. They each see themselves as representing the true nature of Islam–the Shiites in Iran and the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia. After the initial decision to cut diplomatic ties was made, Saudi Arabia cited Qatar’s support for “terrorist groups aiming to destabilize the region” as the justification. But at the same time, Qatar has also backed groups fighting against forces that are supported or tied to Iran in both Syria and Yemen.

Conclusion

As the longstanding proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia continues, there are a number of places where conflict has flared up. The most recent example is Qatar, which has complicated ties to both countries. While Qatar certainly seems caught in the middle of something larger than itself, it is not totally blameless. The world’s largest liquefied natural gas exporter has supported groups on both sides of the larger conflict.

The recent fallout will have implications for both the region and other prominent actors, notably the United States. Not only is its largest U.S. military base in the Middle East located in Qatar, some point to recent comments from the American president as a possible cause of the decision to shun Qatar. The complexities of the situation may explain why leaders from around the world are calling for a resolution as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Qatar is caught in a bind. While it attempts to resolve this dispute, it must also remain conscious of its image, especially as it prepares to host the next World Cup in 2022. With all this in mind, and Qatar’s proximity to Saudi Arabia, this conflict may need to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Qatar: How the Tiny Peninsula Became the Center of a Regional Proxy War appeared first on Law Street.

In mid-April, protesters in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir clashed with Indian soldiers, leaving at least eight dead and more than 200 injured. This came in the wake of elections held in Kashmir that saw only 7 percent turnout, the lowest in 27 years. That record was quickly broken in a re-scheduled election in which only 2 percent of people voted. These are just the latest developments in the conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan, which has lasted decades. This conflict is compounded by a number of other issues, such as both countries’ nuclear power status and the involvement of China. Read on to find out more about the Kashmir conflict, its impact on India-Pakistan relations, and how it may eventually be resolved.

Background: A Look at Kashmir

The region of Kashmir has been disputed territory between India and Pakistan since 1947, following British rule and the partition of British India. India, which borders the region to the south, controls the south and southeastern parts called Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan controls the northern and western parts (and since 1962, China has controlled the northeastern portion). The Indian and Pakistani zones are separated by the Line of Control.

Despite being controlled by India, which is predominantly Hindu, half of Jammu and the entirety of Kashmir are majority Muslim areas. Both religions have long roots in the region, with Hinduism dating back to the area’s early history and Islam coming in the 14th century via Muslim conquerors. The area was also intermittently ruled by Afghan Warlords and Sikh princes.

The video below describes how the borders formed over time:

The Conflict

Although Hindus and Muslims had coexisted relatively peacefully for centuries, conflict quickly gripped the area following independence. The origin of the conflict can be traced back to the choice of the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. At the point of independence, the Maharaja hoped to remain independent, however, he was ultimately forced to choose between joining either India or Pakistan thanks to an armed revolt within the region. Despite ruling over a majority Muslim area, the Hindu Maharajah decided to side with India.

The Maharajah’s decision allowed India to justify sending troops into the region. Originally it was supposed to be a temporary move, with the ultimate goal of holding a local vote to decide who would be in charge. The conflict continued and in 1948 the United Nations got involved at India’s request. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from Jammu and Kashmir while allowing India to maintain a small military presence. Pakistan refused and the vote that was supposed to determine the fate of Kashmir never took place. But in 1951, elections did proceed in the Indian-controlled portions of Kashmir and Jammu.

Fighting picked up again in the 1960s and 70s, but the first conflict was between China and India in 1962. Chinese forces quickly defeated Indian troops and took control over the region they dubbed Askai Chin. Their territories were separated by the Actual Line of Control, which is different from the similarly named line between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir.

India and Pakistan re-engaged in heavy fighting in 1965 and 1971, following years of unrest in the region. In 1971 the Indian army decisively defeated their Pakistani antagonists. This led to the Simla Agreement that called on both parties to solve matters peacefully and clearly designated the Line of Control. However, in reality, this did not stop the violence. The continuing conflict was carried out by insurgency groups from Pakistan, who flooded into Indian Kashmir to fight against its occupation. There was also the Kargil War of 1999 that nearly led to a nuclear conflict.

Peace Process

The peace process in Kashmir has been ongoing nearly as long as the conflict. There were the ceasefires in 1948 and 1971, however, neither fully stopped the fighting and were largely ineffective. During the 1999 Kargil War and during a period between 2001 and 2002 there were also fears that renewed conflict between India and Pakistan would lead to a nuclear confrontation. Luckily, due to international interference primarily by the United States, the crisis was averted.

More recently, progress was made in what is known as the “composite dialogue,” which began in 2004. This dialogue ultimately ended with the Mumbai bombing in 2008. However, the goals accomplished during the talks, such as a ceasefire at the line of control and passage across the line of control, endured.

Despite this progress, the region once more experienced a surge in violence following the 2008 attack. After a couple years, relations began to improve and in 2012, the President of Pakistan met with the Indian Prime Minister to hold the first high-level talks in nearly eight years. But hope for progress was quickly dashed after India’s decision to execute both the last remaining Mumbai attacker, as well as a Kashmiri convicted in a 2001 attempted bombing of India’s parliament, led to renewed violence.

Line of Control

This situation may also have been exacerbated by the construction of a border fence beginning in 2003. While the numbers suggest the fence has been successful in reducing infiltration by potential militants, it also has its drawbacks. The fence may simply be diverting them to other areas and it is expensive to maintain, as large portions have to be rebuilt after each winter.

Further controversy arose after there were rumors that India planned to build a more solid wall in 2015. Specifically, in 2015, Pakistani officials went to the United Nations and claimed India was planning a 10-meter high, 135-foot wide wall along the entire 197-kilometer border in an effort to make the Line of Control the permanent border in Kashmir (Pakistan does not view the Line of Control as a legitimate border). India denied the claim and the wall never materialized.

India has also installed something known as a “laser wall” in Jammu within Kashmir and along other parts of its border with Pakistan. This technology is able to detect movement and is useful in places where the topography makes it hard to build a physical fence.

Current Situation

The current situation continues to be unstable in light of the recent disputes detailed above. This includes the election chaos from April and protests in May after a militant commander was killed by Indian security forces. There have also been repeated episodes of violence along the Line of Control, along with violence in both countries’ territories. The two sides are also quarreling over the status of an alleged Indian spy whose fate is being decided by the International Court of Justice.

The Region’s Future

Given the persistent conflict, what is the most likely outcome for this region? An article from the BBC details seven possibilities, ranging from variations of India and Pakistan taking over all or part of the region to Kashmir achieving independence. However, for any of these scenarios to take place, one side would need to give up territory, which has become unlikely amid renewed tension.

China, meanwhile, might also have a major role to play in the region’s future. China, whose own claim to Kashmir already played out in a successful war against India, recently signed a $500 million deal with Pakistan. This is just part of a much larger $57 billion deal between the two countries to create a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in part of China’s even larger One Belt, One Road Initiative. The plan includes rail lines that would run directly through the contested territory. In response, India refused to even send an official delegation to a recent summit in Beijing.

Conclusion

The conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan, and China to a much smaller degree, has dragged on for decades and cost tens of thousands of lives. Both sides have legitimate claims to the region. For India, it is simply enforcing the decision of the Maharajah dating back to the 1940s. For Pakistan, it is about incorporating a majority Muslim region into a Muslim nation. Both nations also have significant issues with their adversary’s position–India claims Pakistan seized the areas under its control illegally, while Pakistan states that the Maharajah’s original decision was made under duress and is therefore invalid.

Regardless of the reasoning, the combined populations of India and Pakistan are more than one-fifth of the world’s total, and both countries possess nuclear weapons. Thus, it is imperative that the two sides negotiate some sort of a deal or even agree to a third option where Kashmir is independent. Reaching that agreement has proved elusive and with the involvement of other countries, like China, it may prove even more challenging. The situation in Kashmir is reminiscent of the deadlock between Israel and Palestine and unfortunately shows just as few signs of being remedied in the near future.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kashmir: A Region Divided by Three Nations appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, South African President Jacob Zuma publicly indicated that he might endorse his ex-wife to be the next leader of his party, the African National Congress. Zuma will soon be finishing his term as the head of the party and rumors indicate that he may even end his term as president early amid calls for him to step down. The reason for his potential exit stems from a number of controversies that have reached a fever pitch in the country after he has led the party once run by Nelson Mandela for more than a decade. Read on to find out more about the legacy of the ANC, its current leadership, and how the myriad scandals engulfing President Zuma could affect the party going forward.

The African National Congress

The ANC or African National Congress, now headed by Jacob Zuma and once led by the luminary Nelson Mandela, started back in 1912. Originally, the party was known as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) and was founded with the hope of achieving equality for the majority black population of South Africa (it was renamed the ANC in 1923). Despite growing pains, due to limited funds and internal squabbles, the party endured and rose to prominence in response to Apartheid, which fueled political activism.

In 1961, the party moved beyond activism and started a military wing known as Spear of the Nation or MK. The military branch waged war with the South African Apartheid government with support from sympathetic African nations and from the Soviet Union. Apartheid finally ended in 1994 and the ANC quickly came to dominate the first few elections up through the early 2000s. But the party’s grasp on power began to slip with the election of Jacob Zuma in 2009, and it slipped further with his reelection in 2014.

Nelson Mandela

One of the key figures in the rise and eventual dominance of the ANC was Nelson Mandela, who joined the party in 1944. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, he played an instrumental role in many of the party’s major programs–including the ANC Youth League, its Defiance Campaign, and the Freedom Charter Campaign–until his arrest following the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre. After his release and acquittal in an earlier treason trial in the mid-1950s, he led the formation of the MK and was its first Commander-in-Chief. He was arrested again in 1962 and sentenced to five years in prison for incitement and illegally leaving the country when he traveled to Botswana. However, when police discovered his diary detailing his plans for armed conflict, he was infamously sentenced to life in prison on Robben Island in 1964.

Mandela spent the next 27 years in prison. When he was finally released in 1990 the ANC was also removed from the list of banned parties following domestic and global pressure on the Apartheid government. In 1991, he ascended to become the leader of the ANC after two separate stints as its deputy president in the 1950s and 1980s. In 1994, Mandela was elected president of South Africa in an unopposed election. He retired from the post in 1999 and was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki, who had already assumed Mandela’s role as president of the ANC in 1997.

The video below goes into more detail about Nelsen Mandela’s life:

While serving as President of both the ANC and the nation, Mbeki would famously dismiss current South African President Jacob Zuma from his position as the country’s Deputy President in 2005 after he was implicated in a bribery scandal. This led to a split in the party, however, Zuma would ultimately prevail–taking over the ANC in 2007 and the presidency in 2009, while essentially forcing Mbeki into retirement.

Zuma’s Many Controversies

Jacob Zuma was a decidedly different leader than Mandela, although their paths converged in several key instances. Unlike Mandela, a trained lawyer, Zuma was born into poverty to a single mother and had no formal schooling. When he was just 17 he joined the ANC’s militant branch led by Mandela. He was imprisoned alongside Mandela and went into exile in Mozambique after he was released. In 1990, he returned and participated in the discussions that brought about the end of the Apartheid government. Zuma’s everyman appeal and his adherence to traditional African norms made him popular. These traits proved to be the deciding factors in his rise to power and in his dispute with former President Mbeki, whom he helped force to resign in 2008.

While Zuma shared the charisma of Mandela, he has differed in his inability to avoid controversy. Long before he became president, he was embroiled in a bribery scandal concerning a large arms deal in the late 1990s. While the case was eventually dropped almost 10 years later by the country’s National Prosecution Authority, it was done under dubious circumstances and just before he was elected president. The circumstances were so suspicious that a campaign to reopen the case continues today.

Zuma also attracted negative press when he took money from the South African government to make lavish additions to his home, although he promised to pay back the loans. The country’s highest court actually ruled in 2016 that his actions were unconstitutional, forcing him to apologize and promise again to pay back the loans. Even his personal life has been controversial, as he adheres to a Zulu tradition of polygamy and has four wives and 21 children. Some of his children have come from extra-marital affairs, and in one of those cases, he was accused of rape, although he was ultimately acquitted.

Zuma’s Time in Office

Despite his frequent scandals, Zuma did have one notably large accomplishment during his time in office. He oversaw a restructuring of the country’s AIDS policies, which made HIV medication much more easily available to South Africans. This was particularly important given that South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV in the world. This was in stark contrast to the policies put in place under Mbeki, who doubted the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

But Zuma recently has faced even more criticism when he fired the country’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, earlier this year. Gordhan’s firing contributed to Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade South Africa’s credit rating to junk status. The economic situation is particularly relevant because it was one of the issues Zuma had campaigned on as a way to differentiate himself from his predecessor, who he associated with political and economic elites.

Unfortunately for Zuma, the economy has not done him many favors. While it narrowly avoided a recession last year and is projected to grow by 1 percent this year, things are not great. Although the GDP of Africa’s largest economy is growing, its unemployment rate continues to rise and its per capita income is expected to decline. The unemployment rate in South Africa reached a 13-year high of 27.1 percent in 2016.

Consistent scandals and economic hardship have led to a breaking point for Zuma. Efforts are currently underway to hold a vote of no-confidence by secret ballot. Although Zuma has managed to survive past votes of no-confidence, they have never been done through secret balloting, which could give members of his own party cover to vote against him. A march in support of the secret ballot also took place recently in Johannesburg. Some have suggested that Zuma may endorse his ex-wife in an attempt to secure a pardon from the next president. An endorsement could also ensure that he continues to have political influence even after he leaves his post.

What’s Next for South Africa?

Since the end of Apartheid and the beginning of democracy in South Africa, the ANC has never been out of power. However, after the party lost elections in several key metro areas for the first time last year, that streak may be coming to an end. Specifically, in the area of Gauteng, traditionally an ANC stronghold, a private survey showed a drop of more than 10 percent in the party’s public support following Zuma’s latest round of controversies. Although it is impossible to point to the exact cause of that drop, the survey results indicated that the recent scandals played an important role in last year’s local elections.

With upcoming elections, the party must now consider something once considered impossible, the need to form a coalition government in the absence of a clear majority. Despite the seemingly endless stream of controversies following Zuma, the ANC has so far refused to call on him to resign, although many have criticized his decision to fire the finance minister.

The video below looks at the current challenges facing the ANC:

Conclusion

The African National Congress came to prominence while challenging the Apartheid government in South Africa. It became the leading party in the country for the black majority and stood in opposition to the white minority ruling party. The ANC was eventually led by Nelson Mandela, a man who literally embodied this struggle. Upon his release from prison and subsequent election, the ANC appeared to have unquestioned dominance in South African politics.

Nevertheless, that dominance has begun to show signs of waning. Several municipalities have already voted the ANC out of power and now it must learn to develop coalitions, a challenge that it has never really had to deal with before but must already grapple with at the local level. Part of this can be attributed to the party achieving, at least to some degree, many of its original goals. But a much larger problem is the political capital lost by Jacob Zuma, the party’s current leader  and president of the country. Zuma’s endless scandals and provocative nature appear to finally have worn thin on the voters. The transition of power in Africa’s largest economy and one of its most politically stable since the end of Apartheid bears watching. Even if the ANC retains its dominance, a change of the guard seems to be coming sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The ANC After Zuma: What’s Next for South Africa? appeared first on Law Street.

For the last several years, Venezuela has been plagued by uncertainty following the death of its former enigmatic leader Hugo Chavez. This is a situation that has only been exacerbated by the steep drop in oil prices. Recently, the crisis in Venezuela reached such a low point that current President Nicolas Maduro accused the country’s bakers of waging an unannounced war on its people through price gouging. Although the bakers of Venezuela are clearly not the major issue plaguing the country, real problems certainly exist. Read on to find out how the country’s leadership and its economic decisions have brought a nation rich in natural resources into a political and economic crisis.

History of Venezuela

Venezuela’s first interaction with the western world began right at the end of the 15th century, around 1498, when Christopher Columbus first landed there. The actual colonization of what would become Venezuela began in 1521 by the Spanish. In 1810, the country declared its independence, and in 1829, it broke away from Gran Colombia to become its own independent nation. In 1945, the country threw out its military leader in a coup and elected its first democratic government. However, that government’s reign was short-lived, with the military taking back over after another coup in 1948.

Democratic government was restored in 1958 and the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders occurred in 1964. Venezuela then rode high oil prices throughout the 1970s and 80s until prices finally started to lag. This development forced then-President Carlos Perez to negotiate for relief with the International Monetary Fund–negotiations that ultimately led to riots in the streets. Following Perez’s eventual impeachment on corruption charges, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998.

Venezuela Under Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez eventually rose to the presidency following a failed coup attempt that he led in 1992. After he was captured, Chavez delivered a speech on national television that garnered him popularity among average, disaffected Venezuelans. This popularity was essential to Chavez’s eventual pardon and release from prison in 1994. It also positioned him as an anti-establishment force, which would rocket him to the presidency in 1998.

Upon his initial election, Chavez was extremely popular among Venezuelans. He used that public support to give himself extraordinary control over all three branches of government. However, many of those moves, along with his plans to imitate Cuba’s style of government and his decision to antagonize the United States, alienated Venezuela from the West. Those moves, coupled with efforts to gain more power, caused his approval ratings to sink from as high as 80 percent to a low of 30 percent.

Dissatisfaction reached the point where, in 2002, Chavez was briefly removed from office in another coup. However, he quickly returned to power and later gained greater control over the local oil industry following a large-scale strike. Using these new resources and buoyed again by high oil prices, he offered citizens lavish social programs to help ensure his reelection in 2006. In 2009, he passed constitutional reforms to remove term limits and ensure that he could continue leading the country. This move also enabled him to crack down on dissent. Chavez’s power consolidation took a secondary role in 2011, when he went to Cuba for cancer treatment. Chavez would ultimately die from cancer-related effects in 2013.

Post-Chavez

Chavez was succeeded by loyalist Nicolas Maduro. Maduro, a career politician who had been elected as Venezuela’s vice president in 2014, went to great lengths to further Chavez’s ideals. Upon ascending to the presidency, Maduro hoped to solidify his grip on power by arresting opponents. This approach seemed to be working, especially when he garnered the support of the military until oil prices began to fall once more.

Falling Oil Prices

In 2014, global oil prices began to plummet from a high of over $100 a barrel to below $30 a barrel. Venezuela was hit especially hard because roughly half of the government’s revenue comes from the oil industry. While the country set up a fund to save surplus revenues during the oil boom of the 1990s, the fund was drained during Chavez’s reign, as he used it to fund social welfare programs and help ensure his reelection. The accompanying video explains many of the issues plaguing Venezuela following and as a result of Chavez’s regime:

Venezuela’s economy became so dependent on high oil prices, that countries grew less willing to invest there as they started to doubt its ability to pay them back. An example of this occurred in 2016, when the Chinese Development Bank was one of only a few institutions willing to continue lending directly to the South American nation, but it did so with many more conditions than in years past. This also had the added effect of reducing Venezuela’s influence among its neighbors, as it can no longer use its oil exports as leverage. Even if oil prices rebound, Venezuela is still likely to face serious trouble, as its state-run oil company will have so much debt that it could have trouble paying for further oil exploration.

Country in Free Fall

In a country where 95 percent of all exports are oil-related, it is clear how devastating a dramatic drop in prices can be. This drop led the government to make dramatic currency interventions that have sparked massive bouts of inflation and triggered supply shortages for essentials like medicine and even food. When the crisis first began developing, President Maduro denied that there was even a problem to begin with, although he eventually issued food vouchers in an attempt to prevent people from going hungry. Nevertheless, more Venezuelans are increasingly going without food and malnutrition rates are rising. The government itself cannot afford to even import more food as it is out of money.

On top of the food and humanitarian crises–which are largely a result of economic mismanagement and fluctuations in international oil markets–are unpopular political moves by President Maduro to consolidate his power. In March, loyalists who were selected by President Maduro on the Venezuelan high court chose to dissolve the National Assembly. The power of the Assembly was to be transferred to the courts under Maduro who, critics argue, effectively became a dictator. While the ruling was revised days later, much about the rule of law in Venezuela remains in question, particularly given that the high court had already been ruling against the National Assembly’s attempts to rein in Maduro.

These moves, and the sheer desperation experienced by many in the country, have led to mass protests. In recent weeks, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Caracas, the capital, to protest and demand new elections. However, these protests were met with force both from police and paramilitary groups supported by the Maduro government known as colectivos. The harsh crackdown by the government has led to international condemnation from nearby countries such as Peru and global powers like the United States. It has also spurred calls for more mass protests across cities in Venezuela. Nevertheless, Maduro remains in power and enjoys some support among his base and by those who believe the actions of protesters are not the appropriate way to bring about change.

The video below looks at recent protests:

Conclusion

Venezuela, like many countries with a colonial legacy, has struggled to create the vibrant and dynamic economy needed to be competitive in the global economy. For most of its independent history, it has been ruled by military dictatorships with a few years of democratic governance in between–but these temporary civilian governments have been undone by a perpetual series of coups. This inability to establish a competent government and the country’s over-reliance on oil for its economy held the potential for disaster.

That disaster came when oil prices bottomed out, leaving the country unable to feed its citizens or meet their basic needs. Naturally, this has led to a crisis of confidence in current President Nicholas Madero, successor to the charismatic and extremely controversial Hugo Chavez. Chavez and Maduro both ascended to power on the notion of cleaning out the old, corrupt government institutions and installing something more responsive to real people’s concerns. However, the actual results of their decisions led to unsustainable social programs that plunged the country into debt as oil prices fell. Now it seems that most Venezuelans want a new government and most of all, a new president.

How the situation with Madero plays out is critical to the country’s future. If protesters and the government can reach a political resolution and rebuild the government’s rapidly decaying institutions, there is hope for a major turnaround. On the other hand, if Madero continues to crack down on dissent and refuses to address the humanitarian crises taking over the country, Venezuela could be on a course for even more chaos. Even if a resolution emerges, the country will need to diversify its economy to manage its reliance on oil. Given its past failures to do so, that will not prove to be an easy task.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Behind the Crisis in Venezuela? appeared first on Law Street.

In February, the United Nations declared a famine in South Sudan and estimated that 100,000 people faced immediate risk of starvation. This was the first declared famine in six years; the last was in Somalia in 2011. While South Sudan has long been struggling, the question is, how did an oil-rich state and one that had finally gained independence from Sudan after years of fighting, suddenly find itself in this situation? Read on to learn more about the nation’s tumultuous history, the aftermath of its independence, and where it stands today.

The History of Sudan

Sudan emerged as an extension of Egyptian society in 1500 B.C. and shared many of Egypt’s customs after the decline of ancient Egypt. Critical to the current conflict, Christianity was introduced to Sudan beginning in the 4th century, followed closely by Islam. For the next several centuries, the country fell under the sway of various Muslim or Egyptian rulers until it finally became a province of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Not long after, control of Sudan passed to the British after fierce fighting between Britain and local religious leaders.

Ultimately, British machine guns and artillery won out and Sudan was eventually brought to heel under a combined British-Egyptian rule. For approximately the first fifty years of the 20th century, the two sides continued this arrangement, with occasional conflict, as Egypt wanted to rule both Egypt and Sudan as one united country. These protests were ignored and ultimately, after Egyptian consent, Sudan became an independent country in 1956.

The Emergence of South Sudan

In 2011, 99 percent of voters in a referendum decided that the 10 southern-most states of Sudan should break away and become South Sudan. While the final decision ended with a clean break, getting to that point was an arduous process. In fact, the referendum followed on the heels of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, an agreement that finally ended a civil war that had lasted for several decades. In total, more than 1.5 million people died in the war and another 4 million were displaced because of the war.

The Civil War started in 1955, before what would become Sudan had even gained independence, when army officers from the south of Sudan mutinied. The officers rose up out of fear that once control of Sudan had passed from Egypt and Great Britain that the Muslim majority in the north, the new government, would impose Islamic Law on the country and promote an Arab identity. The initial conflict ended in 1972 with the Addis Ababa Agreement that granted the south limited autonomy. However, the government reneged on its agreement in 1983 leading to another outbreak in fighting that lasted until 2005. The specific issue was the government in the north’s decision to place Sudan under Sharia Law. While the country was approximately 70 percent Muslim, the other 30 percent was composed of Christians and those who followed traditional indigenous religions. In addition to the religious divide, there is also an ethnic divide between Arabs in the north and black Africans in the south.

In addition to the ethnic conflict that started much of the fighting, a major issue preventing peace was how to divide the country’s oil. Although the south has most of the oil reserves, the north had the pipelines and the port to the Red Sea. In the 2005 agreement, the two sides decided to divide profits equally, however, that arrangement ended in 2011 with South Sudan’s independence. Furthermore, while the 2005 agreement paved the way for southern independence it left many conflicts unresolved. The video below looks at Sudan’s modern history and why it has been plagued by conflict.

The Aftermath

Following the implementation of the peace deal in 2005, South Sudan went through a six-year period of autonomy before it voted for independence in 2011. The initial decision for independence was greeted with enthusiasm due to the promise of a large supply of oil and an end to decades of fighting. However, the agreement also left key elements undecided. Notably, it failed to decisively divide up oil resources evenly and did not extinguish ethnic tensions.

The oil issue grew out of the fact that the new South Sudan had most of the oil, while Sudan had most of the transporting and refining capabilities. This issue also bled into the ethnic conflict as some of the disparate groups were armed by Sudan in an effort to weaken South Sudan from the inside, sparking sudden conflicts. These clashes, especially the one between the two largest ethnic groups, led by the president and vice president, sparked yet another outbreak of civil war, this time within South Sudan. Additionally, there remains conflict between South Sudan and Sudan in various border regions. One of the contested areas, Abyei, was not able to participate in the original 2011 referendum vote, leaving questions about its status in the conflict. Many of these border regions also have considerable amounts of oil.

The following video looks at South Sudan at independence and many of the issues that have plagued it since:

South Sudan’s Civil War

A civil war within South Sudan, following its independence, came about in December 2013. At that time the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, and the vice president, Riek Machar, were engaged in political infighting. Ultimately, Machar was removed from his role as vice president and fled the country.

What started as a political dispute quickly divided the country along ethnic lines. The Dinka, one of the two largest ethnic groups in South Sudan, supported the president, while the Nuer, the other major ethnic group, supported the ousted vice president. As the ethnic conflict escalated, human rights violations ranging from rape to murder have been documented. Because of the violence, many farmers have been unable to tend their fields and grow their crops, which has led to the food disaster that is now considered a famine.

As many as 100,000 people are in jeopardy of starving because of this famine. In addition, another 5.5 million could face food shortages as soon as July. Making the situation even more difficult, annual inflation has risen to 425 percent, making it nearly impossible to buy food. Aid agencies, which have been making up for most of the shortfall, face significant obstacles as the conflict escalates. More than 80 aid workers have already been killed in the conflict. The situation has gotten so bad that people in the affected areas are hiding and foraging in swamps by day and then tending to their crops, at risk of animal attack, by night while the soldiers sleep.

South Sudan Today

To counter the ongoing turmoil, the international community has tried to intervene. The United Nations Security Council has authorized over 13,000 peacekeepers to be stationed in the country and given them the power to use force to protect civilians. These efforts though, have been continuously undetermined by the fluid situation on the ground, with all sides, including the government, involved in the violence. The international community has taken other steps as well, such as sanctions leveled by the United States on the leaders of both sides of the conflict.

To avoid further sanctions, President Kiir agreed to a peace deal with former vice president and rebel-Leader Machar in August 2015 with the support of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. As part of this agreement, Machar returned to his old position in April of 2016. However, the deal quickly unraveled with both sides violating the agreement causing Machar to flee once again, plunging the country back into war.

With the ongoing conflict and with tens of thousands of displaced people unable to return home, the situation in South Sudan has become increasingly bleak. As of April, the South Sudanese refugee camp in Uganda, Bidi Bidi, has eclipsed Kenya’s Dadaab camp as the world’s largest, with over 270,000 South Sudanese living there. Moreover, the mass exodus shows no signs of ending soon. In other war-torn areas such as Syria, outward migration has effectively slowed, but in South Sudan, the number has gone up dramatically. South Sudan’s refugee crisis is currently the fastest growing one in the world, although it is not the largest in terms of total numbers.

This refugee flow is only likely to continue with yet another outbreak of violence between the government and the main insurgent force flaring up in mid-April. This comes in the wake of more aid workers being displaced and unable to offer desperately needed assistance to the local population.

Conclusion

South Sudan had to overcome approximately a half-century of conflict just to become a nation. In the process, more than a million people have died and millions more were displaced. Upon its independence, the future looked bright for the new nation. It was home to a large supply of oil and it appeared to have finally put its destructive conflicts behind it.

However, appearances were not what they seemed. Conflicts erupted externally in the form of border disputes with Sudan and internally among the nation’s many ethnic groups. The country’s two largest ethnic groups took opposing sides in a political dispute between the president and vice president that once more plunged the nation into a civil war. The consequences of this conflict have been devastating, with any hope of economic success dashed and even the provision of the most basic means of survival thrown into doubt.

Despite being the youngest nation on earth, South Sudan already finds itself at a critical crossroads. Its government is locked in an internal struggle, thousands of U.N. troops are already on the ground, and millions of its citizens sit in refugee camps ringing its borders. To be successful, the country’s path seems clear: reconcile the various ethnic groups, make lasting peace with Sudan, and let people get back to their lives. Finding a way to make these things happen, however, will be a much more difficult process.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turmoil in South Sudan, the World’s Newest Nation appeared first on Law Street.

Hong Kong recently held elections to determine the next Chief Executive of the semi-autonomous region. Despite widespread pro-democracy protests in 2014, a pro-Beijing government official, Carrie Lam, was elected. Following the election, leaders of that very same pro-democracy movement were faced with threats of arrest. To fully understand these events, it is necessary to look back to Hong Kong’s history as well as the history of the protest movement. Read on further to find out where this movement sprang from and to learn about the current state of democracy in Hong Kong.

History of Hong Kong

Humans have lived in what is now Hong Kong for thousands of years. However, it was not until the rise of the Eastern Han Dynasty that the area was considered part of the Chinese Empire. Beginning in the 12th century, five clans of the Han Dynasty, who still exercise power in Hong Kong today, began to arrive. Some believe that as these groups came to the area they started to push out some of the original inhabitants who moved onto houseboats and formed fishing communities that still exist today.

Despite Hong Kong becoming incorporated into the Chinese Empire, in many respects, it remained largely untended. Its location and the rise in trade allowed for the entrance of foreign actors, namely the Europeans. Trade flows started with the Portuguese and continued with the Dutch, French, and finally the British. Chinese authorities made efforts to curb European influence but they proved futile given the high demand for Chinese goods in Europe. Eager to correct a trade imbalance, the British introduced opium, which led to the emergence of a large market as well as the spread of addiction in China. In response, the Chinese Emperor tried to outlaw opium, culminating in the Opium Wars.

In 1842, following the first Opium War, China ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and access to several ports in Treaty of Nanking. In 1898, the British were given an additional 99-year lease on the city as well as for 235 other small islands. Over the years, the city became a haven for those fleeing both domestic upheavals and later the Japanese during World War II. In 1941 Japan occupied Hong Kong, causing many to leave for mainland China. Britain later reestablished control in 1946.

Shortly after the war, Hong Kong underwent an economic boom. But in the following decades, the city saw social strife and riots as workers chafed at economic inequality and were influenced by policies from the mainland. In the 1970s, Hong Kong emerged as one of the “Asian Tigers,” a highly developed economy in the region. In 1982 Great Britain and China began negotiations to return the city to China, culminating in the Joint Declaration of 1984. This agreement called for Hong Kong to maintain its capitalist economy and partially-democratic system for the next 50 years. It’s important to note, however, that while the agreement called for eventual universal suffrage, that specific mandate was not guaranteed, leaving it open to interpretation.  The following video provides a good history of Hong Kong from the inception of British rule to the present:

Hong Kong’s Government

The Special Administrative Region, its formal distinction, is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong. This system guarantees 50 years of autonomy for the region and a government consisting of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council, a two-tiered legislature, and an independent judiciary. The Chief Executive and the Executive Council, which is essentially the Chief Executive’s cabinet, lead the government and perform many of the same functions as the Executive Branch in the United States.

The Chief Executive is elected by an election committee that is comprised of 1,194 members. Only 70 of the members are government officials while the rest are a mix of elites from various professions. This method of election has garnered extensive criticism and the results have sparked protests in the past. Much of that criticism is due to the heavy influence of Beijing among the elites as well as the extent of its influence over candidate selection and election rules. To win the election, the Chief Executive needs to garner a majority of the election committee’s vote.

The Legislative Council is currently composed of 70 members, up from its original 60. It has been in existence since the beginning of British rule in 1843. Originally, it served as more of an advisory board, but throughout the years–especially following the transition from British Colony to Chinese Special Administrative Region in 1997–it has taken on many of the responsibilities of a traditional Western-style legislature. Some of its specific duties include: enacting and amending laws, creating public budgets, appointing and removing the judges of the Final Court of Appeals and the Chief Justice, and holding the power to impeach the Chief Executive. Half of its members are directly elected based on geography, the other half are chosen by government bodies.

Below the legislature are the District Councils, which direct some public spending at the local level and advise the government on issues affecting people in their jurisdictions. Funding allocated to District Councils is typically used for cultural and community activities within the district.

The judiciary acts independently of the executive and legislature and uses a common law system that is based on the region’s Basic Law. All courts fall under the ultimate authority of the Court of Final Appeals headed by the Chief Justice. The Court of Final Appeals essentially serves as Hong Kong’s Supreme Court.

Pro-Democracy Protests

The pro-democracy sentiment in Hong Kong has existed since before it became a Special Administrative Region in China. In 1984, China and Great Britain signed an agreement to transfer Hong Kong to the Chinese after Britain’s 99-year lease ended in 1997. That treaty led to the notion of “one nation, two systems” for Hong Kong and China. One of the basic tenants of this agreement was the Basic Law, which promised universal suffrage after a certain time period passed. However, the sentiment behind the treaty was quickly brought into question, long before the actual transfer, after China’s tough crackdown in Tiananmen Square. The 1990s saw another brief crisis when Great Britain’s last colonial governor tried to increase democratic reforms, which enraged the Chinese government. Ultimately though, it eventually agreed to a watered-down version of the reforms.

China’s choice for the first post-British leader, combined with a proposed anti-subversion law, quickly galvanized the pro-Democracy movement in Hong Kong. The anti-subversion law, which would have criminalized criticism of Beijing, led 500,000 people to march in the streets. Ultimately, the law was never enacted. Protests continued after this incident, including in 2004 when Beijing ruled against universal suffrage and direct elections for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. In the following year, protesters held remembrances for the 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests; Hong Kong was the only part of China to acknowledge the anniversary.

A breakthrough was seemingly achieved in 2007 when Beijing promised to allow direct election of the Chief Executive by 2017 and the Legislature Council by 2020. Events seemed to be keeping pace in 2010 when the Democratic Party held its first talks with the mainland government since the transfer. In 2014, voters pressed the issue and in an unofficial referendum, 800,000 people, or 90 percent, voted in favor of having the power to select the list of candidates up for election. This referendum was dismissed and ruled illegal by China. In 2014, China went further and ruled that citizens of Hong Kong would not be allowed to directly elect leaders in the 2017 election.

These decisions led to the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The movement, named for the umbrellas that protesters used to shield themselves from tear gas and rain, grew out of an earlier student movement and led to the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong’s financial district.  These, in turn, led to police crackdowns and anti-occupy protests. This continued until the protest camps were ultimately removed in December 2014. The accompanying video summarizes the Umbrella Movement in greater detail:

The Aftermath

Following the protests, new election reforms were proposed in 2015 but were defeated by the Legislative Council. In 2016, protests started again after Beijing removed pro-democracy candidates from the Legislative Council elections, however, they were countered by pro-Beijing supporters and the protests failed to amount to anything.

Following the most recent election, in which pro-Beijing candidate Carrie Lam was elected, at least nine protest organizers were ordered to report to the police or face arrest. This also sparked protests across the city and led to the planning of a citywide protest on July 1, Lam’s first day in office and also the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong becoming a part of China.

Conclusion

Hong Kong has long served as an important port city between China and the West. It served as a toe-hold for several competing European nations until the British finally established a permanent colony. Britain imported large amounts of opium and resorted to force to maintain its control over the city and trade with the region. However, under British rule, Hong Kong was often isolated from Chinese politics and developed its own civic culture. Although residents of Hong Kong never had universal suffrage–either under the British during the colonial era and now as a Special Administrative Region in China–Hong Kong has long had a distinct economic and political system that has been at odds with China.

When the British did eventually return Hong Kong to China, it was with the understanding that customs established under British rule, most notably limited democracy, would be respected. However, since the transition, democracy in Hong Kong has been challenged. The pro-democracy movement has endured in the face of many efforts by the Chinese to maintain control and stability. Perhaps the most obvious example was the Umbrella Movement. Mainland China is back on the offensive again though, with the recent arrests of Umbrella Movement leaders.

So, it will be interesting to see what the next step is. For all the talk of democracy in Hong Kong, its people have never actually elected its top executive; even when the British ruled the governor was appointed. Furthermore, while the protests against Beijing’s interference or for direct elections have drawn massive crowds, they have also spawned counter-protests. Hong Kong remains a divided city that faces several challenges when it comes to democratic concessions from the mainland. While the government in Beijing has allowed some reforms in the past, it remains reluctant to allow anything that resembles universal suffrage. While much of the future relies on the actions of the Chinese government, the pro-democracy movement will also need to coalesce around a clear vision for reform and transition.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fate of Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Movement appeared first on Law Street.

The United States recently sent a missile defense system to South Korea in order to protect the country and deter its northern rival in the wake of repeated missile tests. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that while the United States and South Korea see the move as defensive, others in the region see it as aggressive. Specifically, China and Russia, along with North Korea, see it as an act of American belligerence meant to undermine their own deterrent capabilities. Arms races and missile defenses have a long history and their presence can often ratchet up situations as much as they calm them down. Read on to learn more about the history of missiles, missile defense, and the ramifications of these systems.

History of Missiles

Crude rockets were developed all the way back in 13th century China. They were used occasionally over the next few centuries but were not heavily utilized because their paper or wood shells often made them inaccurate and they lacked enough power to cause major damage. This began to change in late 18th century India, when Tipu Sultan, leader of the Kingdom of Mysore, used metal-tubed rockets against the British. The metal tubes not only increased accuracy but also increased pressure, making them considerably more powerful.

Following this improvement, rockets started being used with increasing regularity. While missile testing and research advanced during World War I, modern missile technology would not be ready for a couple of decades. World War II saw an explosion of rocket use with the introduction of land-based, vehicle-based, and even human-operated rockets. Following the war, the two resulting superpowers began testing missiles with greater frequency and their respective ranges and destructive power gradually increased.

When it comes to missiles, several important distinctions can be made. The most basic distinction is between what separates a bomb from a missile. Bombs are unguided and have no propulsion system, whereas missiles do. There are two additional differences that determine the type of missile. Ballistic missiles have two phases, the first is the powered guided phase, during which the missile is propelled onto its given trajectory. Once the fuel runs out, the missile enters its second phase where it is essentially guided by the laws of physics. Ballistic missiles are very hard to intercept.

The second type of missile is the cruise missile. Cruise missiles are essentially airplanes with explosives attached. Thanks to their navigation features, such as wings and even GPS, cruise missiles are very accurate and can be aimed at extremely small targets like doors. Due to their maneuverability, cruise missiles are even harder to intercept than ballistic missiles. Both ballistic and cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads, although cruise missiles typically carry smaller payloads than ballistic missiles. Along with these two classifications are several others that distinguish between things like how a missile is launched, its target, and the terminology used in different countries.

The U.S. Missile Defense Program

When it comes to missile defense systems, the current landscape consists of the United States, and then everyone else. Since halfway through the 1950s up until 2000, the United States spent over $100 billion on missile defense and is the only country, in fact, to commit a significant portion of its defense spending to this specific cause. While the U.S. has spent a significant sum on missile defense, its actual commitment to the technology has waxed and waned over time.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration began the missile defense program in response to the Soviets developing nuclear missiles. The first missile defense system was deployed by President Richard Nixon as a response to a Soviet defense system and in order to help the U.S. position in arms treaty negotiations. Support then dropped under President Gerald Ford, who saw the system as ineffective. Nonetheless, large expenditures continued under President Jimmy Carter and then ballooned under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. The first Bush Administration finally cut back the missile defense budget following the collapse of the USSR and defense efforts were refocused on combatting accidental launches.

However, President Bill Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act in 1999, signaling a shift back to a focus on missile defense. President George W. Bush was a strong supporter of missile defense and increased spending on defense systems significantly. In 2002 the Bush Administration actually withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to advance its missile defense system. Former President Barack Obama also supported a variety of missile defense initiatives, both in the U.S. and abroad; however, he did reverse some of President Bush’s efforts to place a defense system in Europe.

The current U.S. missile defense system consists of several parts, each of which focuses on missiles at a different stage of flight. The first stage of flight is the boost phase, which occurs when a missile is being propelled by an engine or fuel source. The second stage is the midcourse phase, which is when a missile is done launching and starts on its course to the target. Third is the terminal stage, which occurs when the missile reenters the earth’s atmosphere and continues until impact or detonation.

The five primary components of the U.S. missile defense system have different launch locations in order to intercept missiles in specific stages of flight. The ground-based system focuses on missiles at the midcourse phase. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, located on submarines, can intercept short, medium, and intermediate-range missiles during their midcourse phase. The Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) component is launched from a truck to defend against short and medium-ranged missiles during their midcourse and terminal phases. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) component is designed to defend against short and medium-ranged missiles in their terminal phase. Finally, the space-based surveillance system is attached to three geosynchronous satellites to provide information and early warnings of missile launches.

The United States is not the only country with a missile defense system. Russia also maintains its own system based around Moscow. In addition, several other countries have their own defense systems. For example, Israel has its “Iron Dome” system in place to protect against local attacks and other systems for long-range missiles. While a few countries have some form of missile defense, a larger number have missile technology and could conceivably develop missile defense capabilities. As of 2014, 31 countries had some form of ballistic missile technology, although the capabilities of some of those countries, such as Afghanistan, are currently in doubt.

Complications of Installing Missile Defense Systems 

The THAAD missile defense system in South Korea is certainly not the first time the U.S. or another country has installed defense systems in other countries, and the United States has already installed the same system in its territory of Guam to counter the North Korean threat.

While the placement of missile defense systems is often controversial, it is fair to wonder if all this concern over the installation of missile defense systems is warranted. The reason for this is two-fold. Every existing defense system is severely limited in comparison to the offensive capabilities of many countries. Specifically, the missiles used for defense cost much more than the offensive weapons, so there are fewer of them. The current cost balance means that it is considerably cheaper for countries to build new missiles than it is for the United States or any country to defend against them. Current systems are also not equipped to handle a strike as large as countries like Russia or China could potentially launch given their weapons stockpiles.

The other major issue is that defensive missile technology is not very reliable. This has been the case in the past too–the initial U.S. missile defense system was viewed as so ineffective that it was scrapped in 1974. This issue continued through the Gulf War when the Patriot System had a considerable difficulty intercepting fairly primitive Iraqi rockets. Even the current systems, in tests, have shot down less than half of the missiles they targeted since 1999. Because tests are typically done under ideal conditions, recent results have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the current system.

Despite the existing limitations of missile defense technology, these systems are still viewed as a threat by other countries. The thinking goes that they encourage the opposing side to build up their missiles to counteract the missile defense system, essentially creating an arms race. In the recent circumstances–both in Guam and now South Korea–China’s concern has focused on the radar technology included in the THAAD system, which China fears will be used to spy on it. While both the U.S. and South Korea have emphasized that the system is only there to protect against potential launches from North Korea, the Chinese have responded by placing economic sanctions on South Korea.

The accompanying video looks at the THAAD system and why China does not want it installed on the Korean Peninsula:

Missile Treaties

To counter fears of an arms race and other threats, numerous treaties have been ratified to reduce the number and types of missiles in the field. The most important treaty regarding missile defense was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972. The purpose of this treaty was to prevent arms races by limiting defense systems that would neutralize attacks. The idea was that both sides having the ability to destroy each other would serve as a deterrent. If one side developed an effective missile defense system, the other would need to make faster or more lethal missiles, leading to a consistent buildup.

This logic was fairly effective and, along with the inability to develop an effective missile defense system, prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and later Russia, from developing adequate defense systems. However, in 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it wanted to develop a more robust system. But all the United States has developed so far is an unreliable and expensive system that has still left many uneasy.

Conclusion 

Missiles are an old and well-tested technology capable of delivering nuclear weapons around the globe with considerable precision. Conversely, missile defense is still relatively untested and often fails to provide what its name would literally suggest. Why then are certain parties so reassured by missile defense and others so agitated?

The answer is that every missile defense system is at the same time a missile launcher and when a system is close to a foreign border it makes the situation uncomfortable. It also forces the countries involved to continuously counter each other’s capabilities. This has been the case in several instances throughout history and will likely continue as long as adversaries are placing their missiles close to one another. While there have been treaties in place to address this issue, the most important one was nullified by U.S. withdrawal. The future then is likely to continue much as the present–barring one country or a group of countries offering to disarm.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean for the U.S. to Put a Missile Defense System in South Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged hacking of several American institutions. While the sanctions themselves are not unprecedented–the U.S. had sanctioned Russia two years earlier–they point to another unfortunate episode in an increasingly contentious relationship between the two nations. This relationship has eroded as these former adversaries have clashed over Crimea, the nation of Georgia, Syria, and U.S. presidential elections, all within the past decade. While some recent developments suggest the relationship may start to improve, much of the future remains uncertain. Read on to see how the U.S.-Russia relationship has developed over the years, where exactly it stands now, and what it will look like in the future.

The United States and the Empire of Russia

The relationship between the United States and Russia, then the Russian Empire, dates back to before the U.S. government was even firmly established. During the American Revolutionary War, Russia ultimately decided to remain neutral and not offer any support to the British despite being a British ally at the time. The next time the two nations went to war, in the War of 1812, Russia was once again involved as it offered to serve as a mediator. While the offer was declined by the British, a relationship between Russia and the United States was forming.

Although the relationship had initially been positive, a degree of tension arose between the two nations when the Holy Alliance–Russia, Austria, and Prussia–threatened to intercede in Central and Latin America, a perceived violation of the U.S. sphere of influence established by the Monroe Doctrine. The issue was ultimately resolved and no serious conflict resulted. Russia would get back in America’s good graces when it nominally supported the United States during the Civil War, including sending ships to the American East and West Coasts. While historians contend this move was actually to avoid having those ships blocked or destroyed by British and French troops during the Crimean War, and although Russia never provided physical support, the presence of the Russian sailors was positive.

Perhaps the most significant interaction between the two, prior to World War II, was the purchase of Alaska, completed in 1867. Russia was keen to sell the land because it was too far away to administer and also because it needed money following the Crimean War. The United States initiated the purchase in 1859 but held off on actually buying the land until 1867 following the Civil War. The sale price was $7.2 million and was initially viewed as a mistake until large mineral deposits were discovered.

The United States and Russia continued their relationship into the 20th century during several important events. The first was the United States getting Russia and several European empires to agree to an Open Door Policy in China, which ensured its territorial integrity. The second was the United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, mediating the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

Even when the relationship was strained, the U.S. offered substantial aid to Russia following the outbreak of World War I and later during a massive famine in 1921-1923. However, the United States, along with other Allied governments, also sent troops in to undermine the new communist regime following their takeover and subsequent withdrawal from World War I. When the USSR was declared in 1922, all diplomatic ties were severed.

World War II and the Cold War

The United States did eventually reestablish diplomatic ties with the USSR in 1933. During World War II, the two countries would become allies, with the USSR receiving supplies from the U.S. as part of the Lend-Lease program and later when both countries fought the Axis Powers. These two nations, along with France, China, and the U.K. would also become the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council following the war.

That was the high point, however, and for the next 45 years or so, the relationship was increasingly tense during the Cold War. This was particularly true with the “Iron Curtain” descending on Eastern Europe in 1947 and America introducing its policy of containment. The two sides then squared off in a stalemate, which was occasionally punctuated by major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries also engaged in a heated space race with the USSR launching the first satellite in 1957 and United States becoming the first and only country to land a man on the moon in 1969.

Tensions normalized somewhat in the 1970s with the first talks on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles and for cooperation in space. However, they flared once more in the 1980s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The decade closed, though, with resumed talks on disarmament. The 1990s began with a bang, or more specifically a coup in 1991. The coup failed and so did the USSR soon after, breaking into 15 countries later that year. The video below looks at the history of the Cold War:

After the Thaw

The fall of the Soviet Union was greeted hopefully by the United States with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, aimed at collecting nuclear material, infamously named “loose nukes,” from the former Soviet Republics. The two also collaborated again on the space program, culminating with the International Space Station.

Relations began to cool again after both George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin came to power, particularly when President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. This was followed by Russian opposition to the Iraq war, U.S. support for Kosovo gaining independence, and an American anti-missile defense system proposed for Poland. Relations between the two countries declined precipitously following the 2008 invasion of South Ossetia and the subsequent war between Russia and Georgia.

Following this episode, the then-incoming Obama Administration called for a policy “reset” in 2009. Things certainly seemed promising with the New START agreement that called for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and Russia in 2010, along with Russia agreeing to new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. From there, however, the situation took a turn for the worse again, when Russia supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria, alleged Russian spies were detained in the United States, and Russia cracked down on human rights in 2012 following Vladimir Putin’s election as president. Russia also expelled USAID from the country and made all NGOs register.

Although both countries came to some agreements to strengthen sanctions on North Korea following its nuclear weapons test in 2013, relations continued to deteriorate when Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden later that year. This intensified significantly with Russia’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as its support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These actions led the U.S. to place economic sanctions on Russia and expel it from the G8.

Most recently, the United States and Russia have continued to bicker over the Syrian conflict and Russian support for the Assad regime. However, the greatest spat appears to have come in the wake of the recent election when several U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the presidential election through targeted hacking and leaking. This news caused President Obama to increase sanctions and expel 35 Russian nationals from the country. The CIA updated its assessment to conclude that not only did Russia interfere in the election, it did so to help elect Donald Trump.

Going Forward

While Russia and the U.S. have shared a tense relationship for more than a decade, the two countries see signs of hope with the election of Donald Trump. President Trump has seemed to confirm this with what he has already said concerning Russia. For evidence, one need look only as far as President Obama’s recent sanctions against Russia and President Trump’s subsequent praise of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence for not responding in kind. The following video looks at the potential relationship with Donald Trump as president:

President Trump indicated that he hopes to warm relations between the two countries not just with his words but also with his recent actions–namely, by nominating Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson was formerly the CEO of Exxon Mobile and has a lot of business experience working with the Russian government. In fact, Tillerson was once awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself. While all of Tillerson’s experience with the country comes from his work in the private sector–acting on behalf of Exxon Mobil rather than the American government–early indications suggest that Russia is pleased with his selection.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia relationship is dictated by more than just the president and his cabinet and that is where things start to get complicated. While Trump sang Putin’s praises for exercising restraint, Republican members of Congress were happy to see additional sanctions placed on Russia, which many considered overdue. In some cases, such as with Senator John McCain, the sanctions were not enough and he pledged to work for even tougher measures. Thus the jury remains out on the future of the relationship; however, the opportunity for improvement appears to be there.

Conclusion

The relationship between Russia and the United States has ebbed and flowed. At first, like many other countries in Europe, Russia treated the United States as a trading partner but not much else. However, with the dawn of the twentieth century and the ascension of the United States as one of the preeminent powers in the world, Russia began to take notice. This situation came to a head following World War II when they were the only two superpowers left standing, prompting competition for ideological control of the world.

However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early indications seemed to suggest the United States and Russia could finally work together and form a more collaborative relationship. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case, as the early 21st century featured more disagreement and mutual antagonism. With the rise of Vladimir Putin and his sustained grip on power, the situation has only deteriorated further. While newly elected President Trump has suggested a closer partnership, it remains to be seen if that will stand the test of his term or if Congressional Republicans will even allow it. In the meantime, the United States and Russia will continue their long, circling dance, interacting when necessary and quarreling regularly.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Story Behind the U.S.-Russia Relationship appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations recently passed a resolution regarding Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. The most significant takeaways from this development are that the United States allowed the U.N. resolution to be passed and the specific language included in the resolution. This is particularly true when coupled with the language used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to criticize the United States and President Barack Obama after the resolution’s passage. Read on to find out what exactly the resolution means for Palestine, Israel, and the United States as well as the history of the conflict that led to the resolution in the first place.

The Resolution

So what does this resolution do and why has it made the leadership of Israel so upset? The U.N. resolution declares that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law and calls for an immediate end to all settlement activities. The actual determination in the resolution is nothing new, in fact, it has been the view of the international community for some time. What is new is that the Obama administration allowed it to pass without vetoing it as well as the emerging context surrounding the dispute–many are now starting to doubt whether the long sought after two-state solution is still a viable option.

After the resolution was passed, Palestinian leaders indicated that they would use the resolution to support their case against Israel in international courts, a move strongly opposed by Israel. While the condemning language and the reaction of Palestinian leaders are significant, they pale in comparison to accusations leveled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against President Obama. Netanyahu has effectively accused Obama and his administration of plotting against Israel and even crafting the resolution in the first place, which the Obama Administration denies.

The resolution that did pass is not actually binding; while it may condemn Israel’s actions it cannot forcibly stop them. Additionally, President Donald Trump has already vowed to veto any resolution that would actually force Israel to cease and desist settlement activities. The video below looks at the U.N. resolution:

The History of the Conflict

The origins of the conflict between the two sides go back to the 19th century. Initially, the territory in question was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, during World War I, when it was clear that the Ottomans would lose, Britain and France created their own plan for the region following the war with something known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement effectively carved up Arab lands in the Middle East between France and the U.K., which went against earlier promises for an Arab state following the end of the war.

In 1917, the U.K. issued the Balfour Declaration, in which it announced its support of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. British responsibility for creating an Israeli homeland was reaffirmed by the Palestinian Mandate in 1921, which gave it control over former Ottoman lands along the terms agreed upon in Sykes-Picot. However, neither the mandate nor the earlier Balfour Declaration mentioned anything about creating a Palestinian homeland, despite the wishes of the Palestinian population.

This resentment, coupled with earlier broken promises to create an independent Arab state and the continuing and increasing Jewish migration, led to persistent conflict. In the 1930s Jewish militias helped the British put down the Arab uprising hoping to rekindle support for their independent state. Instead, they were betrayed again by yet another British agreement known as the White Paper of 1939, which would limit further Jewish migration, even as the Holocaust occurred in Europe.

After World War II the British ended its mandate in the area, transferring the land and the problems that went with it to the United Nations. The U.N. then attempted a two-state partition that instead led to more fighting and eventually the first Arab-Israeli War, which ended with an armistice in 1949. Per the terms of the agreement, Israel took control of 77 percent of the original mandate, Jordan received control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt acquired the Gaza Strip, Palestinians did not control any territory following the fighting. This also led to a mass exodus of Palestinians and a huge refugee problem that continues to this day. The biggest flare of violence between Israel and its neighbors after this, until 1967, was a joint British-French-Israeli effort to take back the Suez Canal after it had been nationalized in 1956.

While the root of the general conflict can clearly be traced back further, the root of the modern conflict can trace its most direct route to the 1967 war, known most commonly as the 6-Day War. After a series of Palestinian attacks from surrounding countries and Israeli retaliation, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq started mobilizing their militaries. However, Israel then took a surprise early offensive, decimating much of its adversaries’ air force and went on to capture a dominant victory. As a result of the victory, Israel won and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the process of the war, hundreds of thousands more refugees were forced to leave their homes and more than a million Palestinians fell under the direct rule of Israel.

Another conflict emerged in 1973 when Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. The attack prompted the United States to step in and seek a diplomatic resolution. After several years, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that included the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

However, since 1967, there has been an almost unstoppable pace of settlement in occupied territories by Israeli settlers. As of 2013, there were over 200 settlements and outposts of Israeli settlers in lands occupied since the end of the 6-Day War, namely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These settlements, even the outposts that the Israeli government considers illegal, are encouraged and supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks on housing, education, and opening new businesses.

Apart from incentives, Israeli settlers also enjoy many other advantages over their Palestinian neighbors in the occupied territories. One is a separate legal system that greatly benefits settlers over Palestinian natives who instead are governed by military law. Another is access to resources such as water, transportation, and electricity, which settlers get from the Israeli government. The settlements have led to perpetual conflict, despite numerous efforts at peace. The following video gives a good description of the roots of the conflict:

The United States, Israel, Palestine and the History of Peace Talks

Since the end of the 6-Day War, there have been several efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israel and Palestine and establishing some framework in which both peoples can have states of their own. This started with two other U.N. resolutions, namely 242 and 338, which put an end to the 1973 War and also called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied. Building off of the 1973 War were the Camp David Accords, which led to Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt recognizing it as a state. But these talks did not involve the Palestinians.

The Madrid Conference in 1991 was aimed at similar goals, namely ensuring recognition of the state of Israel. Ultimately, it led to peace between Israel and Jordan, but none of the other combatants. While the Palestinians were represented at the Madrid Conference, the first deal to actually incorporate them was the Oslo Accords in 1993. In exchange for promising to incrementally withdraw Israeli troops from Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Opposition groups in Palestine and settler groups in Israel opposed the deal, which led to violence. The agreement was never fully implemented.

Probably the closest the two sides ever came to lasting peace was the second Camp David Accords in 2000 when both sides offered land swaps, however, they were not quite enough to entice the other to agree to a peace resolution. A last ditch effort in Taba in 2001 and an Arab Initiative in 2002 both also failed. In 2003 President Bush submitted his road map to peace and became the first president to call for an independent Palestinian state. Unfortunately, another set of negotiations, the Geneva Accords of 2003, attempted to fix the same problem from another direction. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Two more rounds of talks in 2007 and 2010 seemed close to reaching deals at times but both ultimately fell short as well.

This history led President Barack Obama to seek some positive action before his term ended. Without having to worry about reelection, he allowed the recent resolution to pass. While his actions are not unprecedented, they are still controversial. Other resolutions have been passed regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, but this was the most recent one to condemn settlements since 1980. Additionally, while Obama is not the first U.S. president to allow a resolution related to this conflict to pass without a veto, it is the first time in his presidency. The accompanying video looks at the peace process as it currently stands and the remaining inherent trouble:

Moving Forward

While the resolution is non-binding, it is not entirely toothless. What it does is create a template for future negotiations and potentially other resolutions that would be binding. While a January 15 International Peace Conference seemed to offer a forum to draft that kind of resolution, no such progress was made. Instead, the focus was mainly on reopening dialogue between the two parties and reiterating support for past ideas, such as a two-state solution and the return of land occupied by Israel to Palestine.

Aside from creating guidelines, the recent U.N. resolution also eliminated many of the legal arguments Israel could have used to justify settlements. The resolution may also lead to subsequent efforts to apply sanctions on Israeli goods made in the occupied territories or force Israel to go to the International Criminal Court.

President Trump has already denounced the resolution and promised to repeal it. However, that seems unlikely as he would have to introduce a new resolution and, like the current one, get it through the Security Council without a single veto, which is unlikely. However, Trump and the Israelis can cut funding to the United Nations, which would be significant, as the U.S. supplies 22 percent of the organization’s budget. Israel can also go after the nations who voted for the resolution, summoning ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution.The U.S. embassy, notably, was not among those targeted by Israel.

In the meantime, the settlements continue to be built and expand further into Palestinian occupied lands. There are now 600,000 Jewish Israelis living in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank where once there were none. In other words, nearly 10 percent of the country’s Jewish population lives beyond the borders established in 1967 and in territory recognized as Palestinian.

As a result, Palestinians view these settlements as an unjust seizing of the land that they would receive if a two-state solution ever came to fruition. The Israelis view these settlements as a necessary buffer and feel justified through scripture. They also contend that since Jordan, which once laid claim to these areas of land, is no longer interested in the lands, there is no sovereign power who has control over them. However, even Israel will not go so far as to claim the disputed lands in the West Bank as part of its own sovereign territory. Any solution to the problem will likely have to include land swaps, among other things, something that Israel has shown it is not totally against, such as when it abandoned a settlement in the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Conclusion

The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not going to be resolved by one U.N. resolution. However, that was never the point as the resolution was non-binding. The idea behind the resolution was to create some type of momentum for negotiations–or possibly block the momentum of efforts that many believe run against the interests of a peace settlement. In this circumstance, the onus was put on Israel, as the international community sought to make a strong statement on settlement building.

The likelihood of reaching an actual deal depends on more than just these two countries. While the rest of the Security Council, and the world in general, have an interest, the United States has played a key role in many past peace attempts. This U.N. resolution then could signal an important step forward if all sides involved are willing to look past politics and are serious about achieving some sort of two-state solution. However, it appears unlikely that the incoming president will take the same line on Israeli settlement building, which could cause many to question the negotiation process given that most view settlements as an important obstacle to a lasting resolution.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Recent U.N. Resolution Means for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process appeared first on Law Street.

As the new year begins, it’s safe to say that 2016 was a trying time for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United Nations-inspired program established by the Rome Statute of 1998 stands as the world’s only tribunal capable of prosecuting individuals at the international level. Formed to investigate and prosecute war-related crimes, the 124-member committee is now three members short, and its legacy is at stake. Various signatories in Africa have recently resigned (and more are expected to do so) due to continuous accusations of the court disproportionately targeting Africans and representing the interests of western imperialism. Now with fewer members (and therefore fewer outlets to pursue cases) the independent judicial body’s ability to indict foreign dignitaries for orchestrating violent campaigns may dwindle as Uganda, South Africa, and Burundi are facilitating a “coordinated revolt” to undermine ICC operations.

The International Criminal Court’s Unique Origins

The formation of the ICC resulted from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court–a United Nations initiative that was adopted on July 17, 1998 and took effect on July 1, 2002 after the 60th member state ratified it. For five weeks, U.N. members deliberated in the Italian capital about establishing a fixed international tribunal. After several compromises were made, the treaty passed with a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. From the beginning, the mandate aimed to indict political officials for wartime atrocities, diminish impunity, and ensure that restorative justice is accomplished when national governments are unequipped to reach their own verdict (which is generally the case in times of crisis). Separate from the United Nations, the permanent, autonomous court provides an all-encompassing index on how to legally handle cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. A limited scope of retribution was granted, meaning that only crimes occurring after the court’s 2002 inception are open for investigation.

Although the Yugoslavian and Rwandan wars were occurring during these preliminary negotiations (and therefore representing a dire impetus for action), the idea of a permanent world court was 50 years in the making. According to the International Policy Digest, the vision of a supranational judiciary gained momentum toward the end of World War II after the Axis Powers were defeated and their wrongdoings were exposed. Following the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi Germany in 1945 and 1946, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. This was the first step in defining genocide, which is considered to be “the most heinous international crime” and one of the three original crimes that would fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

How Does the ICC Function?

The ICC, which is located in The Hague, Netherlands, can only intervene when states are “unable” or “unwilling” to prosecute criminals themselves. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the ICC receives referrals of “situations” where court action may be needed. This stipulation means that the ICC can only intervene when national criminal justice systems fail to prosecute a war crime themselves. By signing the treaty, member states, therefore, consent to the ICC’s jurisdiction and allow the judiciary to pursue investigations if warranted. Therefore, countries that didn’t sign the peace agreement, like the United States, cannot be issued warrants.

Instead of relying on juries, the ICC delivers verdicts through judges–all of whom must be citizens of an ICC member state. Within the tribunal there are 18 judges serving in three divisions: the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division, and Appeals Division. Perhaps the most vital department is the Pre-Trial Chamber, given that it is responsible for issuing arrest warrants and confirming indictments that are initiated through the U.N. Security Council or the Assembly of States Parties. But this vital department allegedly has a slow response rate, sometimes taking months to respond to arrest warrants.

Ever-present Challenges and Critiques of the ICC

As the world’s only official international war crime tribunal, the ICC has a lot at stake. The agreement that created it may have made history, but the court also faces a lot of systematic challenges. When the ICC was formally introduced in 2002, certain skeptics believed that the institution would become too powerful and prompt the formation of a one-world government. Originally, countries like the United States and Israel were dissuaded from signing the treaty out of fear of potential prosecution, and that some “new mega-criminal law” would result in tyrannical practices. However, today the ICC is viewed as far from tyrannical (or effective for that matter) due to its “procedural and substantive deficiencies.” Throughout its short existence, the court has opened 10 investigations and publicly indicted 39 people. These relatively low numbers signify three main challenges of the ICC.

At the forefront is the issue of credibility. When Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was found guilty on March 14, 2012 for recruiting child soldiers (becoming the first person to be convicted by the ICC), the court had already existed for 10 years and spent an estimated billion euros. Although the verdict set a new precedent for international law, the amount of time required to set the milestone didn’t seem like an efficient use of time or money to some. Trials need to be carried out more efficiently for this situation to improve, which could be difficult considering how the ICC prefers live testimony, which inevitably elongates the trial process. Legitimacy is another indelible challenge for the ICC. Only two members of the U.N. Security Council are official judicial members, which certainly complicates the referral process. Although the U.N. Security Council has tried to refer the Syrian conflict to the ICC (despite Syria not being a member of the Rome Statute) both China and Russia (non-ICC members) have rejected such initiatives–major powers can veto court efforts even when there is proof of atrocities taking place.

The implementation of the ICC can be tricky, considering that the court relies heavily on other nation’s police forces to make arrests and transfer indicted people to The Hague. This requires vast cooperation among State Parties. A common critique is that the court relies too much on international governments to implement court mandates without much direct supervision or guidance. The consequences are straightforward: no arrests and no trials.

Finally, the third issue involves unrealistic expectations and the extent to which the treaty is a “persistent object of faith.” The treaty inherently relies on the free and voluntary consent of member nations, providing them with every right to withdraw if desired. Moreover, this has resulted in certain countries being ambivalent towards the ICC (particularly the United States during the Clinton and Bush administrations), which ultimately diminishes the court’s overall credibility.

Lately, the most critical commentary of the ICC involves how it may be an “instrument of modern colonialism” due to the extent in which the judicial body primarily affects African officials. Throughout the existence of the ICC, every indicted person has been African, which “implies unfair selectivity at best, and smacks of neocolonialism at worst.” Since the ICC began 18 years ago, nine out of the 10 investigated cases have involved African nations, which has led to accusations of bias. With fewer member states to help expedite this process, the ICC would have a more limited scope for prospective investigations. Fewer African members would make the ICC “a shell of its former self.” Not only does this undermine the legitimacy of the organization, but makes its operations seem dysfunctional.

African Case Studies

Following in the footsteps of Burundi and South Africa, the tiny West African country of Gambia became the latest member to withdraw from the ICC this past October. Together, these nations have chastised the multinational tribunal for its alleged “anti-African bias” and ignorance toward wrongdoings from Western powers. Burundi was the first constituent to “file for divorce” from the ICC. At the time, the country was being investigated for possible war crimes during the recent outbursts of political violence. Civil unrest transpired after the incumbent president, Pierre Nkurunziza, declared he would be running for a third term.

Once considered as a “continental heavyweight” and avid supporter of the ICC in the 1990s, South Africa disappointed the ICC after failing to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in June of 2015, who is wanted by the ICC for orchestrating wartime atrocities in Darfur. Despite a South African court order to arrest al-Bashir, the Sudanese head of state still managed to attend an African Union summit in Johannesburg and leave Pretoria unscathed. Even though Sudan is not a member of the ICC, the U.N. Security Council successfully referred the Darfur conflict to officials in The Hague. South Africa and the ICC clashed over the impunity afforded to current heads of state. Although the ICC has brought current presidents to stand trial, this practice is something that South Africa strongly disapproves of.

Peeved by the continual investigations into African affairs, the Gambian President Yahya Jammeh urged the ICC to divert its attention from Africa and instead probe further into the E.U.’s wrongdoings in today’s ongoing immigration crisis. In a public statement, Jammeh suggested that European countries be tried for the deaths of African migrants on the Mediterranean Sea.

“This action is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called the International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” said Sheriff Bojang, who serves as Gambia’s information minister.

Conclusion

If more African states revoke their ICC membership, then the court’s stability will remain unclear, considering that 34 of the original 124 member states are from the continent. The ICC could very well lose its credentials if a mass exodus of African nations ensues. Attention is currently fixated on Kenya, which many fear may be the next African country to abandon the tribunal. Three years ago, the African Union pressured the ICC not to persecute incumbent heads of states. Such a proposal was made while Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his colleague, William Ruto, were expected to stand trial for the ethnic violence stemming from the contentious 2007 elections. Kenyatta became the first head of state to be tried by ICC, but the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

“These challenges are best addressed not by diminishing support for the court, but by strengthening it from within,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a statement. “Deterring future atrocities, delivering justice for victims, and defending the rules of war across the globe are far too important priorities to risk a retreat from the age of accountability that we have worked so hard to build and solidify.”

In hopes of gaining more clout on the international stage, it would be advantageous for the ICC to appeal to non-members, such as the United States, Russia, and China. Without support from the mightiest of global contenders, the court remains a fledgling U.N. project that lacks the global support it needs to properly function. Considering that 57 additional members have signed the treaty since its creation, further recruitment is possible. Lastly, to restore trust among members, the court must demonstrate that it has clear standards and motivations in convicting war criminals outside of Africa.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Is the Fate of the International Criminal Court in Jeopardy? appeared first on Law Street.

On December 2, President-elect Donald Trump dramatically broke from decades of United States policy in Asia by speaking with the president of Taiwan via a phone conversation. This call was the first known contact between either a U.S. president or a president-elect with a Taiwanese leader since before the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with the island in 1979. The event shocked the world, and the statements from Trump that followed only seemed to exacerbate strained relations between the U.S. and China.

The phone call was seen as a departure from the “One China” policy, that has governed U.S. relations in Asia since the late 1970s. But what exactly is the One China policy? And how will this potentially colossal shift in foreign policy from President-elect Trump and his administration affect the future of U.S.-China relations?

Evolution of the One China policy

In the 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué, the U.S. withdrew any diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in order to acknowledge the Beijing regime as the sole legal government of China, thus creating the One China policy. The policy reflects the view that there is only one state called “China,” despite two governments claiming to be “China.” This policy differs from the One China principle, which insists that both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of China. Neither the Republic of China, nor the People’s Republic of China recognize the other as a legitimate government. Officially, the U.S. defines the full content of its One China policy as consisting of three Sino-American communiqués, one at the time of Nixon’s visit (1972), mutual establishment of diplomatic relations (1978), and the attempted resolution of American arms sales in 1982.

This particular policy can be traced all the way back to 1949 and the end of the Chinese civil war. The defeated Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and made it their seat of government, while the Communists held on to the mainland. At first, many countries, including the U.S., wanted to distance themselves from Communist China; however, the U.S. started to see a mutual need to develop relations in the 1970s. Proposals that the U.S. recognize two Chinas were strongly rejected by the People’s Republic of China. Finally, in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. normalized relations with China, cutting diplomatic and official ties with Taiwan. Furthermore, the U.S. withdrew U.S. forces from Taiwan, allowing the mutual defense treaty in Taiwan to expire.

Current State of Affairs

The U.S. has made it abundantly clear on a global stage that it does not consider the political entity in Taiwan to be a state. However, it also does not accept the contention that Taiwan is part of China; the formal legal position from the U.S. is that Taiwan’s status is “undetermined.” Taiwan’s lack of diplomatic recognition by the U.S. and many other nations means it cannot become a member of most international organizations, including the United Nations.

So, that means for nearly four decades, the U.S. has had somewhat of a relationship with a foreign government it does not officially recognize, that government governs a state that the U.S. does not formally acknowledge exists, and resides on an island whose status according to the U.S. is undetermined. The U.S. and Taiwan also have significant presences in each country that have very specific diplomatic privileges and immunities. Taiwan’s president is allowed to make “transit stops” in the U.S. while traveling to other destinations, though is not allowed to make official visits to the U.S. and is not invited as an official delegate to U.S. events. Additionally, the Taiwan Relations Act, which was also enacted in 1979, mandates that the U.S. make defensive arms available to Taiwan, help maintain the island’s ability to resist any force that could jeopardize its security, and potentially take appropriate actions if there is any such threat.

“Made in Taiwan” Courtesy of diaper : License (CC BY 2.0)

Moreover, there is a substantial amount of trade and investment between the U.S. and Taiwan. The U.S. is Taiwan’s second-largest trading partner, and Taiwan ranks as the ninth-largest trading partner for the U.S. In 2015, U.S. goods and services trade with Taiwan totaled $86.9 billion. According to data from the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of goods and services to Taiwan employed an estimated 217,000 workers in 2014. The U.S.-Taiwan industry includes a vast array of products: electrical machinery, vehicles, plastics, snack foods, as well as processed fruits and vegetables. However, China has grown to be Taiwan’s largest trade partner, absorbing nearly 30 percent of Taiwan’s exports by value. Any significant stirring of the status quo has the potential for grim consequences for the U.S., China, and Taiwan.

Trump’s Position on One China

Despite the strong U.S. stance on One China, Trump took a phone call from Taiwan’s leader, Tsai Ing-wen. It was a roughly ten-minute long conversation, described as a congratulatory phone call. Trump maintained that it would have been disrespectful not to have taken the call, and that he had only heard about it just an hour or two in advance. Just two days after the controversial phone call, Trump took a pointed jab at China on Twitter, accusing the country of keeping its currency artificially low and engaging in military posturing in the South China Sea.

Trump boldly stated in an interview with Fox News Sunday on December 11 that he does not feel “bound by a one-China policy.” Moreover, the Trump transition team has openly referred to Tsai Ing-wen as “President of Taiwan.” This public recognition of Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan openly undermines the only aspect of One China that both the U.S. and China actually seem to agree upon–that Taiwan is not a state.

Future concerns about U.S.-China relations

Many U.S. leaders are concerned that Trump’s flippancy with regard to the One China policy will lead to further strained relations with China. In fact, China expressed that it is “seriously concerned” after President-elect Trump questioned whether the U.S. should maintain its current position. Recent comments by Trump have demonstrated a willingness to use One China as a bargaining chip to iron out more favorable deals on trade.

Critics have further pointed out that Trump’s inexperience in foreign relations could have profound consequences globally. Tensions have already increased in the South China Sea, a major shipping route, as Chinese dredging operations continue in the Spratly Islands–China has been turning sandbars into islands with airfields, ports, and lighthouses. Beijing has also warned any U.S. warships and military aircrafts to stay away from the islands. A front-page opinion piece published on the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official platform, noted that the call set a bad precedent and rang a warning bell in China.

In the past, China has not been afraid to express displeasure with U.S.-Taiwan relations and perceived violations of the One China policy. After the U.S. granted Taiwan’s pro-independence president, Lee Teng-hui, a visa to visit Cornell University in 1995, China conducted a missile test in the Taiwan Strait. The test was seen as a way to intimidate Taiwanese voters into not voting for Teng-hui during the 1996 election, though he did end up winning.

Presently, China has made its position abundantly clear. Cooperation with the U.S. cannot occur if Trump does not adhere to the One China policy. On December 10, Chinese military aircraft flew over waterways near Taiwan as part of long-range exercises. The drills lasted for about four hours and involved more than 10 aircrafts. Furthermore, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated, “Adherence to the One China principle serves as the political foundation for the development of China-US ties. If this foundation is wobbled and weakened, there is no possibility for the two countries to grow their relations in a sound and steady way and cooperate on key areas.”

Military action is not the only method China could utilize to effectively retaliate against the U.S. for violating the One China policy or attempting to use Taiwan as a pawn in negotiations. China could make business increasingly difficult on its soil and use state-run media to encourage public boycotts of U.S. companies. Additionally, allies of Taiwan could be persuaded to switch allegiance to China, if given more aid. China could cease communications with Washington and further decrease trade and economic ties with Taiwan.

Conclusion

While the future is unknown, one thing appears to be certain: China will not tolerate anything less than the current status quo. Careless indifference to the One China policy could have serious ramifications on a global scale. If the new administration ignores decades-old diplomatic relations with China, there is a large risk of destabilizing U.S.-China relations and perhaps even sparking a true crisis.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “One China” Policy and Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As Iraqi Security Forces, with the help of U.S. air support and the Kurdish Peshmerga, continue the effort to retake Mosul, a major city in Northern Iraq, a new push is underway in Syria. This push is led by the American-backed Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) and is targeting the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Northern Syria. In addition, the United States and Turkey agreed to help develop the plan to take and then hold the city once ISIS has been defeated. Read on to find out more about the importance of Raqqa to ISIS, the SDF, the role of the United States and Turkey, and the consequences that taking back the city could have.

ISIS’s Conquest of Raqqa and Life Afterward

Raqqa was actually the first major city in Syria to be freed from regime control during the Syrian civil war. However, like many of the violent conflicts that emerged in the wake of the Arab Spring, gains in Syria were quickly co-opted by extremists. Initially, the struggle was between local activists and the Al-Nusra front, both of which were attempting to fill the void left by regime forces. After the city was taken from the Assad regime, the Free Syrian Army rebels and the extremist groups competed for political control.

While these two groups were bickering, ISIS moved in and swiftly forced out the Al-Nusra front, setting the stage for its own showdown with the rebels. The Free Syrian Army, which was actively fighting the Assad government, did little to confront ISIS as it took control of the city and began a brutal crackdown on the residents there.

As in other places under ISIS control, life in Raqqa has been extremely harsh. It started with violent executions and crucifixions in public spaces. Next, schools were closed, drinking and smoking were forbidden, and women were forced to adhere to strict dress codes or face violence. Children were also abducted and forced into ISIS’s ranks. ISIS fighters, on the other hand, particularly those from western nations, have had access to luxury goods. The accompanying video looks at life under ISIS in Syria:

Raqqa’s Importance to ISIS

Along with Mosul, Raqqa is one of just a few major cities that remains under ISIS control. Raqqa also operates as the group’s capital, making it a particularly important target for decreasing the group’s ability to carry out attacks outside of the shrinking area that it controls. While Raqqa and Mosul are both very important to the group, Canadian Brigadier General David Anderson recently said, “I think that probably Raqqa matters more.”

Efforts to Retake Raqqa

The group leading the assault into Raqqa will be the Syrian Democratic Force or SDF, in an operation dubbed “Euphrates Rage.” The SDF is a coalition of militias made up primarily of Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Syriac Christian fighters. While the group is a hodge-podge it is dominated by the Kurdish army in Syria (the YPG) and its all-female units (the YPJ). The coalition is also supported by American airpower, as it was in the Battle of Kobane where ISIS was handed its first defeat on the battlefield.

While the Kurds are the main actors in this group, the United States also has hope that Sunni Arab militias will be able to play an important role in efforts to take ground from ISIS. The United States has selected a few of the militias to support its efforts, dubbed the Syrian Arab Coalition. The hope is that these groups can continue the fight against ISIS when the Kurds are no longer willing or when they enter territory where their presence creates political complications.

The SDF has also set up its own political party, the Democratic Syrian Assembly or DSA, which incorporates both Kurdish and Sunni Arab elements. The assembly also allows the United States to interact with the Kurds while providing a buffer between the U.S. and PKK, the Kurdish Workers’ Party in Turkey, that is designated as a terrorist group by the United States. The video below looks at the SDF and the gains they have made:

The United States and Turkey

Speaking of Turkey and the United States, balancing the relationship between the NATO allies and the SDF fighting on the ground has been difficult. Currently, the SDF is the only legitimate force on the ground with any hope of pushing ISIS out of Raqqa. Unfortunately, the group is also closely linked with the YPG, which Turkey also considers a terrorist organization.

Unsurprisingly, following on the heels of the SDF’s announcement, the Department of Defense announced an effort to forge a long-term plan that incorporates Turkey into any attempt to retake the city. The plan will not only cover the retaking of Raqqa but also holding it and subsequently governing the city after as well. The main discussion currently is over the makeup of the forces involved in the attack. The U.S. and Turkey are both pushing for more local fighters, which they hope will make for a more stable government when the city does ultimately fall. While the parties involved are working on some sort of post-ISIS solution, it is important to understand how difficult politically and militarily it will be to take and govern the city.

The following video looks at the difficult relationship between the SDF, Turkey, and the United States:

Impact

While Turkey may be the greatest concern, it is certainly not the only concern when considering Raqqa after ISIS. As is the case in Mosul, the impact of ISIS losing a major city will reverberate beyond the city itself. This will be particularly true if the group loses both cities, as it will no longer hold a substantial population center. What will be their next move be when they have no city-sized safe-haven to launch attacks from?

Read More: The Battle for Mosul: The Fight for ISIS’s Stronghold in Iraq

While ISIS forces are being beaten back in Mosul they have become entrenched in smaller groups around the city, planning on surviving the offensive and continuing to fight as part of an insurgency. It is worth noting that in the fight for Mosul, ISIS has the luxury of retreating to Raqqa, but if Raqqa falls there is no such option.

In addition to ISIS itself, there are also the three principal actors in the effort: the Kurds, Turkey, and the United States. As mentioned previously, the United States has already announced a plan to include both the Turks and the Kurd-dominated SDF in taking and later governing the city. However, the details of this plan have not been revealed, which may be troubling to those familiar with secret deals concerning governing parts of the Middle East.

Additionally, the Assad regime, the Russians, and the Iranians also play an important role in the conflict. Although these groups are not involved in the planning and assault on Raqqa, so far at least, if ISIS lost the city it would change the nature of the fight in Syria. Instead of having ISIS to keep them occupied, the allied powers could then shift their focus to Assad. This could lead to any number of things, from more concerted peace talks to a full-on proxy war between the Assad regime’s supporters and the U.S. and its allies. The only certainty seems to be that if and when ISIS is pushed out of Raqqa, a power vacuum will be created and someone will have to fill it.

Conclusion

The SDF recently announced its intentions to take ISIS’s capital Raqqa, coinciding with the push to remove them from Mosul. However, this is much easier said than done. Not only is the geography different, the needed troops are not as readily available. In addition, the competing political concerns in Syria may be even greater than those in Iraq.

Despite these competing interests, people in ISIS-controlled areas are undoubtedly being slaughtered. Groups like Raqqa IS Being Slaughtered Silently have regularly shown extreme examples of repression under ISIS’s rule. It is because of this reality that the United States has pledged to act, however, sorting out the political challenges has slowed those efforts.

Along with appeasing the interests of its allies, the United States must also figure out the next step in its relationship with the Assad regime and its foreign backers. The taking of ISIS’s last major stronghold offers an opportunity for greater dialogue between the two sides, but also an avenue for direct conflict if peace cannot be achieved. Even if both Mosul and Raqqa are taken from ISIS, the group’s ideology is not likely to be eliminated completely. All of those involved must figure out what the future of Syria will look like before another group steps in to take up ISIS’s mantle.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Raqqa: Behind the Effort to Retake ISIS’s Capital appeared first on Law Street.

On October 25, France began dismantling the infamous migrant camp in the city of Calais nicknamed “the Jungle.” The camp was home to thousands of migrants and refugees and has been a source of division and animosity for the surrounding area. However, it is not just Calais that will be affected. In fact, the decision to shut down the camp actually speaks to larger trends both in France and in Europe at large. As the migrant crisis continues, many countries in Europe have had a hard time accommodating the influx of people.

Read on to find out more about what exactly is happening in Calais, where the refugees living there are headed next and how this all fits into the larger backdrop of national and continental politics.

Background

Migrants began settling in Calais, France way back in 1999. The camp survived several closure attempts, including one earlier this year. All the while the population grew, totaling more than 9,000 people, according to recent reports. Many people settled there on their way to the UK, as the camp is located near a tunnel between the two countries.

Read More: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

What’s Happening Now?

When authorities decided to tear down the camp, the next question was what exactly that meant for its inhabitants. Before the camp was cleared, there were thousands of people living there and at least 70 operating businesses. The plan is to move all these people and whatever they can carry with them to several sites across France. To expedite this process, the camp’s inhabitants were broken up into four groups: adult men, families, minors, and other vulnerable groups. During the removal process, conflicts and fires broke out as some were reluctant to uproot.

The video below depicts the deconstruction of the jungle:

Where are the Refugees Going?

Those leaving the camp were transported by bus to more than 450 individual reception centers across the country. These centers are generally abandoned hospitals, hotels, and army barracks located in many small towns. Once there, refugees are able to apply for asylum, but if their requests are denied they will face deportation. Not everyone is being forced out, unaccompanied children were allowed to stay in converted shipping containers as the rest of the camp was taken down. Days later, the remaining children were moved to various reception centers throughout the country. But NGOs have warned that since being resettled, many children are living in unsuitable conditions and are being forced to work.

Refugees there have already demonstrated a clear persistence to stay put if possible, with the goal to ultimately make it to England. England is currently set to accept some 200 children from the camp who have proven relatives in the UK, although it has promised not to accept any more.

Breaking down the Calais camp has also reignited the debate over immigration and refugee settlement. In England, politicians have been resistant to accept more refugees even as French President Hollande asks them to take on a greater share. British politicians, however, have been steadfast in their refusal, some have even been calling for dental exams to prove that children claiming refugee status are indeed children and not adults. And many small town residents in France have taken to the streets to protest the settlement of refugees in their communities.

Political Impact

At the forefront of the protests in France is the Front National, a nationalist political party led by Marine Le Pen. Le Pen’s party has spearheaded efforts to protest the settlement of immigrants in small towns. However, Le Pen’s party is certainly not alone. This development is emblematic of a trend across Europe where far-right parties, who oppose immigration as one of their central tenets, are on the rise.

Read more: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

This includes countries like Greece, Hungary, and Poland where dissatisfaction with the EU and the rising number of migrants has led to far-right parties securing large portions of parliament and in some cases the governing coalition. Some of these groups, such as the FIDESZ-KDNP in Hungary, have gone even further, espousing anti-Semitic views and seeking to criminalize homosexuality.

This rise is not solely confined to the poorer eastern portions of Europe, several nations, including France, have seen a growing backlash against immigration and immigrants. For example in Sweden, often held up as a golden standard of liberalism, the rise of the far-right Swedish Democrats, a party that strongly opposes immigration, led to the formation of a tenuous coalition government between the Social Democrats and the far-left Green Party.

In the upcoming elections in Germany, a far-right party may gain seats in parliament for the first time since World War II. Following mass reports of sexual assault last New Year’s Eve in Cologne, the Alternative for Germany Party, which has hard-line positions on immigration and strongly opposes Islam, grew in popularity. Perhaps the most significant example is in Austria, where the leader of a nationalist party has a very realistic chance of winning the presidency in the December runoff election. If successful, he would be the first far-right head of state elected in Europe since World War II. Migration also played a prominent role in the UK’s decision to leave the European Union earlier this year.

European Refugee crisis

Much of this reaction to the refugees in Calais is actually part of the larger reaction to a wave of immigrants flooding Europe in general. Europe has several demographic factors that make it an ideal place for immigrants, namely a shrinking native population and an increasing need for caretakers as its population ages. In addition, in terms of personal safety and economic prospects, many migrants see Europe as a significant improvement relative to their home countries.

In 2015, more than a million people arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Of those, about 476,000 have applied for asylum in Germany. While Germany received the most in total, on a per capita basis, Hungary, Sweden, and Austria have received more. Not coincidently, those three have seen a notable rise in far-right parties, all with platforms seeking to dramatically curtail immigration.

In Slovakia, Macedonia, and Hungary border walls have been erected to prevent migrants from getting through. France, Germany, Austria and Sweden, several of the most popular destinations, have instituted border checks. Norway has gone perhaps the furthest, though, by actually confiscating migrants’ valuables to pay for their care. Aside from these individual efforts, the EU as a whole has also worked on a deal with Turkey where, in exchange for billions in aid and reconsidering that country’s EU application, Turkey will prevent more migrants from entering Europe. The following video looks at the migration crisis in Europe:

Conclusion

What tearing down the Jungle actually means is unclear at this point. Particularly because it has been tried before, yet the camp has remained in place for almost 20 years under a range of politicians. What is more telling is the spirit behind the most recent decision to tear down the camp. While refugees are being offered the opportunity to be resettled, many migrants may not be granted asylum and will likely face deportation. Moreover, the situation in Europe has dramatically changed as far-right political parties are seeing their influence and popularity surge.

The refugee crisis has engulfed the continent. While many were first met with open arms, the mood has shifted and now many places are erecting barriers and denying entrance. This has coincided with a rise of far-right parties across the continent (as well as anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in the United States). Tearing down the Jungle, if it lasts this time, is symbolic as much as anything. However, the exact message being sent, whether hostile or not, remains unclear. The important thing to watch now is how those living the camp are resettled and how residents react to an influx of refugees.

Resources

CNN: Calais ‘Jungle’: Demolition of Massive Migrant Camp Begins

Law Street Media: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

NBC News: France Begins Evicting 6,000 Migrants From ‘Jungle’ Near Calais

Vox: France’s ‘Jungle’ Refugee Camp is Being Dismantled and Residents may have Nowhere to go

Reuters: ‘A Lot of Controversy’ Around Resettling Calais ‘Jungle’ Refugees

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The New York Times: How Far Is Europe Swinging to the Right?

BBC News: Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe Explained in Seven Charts

BBC News: How is the Migrant Crisis Dividing EU Countries

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Calais, Europe is Still Struggling to Deal with Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

On October 17, Iraqi Security forces, with the help of the Kurdish Peshmerga, irregular Iraqi forces, U.S. special forces, and American air power, began their assault on ISIS with the hope of retaking Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul. Not only is Mosul one of the largest and most economically important cities in Iraq, it also serves as a symbol of ISIS’s rise in the country as well as the Iraqi government’s inability to secure its land. The assault promises to be a long campaign, but if successful, could signal the impending end of ISIS in Iraq.

Read on to find out more about the campaign to retake Mosul, its significance in the fight against ISIS, and what it would mean for Iraq to regain the city.

History and Significance of Mosul

The city of Mosul emerged on the former site of Nineveh, an Assyrian fortress. The city’s rise began with it serving as an important link between Syria, Anatolia, and Persia. By the 8th century, it became the major city in Northern Mesopotamia, which is modern-day Iraq. Mosul reached its height in the 12th century under the Zangid Dynasty when it was a hotbed for metal work and miniature paintings. It was subsequently destroyed by Mongolian conquerors in the 13th century.

Mosul was slowly rebuilt and later ruled by the Ottoman Turks from the 16th to the 20th centuries. The British conquered the city during World War I and occupied the surrounding area for several years. It was later incorporated into Iraq. In the Lausanne Treaty negotiations  following the war, Mosul proved to be a contentious issue between the British and Turkish governments. The issue was eventually resolved by the League of Nations, which concluded that the city should be a part of Iraq, but the dispute shaped the way Turkey views the city today.

Prior to ISIS’s rise, Mosul was the capital of Iraq’s Northwestern Province. It had a population of approximately 2 million people before the invasion in 2014. Originally, Mosul was situated on the western bank of the Tigris River, however, it expanded across the river and now occupies parts of the eastern bank as well. In addition to being a regional capital, Mosul is also the commercial center of Northern Iraq. Not only is it home to several major industries and oil production, it also serves as an agricultural marketplace.

Mosul Under Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War

Mosul has also been the site of significant ethnic strife. Traditionally, Mosul was a major center for ethnic Kurds, however, in the 1970s Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party initiated a resettlement plan that moved a large number of Arabs into the area to displace them. Hussein’s plan was successful, eventually leading to a large Arab majority in the city. The new Arab majority responded favorably to Hussein and eventually there were as many as 300,000 Baath Party members in Mosul. Along with displacing the Kurds as a result of his Arabization policy, he also waged a war against them in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which left another 100,000 Kurds dead.

During the initial occupation of Mosul in 2003, U.S. forces managed to establish order in the city. However, when the American force was reduced, ethnic tensions spilled over with Kurds controlling one half of the city and Arabs the other. The strife broke out as Kurds tried to reclaim what they viewed as stolen property. This led to an insurgency of former regime members culminating in the Battle for Mosul in 2004. A coalition of American and Kurdish forces managed to push back the insurgents, at which point the battle lines returned to their status quo on the east and west halves of the city.

This was not the end of the insurgency, however, as the resistance shifted from former Baath members to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In early 2008, following the U.S. surge a year earlier, another round of fighting broke out between American and insurgent forces. The city was once again cleared of insurgents and greater efforts were then put in place to engage the community and avoid another conflict.

Mosul under ISIS

Capturing Mosul was key to ISIS’s rise in the region. ISIS derives much of its income from oil revenues and taxes.  Mosul offered both as it is close to key oil fields and has a massive population that could be taxed. Its location was also strategically important in allowing ISIS fighters to freely move about. Lastly, by conquering the ethnically and religiously diverse city, ISIS could claim the superiority of its own ideology.

ISIS’s takeover of Mosul came swiftly, marking a significant embarrassment for the Iraqi government and military. In June of 2014, ISIS fighters headed toward Mosul with the hope of occupying certain parts of the city for a short period of time to make a statement. But instead of just making a statement, ISIS was able to take the entire city and most of the surrounding region. The Iraqi security forces left to guard the city were undermanned and outgunned, yet another result of the government infighting that had plagued the nation. In their retreat, Iraqi forces also left behind weapons and other supplies that only strengthened ISIS’s capabilities.

Life under ISIS has been harsh for the city’s residents. While it was tolerable to some at first, especially those who supported the group, conditions have deteriorated, particularly after coalition bombings increased. ISIS became increasingly unable or unwilling to provide basic services such as electricity, fresh water, sanitation, and adequate food. Additionally, ISIS quickly embarked on a city-wide crackdown, forcing residents to abide by its strict religious and moral codes or receive punishment or even death. The city has slowly morphed into a prison-like atmosphere as the group has refused to let anyone leave.

The video below looks at the importance of Mosul to the Islamic State and why it is important for Iraqi forces to gain control of the city.

Taking back Mosul

The fight to take back Mosul is expected to be especially grueling and difficult. One of the Peshmerga generals predicted it may take up to two months to actually retake the city. That long timeline might surprise outside observers who look at the lopsided number of coalition forces and see a clear advantage–coalition forces have nearly 100,000 troops while estimates suggest there are at most 7,000 ISIS troops in Mosul. The matchup is even more advantageous for coalition forces because they will have significant air support while ISIS does not.

However, the assault on Mosul has not been a secret, although the exact dates have not been clear until recently. This lead up has given ISIS ample time to set up booby traps, lay IEDs, and develop defensive structures like tunnel networks. The group is also employing other familiar deadly weapons such as suicide bombers. Some even believe ISIS has mustard gas, an extremely harmful chemical agent, which it may unleash as a last resort. The group is unlikely to relinquish the position without a fierce fight, as it is symbolic of ISIS’s strength in Iraq. After all, Mosul is where the caliphate was originally declared. Losing Mosul would then be a significant blow for ISIS in Iraq.

The following video looks at the effort to take back Mosul:

Aftermath of the Battle for Mosul

What exactly happens for those involved once Mosul is liberated? The answer starts with the civilians on the ground; the United Nations, the Iraqi government, and the United States have already announced plans for humanitarian aid that will be desperately needed once ISIS has been ousted from the city. This includes basic survival goods that may need to be supplied for up to 12 months.

Building off of that, many of the people who are likely to flee the fighting are Sunnis. One of the major issues within the government, and one that helped sow the seeds for ISIS’s rise, was discrimination against Sunnis by the current and former Iraqi governments. The people in charge will have to figure out how to create a more inclusive country, instead of continuing to seek to redress old wrongs. The other side of that same concern is the role of the Kurds.

The Kurds make up a significant part of the force attempting to retake Mosul, however, there is an agreement in place stopping them from entering the city’s center in order to avoid political tensions. The Kurds’ power has only grown and solidified over the last two years as they have played a pivotal role in the fight to defeat ISIS, while the official Iraqi government has basically just weathered the storm. If ISIS is defeated in Mosul as many anticipate, in the wake of the victory the Kurds may finally feel strong enough to declare an independent state of their own in the north.

Lastly, it is important to look at the battle’s significance for ISIS itself. What would losing its Northern Iraq stronghold mean to the group? It will likely mean the end of the ISIS-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq and Syria, where ISIS is also losing territory. However, it does not mean the end of the group and certainly not the end of ISIS-style extremism. ISIS still has bases in other countries with weak governments and where Sunni minorities are ostracized, such as Libya and Yemen. As long as those conditions exist, ISIS is likely to thrive. And even if it is not ISIS, another group will likely emerge to replace it, much like how Al Qaeda in Iraq led to ISIS in the first place. The main issue then is the social, economic, and political exclusion of certain groups. These conditions have often been exaggerated by Iran and Saudi Arabia’s battle for the Middle East, which must be addressed to prevent the influence of terrorist groups in the region.

Conclusion

Even if the battle for Mosul is a success, will it be viewed as a success for everyone? The Kurds certainly look to gain with the elimination of their main rival in the North. The fall of ISIS in Mosul, combined with other gains that the Kurds have made since ISIS emerged, has them in a position to potentially seek a state of their own.

However, an independent Kurdish state may not be particularly appealing to the Sunni Arabs in Mosul, who have long battled Kurds for control of the city and have felt marginalized by the Shia-dominated government in Baghda. Speaking of the Iraqi government, will Iraqi citizens trust a fractious government to protect them going forward when it just let them fall under the control of an extremist group?

Will this also be the end of extremist groups in the region or will simmering Sunni discontent lay the groundwork for another group or some form of ISIS resurgence? Only time can answer these questions, but even if the battle for Mosul is successful, it may not be the last one in the near future.

Resources

Institute for the Study of War: The Fight for Mosul

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mosul

Business Insider: One Paragraph Explains how ISIS Managed to Seize Iraq’s Second-Largest City

CNN: Mosul offensive: Territory Recaptured from ISIS

The Guardian: Life Under ISIS in Raqqa and Mosul: ‘We’re Living in a Giant Prison’

Reuters: As Mosul Fight Approaches, Worries About the Day After

Newsweek: The Battle Against ISIS in Mosul Could Lead to an Independent Iraqi Kurdistan

CNN: What happens after ISIS loses Mosul?

Human Rights Watch: Claims in Conflict Reversing Ethnic Cleansing in Northern Iraq

ARA News: Peshmerga Official says Kurds Won’t Enter Mosul City

Rudaw: The importance of Mosul for ISIS

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle for Mosul: The Fight for ISIS’s Stronghold in Iraq appeared first on Law Street.

Communities in southwestern Haiti were devastated when Hurricane Matthew struck the Tiburon Peninsula on October 4, 2016. Accompanied by rapid winds, heavy rainfall, and subsequent flooding, the Category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale killed at least 1,000 people, destroyed countless homes, and displaced thousands. Approximately 2.1 million people have been affected, 1.4 million need humanitarian aid, 750,000 need urgent help, and 806,000 are at an extreme level of food insecurity. Haiti, which is roughly the size of South Carolina, was ill-equipped to withstand another natural disaster. For the past six years this Caribbean country has been trying to recuperate from the 2010 earthquake that left more than 200,000 dead (according to Haitian government figures) and wreacked havoc upon a preexisting weak infrastructure. Now history seems to be repeating itself.

Communication networks are down, crops were destroyed, and roads have been blockaded by debris–making it all the more strenuous for citizens to receive the assistance they desperately need. Simultaneously burdened by two catastrophes, once again Haitians are bracing themselves for another cholera outbreak. Yet with limited financial resources and crumbling medical facilities, some hospitals don’t even have enough gasoline to put into ambulances or any antibiotics left to ward off the waterborne disease.

“Needs are growing as more affected areas are reached,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, whose organization recently pledged $120 million for humanitarian aid in Haiti. “Tensions are already mounting as people await help. A massive response is required.”

Oftentimes referred to as the “republic of NGOs” (non-governmental organizations), Haiti rarely receives the aid it is promised. Although some would consider the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere to be susceptible to certain ailments (like inclement weather and bad governance), the reality of the situation is that Haitians haven’t gotten the necessary support to thrive as a sovereign nation after decades of economic exploitation, American military intervention, and poorly implemented aid projects.

Colonial History

Much of Haiti’s tumultuous past stems from its colonial predecessors: Spain and France. From 1492 to 1625, the island of Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic) was administered by Spain. Originally the native Taíno inhabited the island, but the Arawak group was essentially wiped out after Christopher Columbus and his fellow voyagers brought infectious diseases. During this era, however, a variety of European powers were competing for geopolitical power and resources in the Caribbean. The 1697 Treaty of Ryswick allowed France to inherit Haiti from Spain in order to mitigate conflict between the two colonial powers. The western third of the island became “Saint-Domingue” under French rule, while Spain maintained its sphere of influence in the neighboring Dominican Republic.

Throughout the 1700s, Haiti became the wealthiest colony in the “New World”–making up more than a quarter of France’s economy in the process. During the peak of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, however, such wealth was only achieved through brutal means. Thousands of enslaved Africans were brought over to the French territory to perform backbreaking labor on Haiti’s many sugarcane plantations. This exploitation continued until 1801 when a successful slave revolt defeated the French army, making Haiti the first black republic in 1804. However, in order to achieve international recognition and persuade French warships to leave Haitian harbors, Haiti was coerced in 1825 into paying their oppressors an “independence debt” worth 150 million gold francs. Valued at approximately $21 billion by today’s standards, this large sum of money was meant to compensate French colonists for their lost profits. Although the remaining $36 million of debt was forgiven by the World Bank in 2010, some attribute this initial debt to having predisposed Haiti to immense economic shortcomings. 

The United States has also contributed to Haiti’s myriad of problems. Concerned about European rivals in 1914, former President Woodrow Wilson deployed American troops in Haiti to ensure that no other country would try to exert influence in the region. Another reason why the United States interjected was the political instability of Haiti. In fact, between 1888 and 1915 no Haitian president managed to complete their seven-year term due to numerous military coups, assassinations, and deaths of natural causes. American intervention lasted from 1914 to 1934 until President Franklin Roosevelt enacted his “Good Neighbor Policy.” Following three decades of American occupation, despotic dictatorships under François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier plummeted the country into further political and economic turmoil. Democracy was only temporarily restored with the appointment of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was temporarily ousted in a 1991 military coup.

American Intervention & Clinton Administration Controversies

In contrast to other American politicians, Bill and Hillary Clinton have made Haiti a focal point of their foreign policy, but that focus hasn’t been without controversy. In the early 1990s Bill Clinton won the love and admiration of many Haitians after helping the democratically-elected President Aristide return to office after he was ousted in a 1991 coup. However, this was only accomplished by enforcing another U.S.-led intervention that lasted approximately two years. Ever since then, Washington has played an immense role in dictating Haitian politics and economics. While serving as Secretary of State, for example, Hillary Clinton’s administration was accused of threatening to withhold foreign aid to Haiti if the 2010 presidential elections didn’t yield the candidate Washington desired. Additionally, the highly anticipated Caracol Industrial Park–a 600-acre textile factory meant to provide much-needed jobs to Haitians–was a Clinton Foundation project. The Clinton Foundation promised it would create 60,000 jobs in five years, but the enterprise only employs approximately 5,000 laborers as of mid-2015.

Other adverse effects of American involvement can be found in Haiti’s agriculture and economy. For example, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Haiti became more dependent on international imports. Pressured by the United States, the Haitian government was persuaded to lower tariffs on imported food (including rice) from 50 percent to about three percent–making their main export less valuable in the process. Instead of growing their own rice, Haitians started to rely more heavily on exported rice, therefore becoming less capable of feeding themselves with domestically-grown products. 

The Clintons were also accused of mishandling 14.3 billion dollars of donation money that was intended to go toward relief efforts following the 2010 earthquake. Under Ban Ki-moon’s jurisdiction, Bill Clinton became the UN envoy to Haiti tasked with spearheading relief efforts. Based on a report by neoconservative group PJ Media, though, this money allegedly went to “friends of Bill” instead.

Effectiveness of Non-Profits

Among the estimated 10,000 non-profits operating out of Haiti, perhaps the most notorious is the American Red Cross. Normally held in high regards, the humanitarian organization pledged to help Haiti rebuild itself after the fatal 2010 earthquake. The charity managed to fundraise approximately $500 million through soliciting donations. The money was supposed to fund the construction of new homes, roads, schools, etc., but after six years it appears as though the Red Cross has not fulfilled its promises. In fact, it’s unclear where all the money even went.

This past summer ProPublica and NPR conducted an extensive investigation that revealed a series of fabrications and haphazard estimations among the samaritan group. The joint effort examined an array of confidential memos and emails from administrative higher-ups that show how “the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.”

One of the most garish falsifications involved housing. Apparently, the Red Cross claimed to have built homes for over 130,000 people in the neighborhood of Campeche in Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince, but in reality only six were constructed. Another controversial discovery is the amount of overhead costs that the Red Cross gives to its employees, which more often than not are non-Haitians. For example, a project manager working in Haiti receives an allowance of $140,000 meant to cover housing, food, paid trips home, four vacations a years, and relocation expenses. In contrast, a Haitian senior engineer earns $42,000 a year. Because of such disparities, Haitian non-profits are known for perpetuating inequalities among a small group of wealthy foreign elites–most of whom cannot speak Haitian-Creole, nor French.

Conclusion

Despite the UN’s current attempts to rejuvenate Haiti, even it isn’t immune to scrutiny–especially when it comes to the ongoing health crisis surrounding cholera. The fact of the matter is that Haiti was cholera-free for over a century before UN peacekeepers reintroduced the infectious disease back to the island. Cholera is a fast-spreading infectious disease known for causing severe diarrhea and dehydration. As certain reports have proven, waste generated from UN facilities crept into a river, which in the end contaminated other nearby bodies of water. Since fresh water was scarce in Haiti to begin with, now it is even more difficult to find sanitary water to drink or bathe in.

“The need for a new UN response that both controls and eliminates cholera and compensates the victims who have suffered so much is now more dire than ever,” said Beatrice Lindstrom, who serves as a human rights lawyer with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

Haiti will continue to be plagued with problems if the impoverished country is unable to properly recover from disease outbreaks like this, as well as devastating natural disasters. Decades of economic exploitation, flawed aide efforts, and further interference and exploitation from other countries inhibit this country’s ability to thrive as a sovereign nation.

Resources

Al Jazeera: Ban Ki-moon in Haiti Inspects Matthew’s Damage

Al Jazeera: Haiti Death Toll from Hurricane Matthew Passes 1,000

Alternet: How America and the Rest of the World Ruined Haiti

BBC: Haiti Quake Death Toll Rises to 230,000

BBC: The Long History of Troubled Ties Between Haiti and the US

TIME: The World Must Not Abandon Haiti to the Devastation Left by Hurricane Matthew 

The Daily Beast: How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti

Foreign Policy in Focus: Are Foreign NGOs Rebuilding Haiti or Just Cashing In?

The Guardian: Hollande Promises to Pay ‘Moral Debt’ to Former Colony Haiti

Miami Herald: In Post-Hurricane Haiti, a Picture of the Human Toll Begins to Emerge

NPR: In Search of the Red Cross’ $500 Million in Haiti Relief

Newsweek: Reasons Behind Haiti’s Poverty

New York Times: Cholera Deaths in Haiti Could Far Exceed Official Count

PJ Media: Former Haitian Senate President Calls Clintons ‘Common Thieves Who Should Be in Jail’

Politico: The King and Queen of Haiti

ProPublica: How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti and Built Six Homes

Reuters: World Bank Cancels Remaining Haiti Debt

London Review of Books: Who Removed Aristide?: Paul Farmer Reports From Haiti

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the year in which the Treaty of Ryswick was signed. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Haiti’s History of Disappointments: Intervention, Exploitation, and NGOs appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

A political gridlock has rattled Spain for the past nine months, leaving the country without a national government and with a fractured legislature. Officials within this parliamentary constitutional monarchy simply haven’t prevailed in forming a coalition government among longtime feuding politicians. Operating under stressful conditions, the 350-seat assembly in the lower house of Congress cannot reach a consensus over the fate of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his contested People’s Party (PP). In spite of the group’s initial landslide victory in 2011, today the Spanish parliament (known as “Cortes Generales” in Spanish) is divided on whether or not the incumbent should be allowed to claim minority-rule within the estranged governmental system. The past two attempts to hold national elections were inconclusive due to the PP failing to earn a majority vote, despite receiving the highest numbers during the first plebiscite on December 20, 2015. 

For all intents and purposes, Spain is still a relatively young democracy. The death of former dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, for example, permitted the restoration of democratic rights and the development of a stringent two-party structure split between conservatives and socialists. With Spanish politics more stratified than ever before in recent history, there are more competitors seeking political representation and trying to secure power–making negotiations all the more complex. The fact of the matter is that none of these parties have succeeded in gaining the majority vote throughout the past two elections, hence the ongoing volatility and third round of polling looming over Spaniards’ head. In acknowledgment of Spain’s dynamic intergovernmental structure, this article attempts to introduce readers to some of the most central characters and predicaments within this game of political charades.

The Important Players

Mariano Rajoy: Even with rampant opposition, Mariano Rajoy still serves as the “caretaker” Prime Minister of Spain and leader of the conservative-leaning PP. Ultimately, the native Galician aspires to serve a second-term as prime minister, which would theoretically end what some consider to be political mayhem. Easier said than done, though, considering the polarization of Spanish politics. Nowadays he is scrambling to regain power by trying to win a vote of confidence from his colleagues, which has yet to yield positive results considering the fierce opposition he faces from the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE).

Made evident by Rajoy’s fall from grace, many of these issues stem from the parliamentary requisite for an absolute majority–meaning that despite receiving the most votes in the past two attempted elections, the PP still lagged behind. Adding fuel to the fire, Rajoy’s reputation started to tarnish after his PSOE rival, Pedro Sánchez, accused him of financial corruption. Allegedly Rajoy was in cahoots with the former treasurer, Luis Bárcenas, in operating a “secret slush fund” for the PP’s campaign purposes. Today Bárcenas is serving time for corruption, money-laundering, and tax evasion after it was exposed that he hoarded 47 million euros in Swiss bank accounts.   

“I made a mistake in maintaining confidence in someone we now know did not deserve it,” said Rajoy, who maintained his party’s innocence. “Nothing related to this matter has prevented me, nor will it prevent me from governing.”

Pedro Sánchez: At the forefront of opposition against Rajoy is the former secretary general of the PSOE, Pedro Sánchez. Compared to other lawmakers, he and his deputies are influential players in hindering Rajoy’s attempts to form a minority government. Originally King Felipe of Spain appointed Sánchez to pioneer a new system following Rajoy’s decline. Earlier this month, though, Sánchez resigned after a tense 11-hour deliberation with fellow party members on October 1. Sánchez, who was considered to be Rajoy’s most prominent antagonist, was ousted after the party ruled against him in a 132-107 vote. Spirits appeared to be deflated after senior PSOE member José Antonio Pérez Tapias told reporters outside the assembly that “the party is broken.” Now that Sánchez is seemingly out of the picture, many Spaniards believe that Rajoy will finally be able to regain the support he needs to rejuvenate Spain’s central government.  

King Felipe VI: Looming over Rajoy and Sánchez is King Felipe VI of Spain, who certainly complicates today’s political conundrum based on how he plays “both sides of the fence.” For example, it is the king’s monarchical duty under the constitution to appoint (or rather endorse) an elected prime minister, but lately this seems more like a neglected formality. At this point in the political impasse, the head of state and commander-in-chief of Spain holds little clout when it comes to restoring order. King Felipe VI was originally responsible for endorsing Sánchez to pioneer a new and improved government after Rajoy’s foundation plummeted. However, Sánchez and his Socialist party also lack the necessary parliamentary support to win majority-rule as well–only possessing 85 seats of the 350-seat legislature. To add insult to injury, his attempts to beckon Rajoy to power (once again) were also unfruitful. 

Contributing Factors to the Political Paralysis

What all of these delegates have in common are earnest intentions to alleviate Spain’s long-standing economic issues. Following the aftermath of the 2007 economic crisis, 4.8 million Spaniards are jobless–leaving Spain with an unemployment rate of 20 percent, one of the highest in the developed world. In light of this national issue, two other parties have materialized to challenge the dual-partisan system and remedy the record-high unemployment rates. One of these groups is Ciudadanos (meaning “Citizens” in Spanish) led by Albert Rivera, one of the most popular Spanish leaders. The centre-left party forged an alliance with PP to create anti-corruption measures in parliament and help Rajoy find his way back into office. Conversely, there is also Unidos Podemos (meaning “United We Can” in Spanish) who are known for their staunch opposition against austerity measures and leftist-leaning ideologies. Pablo Iglesias, Unidos Podemos’ young charismatic leader, feels good about shaking up Spain’s status-quo.

“What happened was nothing short of revolutionary,” said Iglesias in reference to the collapse of Spain’s longstanding two-party arrangement in December. “Because even with an electoral system that promotes bipartisanship, we have this completely new landscape.”

Another indelible factor complicating Spain’s election is the stratification among regions vying for more autonomy, specifically in regards to Catalonia. Every political body appears to have a different opinion about their quest for sovereignty. The wealthy region where Barcelona is located recently promised to hold another referendum for independence in September of 2017, which will certainly infuriate certain individuals and potentially plunge the country into further confusion. PP and Ciudadanos are hesitant to approve the secession, PSOE is open to making constitutional changes, while Unidos Podemos is completely willing to allow the region to secede.

Conclusion

If a coalition government isn’t formed by October 31, then we can anticipate King Felipe VI will dissolve parliament and enforce a third-round of elections on Christmas day, which is an outcome many Spaniards are dreading. According to the Spain’s main newspaper El País, this would be an “unmitigated disaster.” Yet with Sanchez’s recent resignation, many speculate that Rajoy’s party now yields higher chances to obtain a true majority. Upcoming regional elections in Galicia and the Pais Vasco (Basque Country) are also expected to play important roles in determining the outcome of Spain’s national governance. Galicia’s highly anticipated election may serve in Rajoy’s favor considering that he is from the northern region himself and could prospectively align himself with the newly elected officials. For the time being, though, onlookers can expect a lot more negotiating and emblazoned attempts to form much-needed alliances. Let’s hope that the rivalries simmer down in the interim. 

Resources

Al Jazeera: Spain: Is This the End of the Socialists?

Financial Times: Spain: Political Stalemate in Madrid

The Guardian: Spain Eyes Basque and Galician Elections to Break Political Deadlock

The Guardian: Spain Moves Towards Rightwing Government After Socialist Quits

The Guardian: Unidos Podemos: Spain’s Leftwing Alliance Hoping to End Political Impasse

New York Times: Spain’s Interim Leader Bids to Form New Government

Reuters: Center-Right Roars to Victory in Spain Election

Reuters: Spain’s Socialist Leader Quits and Opens Door to End of Deadlock  

The Spanish Report: Pedro Sánchez Resigns As PSOE Leader

The Spanish Report: PP Wins Most Votes but Loses 63 Seats, Rajoy Says he will Try to Form a New Government

Sputnik News: Spain’s Citizens and People’s Party Ink Alliance Deal Before PM Investiture Vote

The Telegraph: Spain’s Mariano Rajoy Reels Under Corruption Charges in TV Debate

Wall Street Journal: Spain’s Socialist Leader Resigns in Potential Breakthrough to Country’s Political Impasse

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Dreaded Third Round of Elections Predicted for Spain: How Will it Escape Political Gridlock? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 G20 Summit ended on September 5, however, it didn’t come to a conclusion on all of its topics of discussion. Issues that remained unresolved after the meeting include the Syrian crisis, Russian involvement in Ukraine (and Syria), the fallout from Brexit, North Korea’s missile tests, and even whether President Obama using a smaller staircase to descend from Air Force One amounts to a slight by the Chinese. While these summits are often touted as important events for economic and diplomatic cooperation, it’s worth asking what purpose they serve when so many issues consistently remain unresolved.

What are they for, why do the size of the summits change, how does a country get an invite, and is anything discussed at them actually lasting? Read on to find out about all these questions and more about the G-summits.

G20 2016

The 2016 G20 summit was held in Hangzhou, China. As China was the host it took center stage, touting its economic plan focusing on its new Silk Road initiative and the Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank. China also made an effort to include a record number of countries in order to bolster its mission to achieve development and inclusion, something dubbed the “Hangzhou Consensus.”

Perhaps the most notable development, though, was the Chinese and U.S. joint ratification of the Paris climate change, which happened just before the summit began. Nevertheless, the criticism of this meeting, like many past summits, was the quantity of promises exceeding that of concrete commitments.

Background

The 2016 meeting was the most recent G20 summit but it was by no means the first. The inaugural event happened in 1999 as a meeting among finance ministers in countries with large economies. Since then, regular meetings have become an important aspect of economic cooperation. As the name implies it includes 20 members of the international community–Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. Along with these nations and regional blocs, several non-state actors attend the G20 including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Financial Stability Board, the International Labor Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The G7 was the first of these international summits, starting back in 1975. (The first meeting was actually only attended by six of the countries, as Canada did not attend until 1976. For this reason, some refer to the initial summit as the G6).

The G7 originated when seven countries, including the United States, joined together to address the oil embargo in 1973 that had been triggered by Western support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War. G7 is short for the Group of Seven Industrialized Nations and it included the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Canada. Since 1991, Russia regularly met with countries at the G7 summit and in 1998, it was added to form the G8.

The following video looks at the emergence of these summits and their purpose:

While the exact reason for the addition of the G20 in 1999 was not explicitly spelled out, the increasing economic significance of developing countries made them desirable partners for the international summits. Even with this addition, though, some feel that G8 members still wield greater power in the G20 than the other members. Regardless of that specific sentiment, even when the organization was just seven members, other countries in the developing world were invited to participate and exerted some influence. Russia, in particular, participated before becoming a member and even joined in on some of the dialogue since 1991. Even after the expansion to the G20, the original G8 members still meet at a separate event. The site where the meeting will be hosted is rotated between the eight member countries. The video below gives a brief explanation of the G8 and G20:

The video below gives a brief explanation of the G8 and G20:

Purpose

Initially, the G20 summit, and the G8 before it, was a place for finance ministers and central bank governors to discuss economic matters, including international financial and monetary policies, international institutions, and world economic development. However, that role changed following the 2008 financial crisis when the first Leaders Summit was held in Washington, D.C. At the next summit, in 2009 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, world leaders announced that the new G20 would overtake the G8 as the primary means of international economic cooperation.

Ultimately, no decisions made in the meetings are binding. The main goal of the meetings is to serve as an open forum for communication. Thus, it is not surprising that even after the meetings end, follow-up discussion continues. This is done through sherpas–representatives of the officials who attend the actual meetings. These people keep in regular communication concerning the decisions made at the most recent meeting. Ministerial meetings also occur throughout the year, which include finance ministers from member nations.

Criticism and Controversy

Like other international events involving economic policy, the G8 and G20 have their detractors. The first protesters at a G8 Summit appeared in 1998 to denounce globalization. The dispute eventually turned deadly three years later when a protester was killed during a clash. The G20 has also been the site of protests virtually every year since its inception. This has been increasingly true following the financial crisis, as the leaders who met annually were viewed as the personification of a problem that led to global calamity.

Aside from protests surrounding the meetings, there has also been dissent within. In 2014, the original G7 members declined to attend that year’s G8 meeting in Russia to protest Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Instead, the member countries held their own G7 conference in Brussels. Since then, Russia has been expelled from the group and the G8 has returned to the original G7 group.

Impact

For all the media exposure that these summits generate, the actual impact of the G7/G8 and G20 is up for debate. For its part, the G20 is not actually an organization but a network that brings various organizations together. However, this has not stopped it from competing with other organizations, on purpose or not, such as the IMF and World Bank. Still, the G20 relies on those organizations and others to actually address the issues identified and outlined at the meetings.

The G20’s biggest impact has been through its broadened membership. Specifically, it now includes countries such as China, India, and Brazil, all of which have large economies. The hope behind this move was that the additional countries would speak for themselves of course, but also for other countries facing similar issues. Due to the informality of these events, however, some argue that this hope has not yet been realized. For many of these countries, with this being their first time on the world stage, they are merely learning the basics.

The G8 is also a rather informal affair and, in fact, has maintained that arrangement on purpose. In 1998 for example, Britain stopped sending its finance minister as a way to separate the G8 from the traditional ministerial meetings. The concept was further decentralized and ministers began having separate events throughout the year. The impact of both the G8 and G20 is not necessarily in the results that they generate but the opportunities they present for collaboration and communication.

Conclusion

The G8 and G20 serve as important forums where the world’s most powerful countries can meet to discuss pressing economic issues that affect the entire planet. The process started as many of the leading organization today have, with a western focus. However, with the introduction of the G20, in which many more voices are heard, that focus has decidedly broadened.

Even after the addition of the G20, it is still unclear what these summits do and if they are even useful. Similar to criticisms of other international institutions, such as the United Nations, these summits have been viewed as generating lots of ideas while offering fewer actual benefits. Additionally, these summits have been met with significant backlash, as evidenced by the mass protests that follow them around, year after year, from country to country. This unpopularity has only increased following the 2008 financial crisis.

While these criticisms may have merit, they also lack nuance. The G8 and G20 were specifically designed to be forums, not supranational deciding bodies. As unpopular as they are now, it is easy to imagine how much more so they would be if they actually made policy. For an example, look at the E.U. and the way that many of its member states have taken issue with its top-down style of rule-making. Instead, they are a place for leaders and ministers to gather and discuss. Sometimes they can be used as political tools, but they can also offer a chance at dialogue that otherwise does not exist. Thus, the meetings are likely to continue because at the very least they offer prestige to the host (see China in 2016) and at best, they create the international community leaders need to address problems.

Resources

Time: 7 Things You Might Have Missed at China’s G20 Summit

DifferenceBetween.net: Difference Between G8 and G20

G20: About G20

University of Toronto Library: What are the G7 and G8?

Global Brief: The G20 and the Developing World

The Guardian: China’s G20 summit was big on show but short on substance

European Commission: G7/G8, G20

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post G7, G8, G20: Are the Major Economic Forums Important? appeared first on Law Street.

The appearance of one’s hair may seem like a trivial or superficial matter to some. For students at South Africa’s Pretoria High School for Girls or PHSG, however, hair is an integral part of their cultural identity–and it’s currently under attack. Fed up with being told that they look “exotic” or distracting to others, or chastised for speaking their own local languages, these young girls have taken to the streets to protest the institute’s dress code and code of conduct as inherently racist. 

Pupils at the prestigious all-girls school, which became racially integrated in 1990 (four years before apartheid ended), have historically been penalized for adorning “natural” hair in the form of afros or cornrows more than a centimeter wide. Girls at the school have been forced to straighten or chemically “relax” their hair to satisfy the school’s standards. Those who fail to conform to such regulations face possible disciplinary action that not only deducts from valuable class time, but also contributes to the development of low self-esteem and a sense of inferiority.

“You weren’t welcomed into any assembly; you’d most probably be kicked out of class,” said Tiisetso Phetla, a recent graduate of the PHSG, about the consequences of looking too “native.” “So it basically took away your learning time, it took away your right to education and the image of beauty that you possess of yourself because that’s what they were telling you, that you’re not good enough to be here with your natural hair.”

Despite the abolition of apartheid more than 20 years ago, many black South African students say the country’s current education system continues to be full of racial inequalities that force them to assimilate into a foreign culture.  This country is still healing from decades of systematic segregation and marginalization, but policies against natural hair are just the tip of a much larger, problematic iceberg.

History of Apartheid-Era Policies

Before apartheid was enacted in 1948, black schools fell under the jurisdiction of missionaries and churches, meaning they were relatively autonomous from white minority rule. Educational inequalities were exasperated when the National Party centralized the nation’s education system under the Bantu Education Act of 1952. This mandate segregated South Africans into “population groups,” deliberately depriving blacks from receiving a quality education. The architects of apartheid justified such arrangements with the false advocation of a “Christian National Education,” saying that “the task of white South African with regard to the native is to Christianize him and help him culturally.” 

South Africa’s Department of Education was unevenly partitioned by race as a result of the Bantu Education Act, with black schools receiving the least amount of funding, resources, and qualified teachers. The ordinance also determined the length of time students had to be in school, which of course varied by one’s perceived ancestry. While whites were obligated to be enrolled in school from the ages of seven to fifteen, black students were only expected to attend from seven to thirteen, if at all. By limiting access to the classroom and keeping access to education low, the blatantly racist act ensured that blacks remained part of the poorer working class. Considering that students at PHSG can lose classroom time for simply wearing their hair in its natural form, today’s circumstances have opened old wounds for many South Africans.

Has the Rainbow Nation Fulfilled its Promises?

Originally, when democracy was introduced in South Africa in the early 1990s, education was touted as the key to solving South Africa’s economic and social inequities. As the World Bank put it in a 2010 report, “development through education would lead to freedom.”

Yet some scholars believe South African schools function under “de facto” segregation. More specifically, only white students can afford to study at private institutes, while black students and students of other ethnicities are left with resource-scarce schools. All things considered, these educational barriers have magnified economic disparities for people of color in South Africa. Fact of the matter is that blacks earned 20 percent of what their white counterparts were making in 1994 when apartheid formally ended. Considering that blacks are still on the lower-end of the economic spectrum, they still have less means to pay for schooling, and are therefore less likely to attend school at all.

Post-apartheid South Africa also saw a shift in policies, from being race-based to race-blind. What this means is that although South African schools cannot legally deny admission to somebody based on their race, black learners are still in overwhelmingly black schools. The majority of African students continue to live in rural areas or geographically isolated urban communities, which reinforces apartheid-era restrictions that forced blacks to reside in their own separate communities that were typically off the grid. This has made white schools all the more whiter. Therefore, schools are being segregated by default without overt racial discrimination ever being brought into the picture.

Present-Day Movement for Equal Rights

Equal Education, a South African civil rights group, was not surprised by the recent discrepancies from PHSG. The organization, which is comprised of activists, educators, students, and parents alike, strives to mobilize stakeholders in finding democratic solutions to these oftentimes neglected problems. For example, the committee implores the Department of Basic Education and provincial education departments to be adequately trained on matters of diversity and human rights. According to a press release on its website:

Racist prejudice is being expressed in the language of undemocratic school governance. South Africa’s schools continue to be dominated by hierarchical and authoritarian power relations. Just as racism must be rooted out of these institutions, so too must their modes of governance be transformed so that it will not be possible for learners to be victimized like this in future.

Students from PHSG are also joining a much wider educational reform effort aiming to dismantle and “decolonize” the remnants of apartheid throughout South African schools. For example, proposed tuition increases in 2015 resulted in massive demonstrations last October, which later came to be known as the #FeesMustFall movement. At the epicenter of this activity were black South Africans who (aware of previous precedents) thought such proposals were deliberate means to exclude them from receiving an education. They succeeded in persuading South Africa’s president, Jacob Zuma, to prevent a tuition hike from being legalized, but recently the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, said that it should be up to a university’s discretion to raise tuition or not. Protests are still ongoing. 

Similarly, a documentary entitled “Luister“ (which translates to “listen” in Afrikaans) showcased 32 interviews from black students at Stellenbosch University–all of whom discussed their trials and tribulations at allegedly one of the most racist schools in South Africa. Dan Corder, a literature student at the University of Cape Town, produced the 35-minute film in 17 days after his friend was penalized for protesting against the school’s language policy, which they say clearly favors Afrikaans speakers. In fact, many South African public schools (like PHSG) and universities shun local African dialects and only conduct classes in the colonial language.

“Being black within the Stellenbosch community you know that you’re not accepted and you kind of ask yourself what’s wrong with me, like what did I do wrong?” said one interviewee. “In the beginning I actually started to assimilate, you know, wanting to lose myself and attain whiteness. Maybe this will work better and they’ll accept me more because I’m trying to be like them. And I realized that I cannot do that. I’m not willing to sell my soul to whiteness. I have to be proudly black.”

Conclusion

Following nationwide demonstrations, an online petition that garnered more than 30,000 signatures, and a meeting with parents, administrators in Gauteng province suspended PHSG’s code of conduct surrounding in response to the protests over hair. The Head of Education, Panyaza Lesufi, also announced that an investigation will soon commence over accusations of racism.

“The code of conduct […] is insensitive to different people and discriminates badly against black pupils as it asks them to straighten their hair,” said Lesufi. “ That is not fair because some pupils have natural[ly curly] hair so we have agreed with the student governing body that it be suspended.”

Resources

Primary

Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy: Racial Equality in Education: How Far has South Africa Come?

Additional

CNN: South African Students Protest Against School’s Alleged Racist Hair Policy

The Guardian: Luister: the Viral Film Exposing South Africa’s Ongoing Racism Problem

The Guardian: South African Students Speak Out Against ‘Aggressive’ Ban on Afro Hair

NPR: Girls At South African High School Protesting Hair And Language Bans

The Washington Post: Protests Over Black Girls’ Hair Rekindle Debate About Racism in South Africa

The Washington Post: South Africa’s Student Protests are Part of a Much Bigger Struggle

Education Equality: We Demand an End to Prejudicial School Codes of Conduct!

Stanford University: A Brief History of Educational Inequality from Apartheid to the Present

The World Bank: South Africa’s Long Walk to Educational Equality

South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy: Bantu Education

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Apartheid-Era Racism?: South African Students Protest Discrimination in Education appeared first on Law Street.

Tensions between residents of Okinawa Prefecture in Japan and stationed American soldiers have reached a new boiling point. Last week court officials in the prefectural capital of Naha rejected incumbent Governor Takeshi Onaga’s bid to close down the disputed Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan. The resolution signified the first official judicial ruling over the complex reclamation project that was ignited in 1996 after three American soldiers were convicted of abducting and murdering a 12-year-old girl. Long-time opponents were once again outraged over the recent slaying of 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro by former U.S. Marine and current military contractor, Kenneth Franklin Shinzato.

Onaga’s administration teamed up with locals to urge the national government to scrap the foreign airbase altogether, but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe followed through on his resolution to relocate the contested encampment into a less populated region of Japan’s southernmost province. Keep reading to learn more about how the Okinawa is struggling to achieve self-autonomy after decades of American military intervention.

History

A historical perspective is necessary to fully grasp such a political conundrum. During World War II Okinawa (formerly known as the sovereign Kingdom of Ryukyu) experienced some of the bloodiest fighting and conflict against the Allied Powers, particularly due to its strategic location between the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Some accounts say that up to 70,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa, which wasn’t as widely documented as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the United States defeated Japan, Washington controlled Okinawa for 27 years until it became reincorporated on May 15, 1972.  However, the United States government managed to maintain its military installations throughout the island after signing a bilateral security treaty to end the war. Today there are over 25,000 American personnel deployed at 32 American military bases located on Okinawa, which occupy approximately 20 percent of the island’s total landmass.

Before Governor Onaga was elected in December of 2014, former Governor Hirokazu Nakaima permitted the construction of a new American military base in Nago, which is where Futenma will likely be relocated. The legislation has yet to be implemented, however, due to such widespread opposition throughout Okinawa. Prime Minister Abe’s recent resolution, though, now allows operations to formerly begin.

Local Opposition

Over the years, Okinawa’s citizens haven’t been keen on such arrangements, especially in terms of the noise, congestion, and crimes stemming from American troops in the area. Resentment against the United States heightened last spring after an American serviceman confessed to raping and murdering 20-year-old Rina Shimabukuro. Responding to the confession, an estimated crowd of 65,000 gathered in Naha to rally against the U.S.’s long-term military influence. A civil society group called All Okinawa Kaigi organized the event, with assistance from Okinawa’s current governor, politicians, and provincial mayors. Governor Onaga himself was elected to office based on his advocacy for limiting both the central government and the U.S.’s jurisdiction over the island.

“The government should know that the anger of the people in Okinawa is almost reaching a limit and it is not [right] to sacrifice Okinawa people for military bases anymore,” said Governor Onaga at the event. Determined to take matters into his own hands, Governor Onaga has not only requested Prime Minister Abe arrange a personal meeting with President Obama, but also presented a case to the UN Human Rights Council.

Anti-American sentiments are not uncommon in the Japanese prefecture after a series of violent crimes initiated massive protests and resistance. Prior to Shimabukuro’s murder, a 12-year-old girl was gang raped by three American personnel in 1995. This event in particular is what prompted the relocation project to begin in the first place. Even more recently in March of 2016, an American sailor raped a Japanese tourist in her 40s as she slept in her hotel.

In a report published by Women in Action Against Military and Military Bases, approximately 180 Japanese female civilians were raped between 1945 and 1997–22 of whom were less than 20-years-old. The study also examined how American soldiers are still committing war crimes against Japanese women. In addition to these sexual crimes, locals have also felt threatened by the imminent threat of catastrophe. For example, a military jet lost control in 1959 and ended up crashing into an elementary school where 17 people were killed and 121 were injured. Moreover, local activists are concerned about the possible environmental damage the relocated Futenma base could have on Nago’s ecosystem. Reports say that Nago Mayor, Susumu Inamine, has began mobilizing residents to resist the upcoming construction project.

Why are Some Japanese Supportive of American Military Bases?

Unlike Governor Onaga, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has condoned American military presence in Okinawa at one time or another. A prominent blog on Japanese culture, Tofugu, explains how the arrangements benefits Japan in terms of increased geopolitical stability. Japan is surrounded by some of the world’s most confrontational superpowers like China, Russia, and North Korea, and has few allies throughout the region after the damage it inflicted upon other countries in World War II.  It’s plausible that the Japanese government feels more secure with American soldiers stationed in such close proximity due to China’s increasingly assertive presence in the South China Sea. Yet the question sill persists–is Okinawa bearing the brunt of Japan’s national security concerns?

The United States has been rewarded by the provisions, which allow Washington to yield authority in East Asia if prompted and keep close tabs on perceived adversaries in the vicinity. The Heritage Foundation also contends that American military presence assists Washington in pursuing its diplomatic interest and deterring would-be aggressors from attacking the region.

Although Prime Minister Abe is trying to preserve cooperation with the Obama Administration, he did not veer away from expressing disapproval toward the American president during a recent joint-news conference.

“This is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger,” said Abe during a press conference with President Obama ahead of the Group of Seven Summit. “It has shocked not just the Okinawa people but also all the people of Japan.” Abe also vowed to work to prevent future violence, such as Shimabukuro’s murder, saying, “I have asked the president to carry out effective measures to prevent a recurrence of such crimes.”

Conclusion

President Obama expressed his condolences in a historic visit to Hiroshima over Memorial Day Weekend. Some analysts worried that the newest island scandal would threaten the post-World War II alliance between the U.S. and Japan, but both countries seem steadfast in resolving such matters.

“We will be fully cooperating with the Japanese legal system in prosecuting this individual and making sure that justice is served,” said President Obama in response to Shimabukuro’s murder. “We want to see a crime like this prosecuted here in the same way that we would feel horrified and want to provide a sense of justice to a victim’s family back in the United States.”

Washington has responded to these controversies by imposing certain restrictions on its constituents, such as prohibiting off-base alcohol consumption. The policy change came after an American sailor injured two Japanese civilians while driving intoxicated last September. Along those lines, part of Prime Minister Abe’s rationalization for relocating the contentious Futenma marine airbase to the island’s rural south is that deployed Americans will be farther away from crowded residential areas. Considering that locals are still averse to the resolution, Governor Onaga’s rivalry with Prime Minster Abe (and the Washington establishment) is likely to continue until Okinawa can truly disassociate itself from American troops.

Resources

Heritage Foundation: Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Marines on Okinawa Are Essential to Peace and Security in the Pacific 

TNI: The Human Rights of Children and Women Under the US Military Administration: Raped Lives

Tofugu: Japan’s Sacrificial Lamb–The Okinawa Military Base Controversy

Al Jazeera: Japan Court Clears Way for US Okinawa Base Relocation

Al Jazeera: Ex-US Marine Charged with Rape, Murder of Okinawa Woman

Al Jazeera: Voices of Okinawa: Standing Against a US Military Base

Al Jazeera: Japan Protests Alleged Rape by US Sailor

CNN: Japan: Okinawa Murder Provokes Protests Against U.S. Bases in Okinawa

International Business Times: Japan to Halt US Okinawa Base Relocation Work But Government Says Plan Intact

Japan Times: What awaits Okinawa 40 Years After Reversion?

Japan Times: Okinawa Suspect Allegedly Admits to Rape of Women Before Killing Her

Japan Times: Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga Asks Abe to Set up Meeting With Obama

Japan Times: Anger Over Okinawa Murder Grows Despite Obama’s ‘Deep Regret’ Over the Incident

Sputnik News: Japan’s Okinawa Requests to Shut Down US Marine Base Construction

USA Today: Tens of Thousands Protest on Okinawa to Close Key U.S. Bases in Japan

The Washington Post: Okinawa Murder Dominates Talks Between Obama and Abe

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post A Complicated History: Japanese Court Blocks Bid to Close Down American Military Base in Okinawa appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians threatening to build extravagant walls as a means to prevent refugees from entering the country are not exclusive to the likes of Donald Trump in the United States. Last week British Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill announced that the United Kingdom and France plan to erect an “anti intrusion” barrier in the northern French city of Calais. Projected to span half a mile, stand more than 13 feet tall, and cost over $2.6 million, the purported “Great Wall of Calais” will be funded by the British government to hinder would-be immigrants from illegally crossing the English Channel. The development signifies only a fraction of a $22.7 million collaborative Anglo-Franco project designed to heighten security measures between the two nations.

With construction supposedly beginning later this month, read on to learn about the complicated humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in one of Europe’s largest refugee settlements.

Welcome to the Jungle

On the outskirts of Calais lays a conglomeration of makeshift homes tokened as “The Jungle” due to the dense and oftentimes unpredictable living arrangements. While the French government proclaims the population of this community hovers around 7,000, local activists say the actual number exceeds well over 9,000 and growing daily –with roughly 70 newcomers arriving every day.

Image Courtesy of [malachybrowne via Flickr]

Migrants began to move into the area in 1999 with the formation of the original Sangatte refugee camp. Over the years the spot has emerged as a controversial haven for citizens fleeing Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Despite its closure in 2001 and 2002 by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, migrants intending to someday relocate to England have resiliently (and perhaps strategically) stayed put. Largely attributed to Calais’ short distance from Dover, England (less than 30 miles away), the settlement predominantly attracts prospective asylum seekers adamant about making the United Kingdom their new home.

Together these men, women, and children live in highly challenging living conditions with minimal resources, not to mention face the constant threat of expulsion and ridicule from the local populace. Ironically enough, the decision to create a buffer between England and France comes after the British government was approached to accept 400 parentless refugee children. Specifically, some children living within the tent city were previously separated from their families, some of whom now reside in England.

In an attempt to solicit a stronger humanitarian response from the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury has proven to be one of the most vocal advocates for reuniting these family units, urging Parliament to expedite the process more efficiently. Today the encampment is experiencing dire food shortages and children prone to malnutrition. Currently the Refugee Community Kitchen says that there isn’t enough donated food remaining to feed all of the residents, meaning some people are being turned away.

How Could England Justify a Wall?

Many migrants in Calais are hesitant to formally register as refugees in France due to their intentions to someday relocate to England–leaving them in “legal limbo” according to a Washington Post article. Since the growing settlement is situated directly across from a major highway, historically it has been plausible for refugees to easily reach the point of crossing over to England. Because of The Jungle’s close proximity to the industrial road leading directly to the channel, some refugees clandestinely hide on trucks and ferries to reach their desired destination.

Regardless of the safety hazards presented, this past July it was estimated that up to 2,000 migrants try to illegally cross the English Channel every night. More specific numbers show that prospective migrants try to sneak into the United Kingdom every six seconds with more than 84,000 border arrests made last year–the majority hailing from Calais. In 2015 the migrant crisis made headlines when approximately 235 illegal migrants bombarded a ferry en route to England.

“People are still getting through,” said Goodwill, who spearheaded the verdict. “We have done the fences. Now we are doing the wall.” 

Logistically speaking, giant slabs of concrete will replace the trajectory of barbed wire already placed along the highway leading to the ferry terminal and underground tunnel to completely cut access. Goodwill rationalized his decision to assemble a wall by claiming it would amplify security in order to dissuade refugees from illegally traveling on England-bound lorries. 

The French Perspective

Certain French officials would put an end to the sprawling camp in a heartbeat. Back in February the French government vowed to dismantle a portion of the encampment that serves as a home for more than 1,000 people. Such animosity intensified recently after 100 migrants broke down a fence to reach the Eurotunnel terminal.

Based on a New York Times report, the prefect for Calais’ administrative department, Fabienne Buccio, is trying to incentivize migrants to abandon such squalor and move into state-run shelters or other immigration centers situated across France.

“I think that it is time to tell the migrants in Calais, who are still living in conditions that are not dignified and that are not desirable: ‘We really have a solution for you, there are no more reasons for you to stay in these conditions,’ ” said Buccio.

Earlier this summer French truck drivers and residents of Calais protested outside the outpost. A fleet of approximately 40 trucks and a number of farming vehicles marched on the highway leading to the waterway. According to the demonstrators, migrants are resorting to hazardous tactics in their pursuit to cross the English Channel. An Al Jazeera video report featured below also discusses how some migrants slashed truck tires to enter large vehicles and hide within the cargo. The CEO of the Calais port, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, expanded upon this trend saying that refugees place tree trucks, branches, and gas cylinders along the road to halt traffic and sneak into vehicles.

“This wall is going to prevent migrants from invading the highway every night,” said Puissesseau. “We can no longer continue to put up with these repeated assaults.”

Protesters also demanded that the French government compensate local businesses for the gradual loss of tourism revenue throughout the region. Locals say that the presence of refugees tarnished the city’s reputation.

Opposition to the Decree

Numerous civil society groups in both England and France have condemned their countries for their unwillingness to provide aid to these individuals forced to flee their homes out of fear of death or persecution. One grassroots organization in England called Worldwide Tribe, for example, aims to fight prejudice against refugees in Calais with compassion.

“We’re not politicians, we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we’re not charity workers,” said Jasmine O’Hara, a member of the Worldwide Tribe in Calais, in 2015 to The Guardian “We’re just normal people from Kent who want to help our fellow human beings with their basic needs.”

The current circumstances are also soliciting a strong response from certain members of the French Green Party, such as Jean Lambert.

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France,” said Lambert, who serves as a migration spokeswoman for the British Green Party. “The UK government must get its act together.”

Surprisingly enough, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, is dubious of the upcoming project as well. From her perspective, constructing a wall would be frivolous when the city government is determined to shut down the campsite as soon as possible and supposedly assist refugees in finding alternative housing solutions. Even British truck drivers within the UK’s Road Haulage Association disapprove of the recent announcement, calling it a “poor use of taxpayer money.” Some say that funneling funds into better security precautions along the roads (specifically) would be a better investment.

Conclusion

Doctors Without Borders declared that 35 migrants from The Jungle have died while attempting to cross the English Channel. According to the non-profit organization, this proclaimed wall is likely to increase the death toll in the coming months as refugees will try to find alternative methods in reaching England–endangering their lives more so in the process.

“Further investment from the UK in security measures in the area around Calais, prioritizing deterrence over a safe and humane management of the situation, will only further the suffering of those people who remain in deplorable conditions in squalid camps,” said Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders for the British branch, Vickie Hawkins. “So far deterrence measures have not proven that they fulfill their objective, rather they have created a policy-made humanitarian crisis in northern France.”

Resources

The Local: Everything You Need to Know About the Calais Wall

Al Jazeera: UK Slate Over Planned Anti-Refugee Wall in Calais

CNN: UK to Build ‘Big New Wall’ in Calais to Stop Migrants

Redice.TV: Massive Concrete Wall Planned for Calais to Keep Migrants Out of Britain

The Washington Post: Britain and France to Construct ‘Great Wall of Calais’ to Keep Migrants From Port

The New York Times: France to Dismantle Part of Migrant Camp Near Calais

Sputnik News: Building Wall at French Calais Could Cause Humanitarian Crisis in Refugee Camp

The Huffington Post: ‘Great Wall of Calais’ Refugee Migrant Barrier to be Build in France, Robert Goodwill Confirms

BBC News: Why is There a Crisis in Calais?

Reuters: Food Shortages Hit Calais ‘Jungle’ Camp as UK urged to Accept 400 Children

The Independent: Britain to Build 13ft High Wall in Calais to Block Refugees From Entering the UK

Editor’s Note: The post has been edited to reflect that the French government has vowed to dismantle only a portion of the Calais encampment, rather than all of it.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

On the night of Friday, July 15, while President Recep Erdogan was on vacation, members of the Turkish military attempted a coup. The effort involved members of several branches of the Turkish military and was only thwarted after the President took to social media to call on the people to rise up and protect the existing government. Although Erdogan was able to fend off a challenge to his rule, the history behind the coup attempt and Turkey’s significance both in the fight against ISIS and in Europe’s refugee crisis cannot be understated.

Read on to find out more about the coup itself and what it would mean if such an attempt was successful both in Turkey and throughout the region.

The Coup in Turkey

The coup started late on a Friday night when tanks dispersed into the Turkish capital of Ankara, passage to Europe along the Bosporus Bridge was blocked, and soldiers took to Taksim Square in Istanbul claiming the elected government was illegitimate and that the military has taken over the country.

However, before the military could completely seize power, President Erdogan did an interview with CNN Turk. Using Facetime, President Erdogan urged citizens to stand up to the coup and protest. This proved to be a catalyst for action, as many Turkish people took to the streets and faced down the military. By the time Erdogan landed in the early morning hours of Saturday, the coup was over and his administration was back in power. At the end of the incident, nearly 300 people were killed and an additional 1,400 were injured.

The video below details the failed coup:

Some History

The recent attempted coup was far from the first effort by the military to exert control over the country. Since 1960, three military coups have taken place and a fourth movement led by the military effectively forced out a sitting government in 1997. Although military coups take on the image of power-mad army officers bursting into cabinet offices, Turkey’s case is slightly different.

That is because the Turkish military has long served, at least in its own eyes, as the protector of the modern state of Turkey, which was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1909. As this earlier Law Street article on the history of the Turkey illustrates, the military has played a crucial role in the development of the modern Turkish state. Chief among the army’s self-imposed responsibilities is keeping the country secular and free of the religious sentiment that has gripped many Middle Eastern countries to its south.

The following video looks at the history of coups in Turkey:

In the most recent coup attempt, the army officers in charge seemed to be rebelling against President Erdogan himself. Erdogan has won a series of elections each time consolidating more power for himself while neutralizing and even arresting his opponents.

While President Erdogan himself has blamed Fethullah Gulen, his former ally who now lives in Pennsylvania, Erdogan’s opponents cite his disregard for laws and the constitution. Erdogan is now in the process of seeking Gulen’s extradition from the United States, but the U.S. government has remained relatively resistant to his request.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of the failed coup, many outside observers worried and some have even warned President Erdogan about using it as a justification to eliminate his rivals and further consolidate his power. These fears quickly seemed to be coming to fruition with Erdogan’s crackdown to oust from the government and military people he suspects were involved in the coup attempt. It started with the military, as thousands of personnel, including over a hundred generals and admirals, were detained. After that, it spread to educators, government officials, and members of the judiciary who allegedly had ties to the coup plotters as well.

The following video looks at the aftermath of the failed coup:

President Erdogan also targeted members of the media who have been critical of him in the past. Many of these arrests have come with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Amnesty International recently reported concerns that detainees were being beaten, tortured, and even raped while in custody.

This is hardly the image of democracy triumphing over a military dictatorship that Erdogan trumpeted after the coup failed. Following the coup, Erdogan extended a state of emergency across the country that dramatically expanded the authority of the president with little oversight from the Turkish Parliament.

A Crucial Time for the West

The reason why the outcome of Turkey’s attempted coup is so important is because Turkey is a central actor in two of the biggest events currently affecting the western world. First, there is Turkey’s role in fighting ISIS and within the larger Syrian conflict.

Turkey is currently in a particularly complicated position when it comes to Syria. While it plays a large role in facilitating U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, Turkey is fighting Kurds within its own borders. The Kurds have been central to efforts to regain territory from ISIS and Turkey’s domestic issues with the ethnic group has complicated its role in the larger conflict. Turkey has also been supporting several rebel groups that are fighting the Assad regime in Syria. So far, some have criticized Turkey’s level of engagement in the fight against ISIS, as many hoped it would take on a larger role after ISIS carried out a string of bombings in multiple Turkish cities, including of the Istanbul airport.

However, that outlook may change following the coup. Lately, Turkey has been refocusing inward, purging its own military ranks of many officers suspected in the coup. This has the negative impact of reducing Turkey’s ability to fight. So far, Turkey has been an important U.S. ally in the fight against ISIS by serving as an airbase for the United States. However, Erdogan and many Turkish officials have started to argue that the United States played a role in the recent coup attempt. If relations between the two countries begin to sour–particularly if a battle to extradite Fethullah Gulen erupts–then the U.S. efforts to fight ISIS could face significant setbacks. Lastly, Turkey is home to some of NATO’s nuclear missiles, making political instability there even more concerning.

In addition to Turkey’s role in the fight against ISIS, it plays a crucial role in the international effort to deal with the refugee crisis. Turkey is home to the largest refugee camp of Syrians in the world, with 2.5 million living there. In a deal with Europe earlier this year, Turkey promised to do its best to keep refugees in exchange for more than $3 billion in aid as well as a promise to reconsider Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. The deal, however, was also contingent upon Turkey improving its human rights practices, which the recent crackdown will likely call into question.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey, chaos reigned. First, it was very unclear who actually led the coup. While it appears to have been a coordinated effort by many in the military, no central figure ever came forward to claim responsibility, which may be another reason why it failed. Some speculate that the United States may have been behind the coup, training dissidents and allowing Gulen a safe haven to denounce Erdogan’s government. Other reports suggested Erdogan himself may have been behind the poorly planned insurrection, as it gave him cover to finally purge many of his foes from the government and military.

It remains unlikely that we will know the full story behind the coup anytime soon. What is indisputable, though, is Turkey’s significance to the scope of European Union, NATO, and U.S. operations. While the United States may not agree with Erdogan’s subsequent power grab or the methods of his crackdown, he has been a strong ally for the most part. For now, it appears as though the west and Turkey will need to work together, but if instability continues or worsens that cooperation could face serious challenges.

Resources

CNN: Turkey Coup Attempt: How a Night of Death and Mayhem Unfolded

Al-Jazeera: Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups

Law Street Media: Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads

Politico: What Caused the Turkish Coup Attempt?

RT: Turkish Prosecutor Claims CIA, FBI Trained Coup Plotters

Al-Monitor: Was Turkey’s Coup Attempt Just an Elaborate Hoax by Erdogan?

Time: Turkey’s President Is Using the Coup Attempt to Crack Down on the Media

Reuters: Turkey Dismisses Military, Shuts Media Outlets as Crackdown Deepens

BBC: Turkey Coup Attempt: Crackdown toll passes 50,000

PRI: Turkey’s Coup Failed, but it Can Still Hurt the Fight Against ISIS

Vox: Turkey’s Failed Coup Could Have Disastrous Consequences for Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Coup That Wasn’t: Inside Turkey’s Failed Military Takeover appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

While the world focuses on international terrorism, ISIS, and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, another long-running conflict is winding down. In Azerbaijan, a longstanding ceasefire agreement has boiled over into violent conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Although government and separatists forces appeared to have reached a resolution, fighting quickly erupted again.

Read on to see why were these two parties fighting, what is currently happening, and what role Armenia and other outsiders played in the struggle.

The Conflict

For centuries, Armenians, Turkish Azeris, and Persians struggled over the territory. In Azerbaijan, the struggle is centered in an area known as Nagorno-Karabakh, featuring a familiar conflict between Christians and Muslims. In this case, the Christians are ethnic-Armenian separatists and the Muslims are Azeris native to the country. This conflict was essentially settled in the 19th century when the region was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The two groups lived side-by-side and engaged in a rivalry for territory, however, the rivalry only occasionally boiled over into violence. But after the USSR emerged, it reversed course by moving an Armenian majority into the historic Azerbaijan territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, fueling conflict between the two groups. The USSR was essentially trying to reduce opposition to its own rule by employing the concept of divide and conquer–pitting the groups against one another.

As the USSR maintained control over the region, tempers between the two sides were largely held in restraint. But the old conflict flared up as the Soviet Union started crumbling at the end of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Without the Soviet presence, there was no check on the two competing sides. This situation continued to simmer until 1988 and in 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh declared itself an independent republic, a move that even Armenia did not acknowledge. The subsequent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan lasted until 1994 leaving 30,000 people dead and another million displaced. Since the end of the first conflict, the region has effectively been independent of Azerbaijan and receives continued support from Armenia. 

The video below takes a closer look at the conflict:

The Ceasefire

The original ceasefire agreement in 1994 was brokered by Russia. That settlement left an especially bad taste in the mouths of Azeris as it allowed the Armenians to remain in the territory they occupied. In some of the territories this development effectively allowed Armenia to occupy parts of Azerbaijan. However, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, this made some sense as 95 percent of the population is ethnically Armenian. While the 1994 ceasefire was unpopular, it held for 10 years.

Things began unraveling in 2014 when the Azeris shot down an Armenian helicopter, ratcheting up tensions once more. This was followed by a series of ceasefire violations throughout 2015, culminating with recent violence this year, which has left an estimated 60 people dead. Following the most recent spate of violence, Azerbaijan and Armenia announced a mutual agreement for another ceasefire in early April. But almost immediately after it was announced, the violence reportedly continued and both sides accused the other of violating the agreement.

The Role of Regional Powers

The conflict between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh is really a struggle between Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, like many other conflicts–both within in the region and elsewhere in the world–outside global and regional powers play an important role. In this case, the influence comes primarily in the guise of Russian support for Armenia and Turkish support for Azerbaijan.

In light of the conflict’s resurgence, Turkey has reiterated its support for Azerbaijan. In a recent trip to the United States, Turkish ruler Recep Tayyip Erdogan pledged to support Azerbaijan to the end. Turkey has also signaled its support by closing its border with Armenia, which hurts the country economically and blocks its access to the Mediterranean Sea.

There is also history to consider. Turkey was the site of the mass killing of Armenians during WWI, for which repercussions persist. For most Turks, the topic of the genocide is a non-starter. Turkish ruler Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also actually garnered support by denying the event took place and its recognition internationally remains a contentious issue. If Turkey were to suddenly change course and admit to the atrocity, it could potentially be held liable to pay reparations.

Read More: The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition

Russia has a particularly familiar relationship with all the parties involved, which at one point were all part of the Soviet Union. Armenia and Russia enjoy a particularly close relationship, in fact, Armenia is home to one of Russia’s largest foreign army bases. Russia was also part of a triumvirate of nations involved in the Minsk Group, which was founded in 1992 with the express purpose of resolving the original Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict. Although Russia’s history with both sides is clear, its motives remain murky.

While Russia has long been a supporter of Armenia it has also served as the main source for weapons in the escalating arms race, supplying both sides. Russia’s potential duplicity extends beyond just selling weapons. While Russia currently benefits from the status quo, selling weapons to both sides, some speculate that it may be willing to send in peacekeeping forces to bolster its influence in the area. Aside from influence, Russia may also be motivated by the vast amount of oil present in Azerbaijan. So far, Russia has advocated for a peaceful settlement and theories about using the conflict as an excuse to move into Azerbaijan are speculation at this point.

Other World Powers

Aside from Russia and Turkey, other nations may also play a role in resolving this situation, notably the United States and the European Union. Azerbaijan produces 850,000 barrels of oil a day and if the conflict does escalate to its post-Soviet levels that production may be in danger, which could impact oil prices. While this is less of a concern to the United States directly because of its domestic oil industry, Azerbaijan is an important oil exporter to Europe and Central Asia. The United States was also a member of the Minsk group along with Russia and France. Like Russia, other world powers seek a swift peace resolution.

Israel also relies on Azerbaijan as its largest oil supplier, using a pipeline that runs through Turkey. In return, Azerbaijan is one of Israel’s biggest customers for weapon sales. Azerbaijan provides Israel with an avenue to monitor Iran, as the two countries share a border. Adding to the animosity in the present situation, Israel does not recognize the Armenian Genocide. Iran and Armenia enjoy a close relationship–Iran supported the Armenians in the war with Azerbaijan back in the 1990s and it hopes to build a rail project in Armenia in the future. While these two nations’ agendas may be more political than others, they have not called for any escalation of the conflict.

Conclusion

Nagorno-Karabakh is another one of the flash points around the world that few people know about and even fewer understand. The region is the epicenter of a centuries-old conflict between Armenians and Azeris, complicated even further by religious undertones. It is also situated in an unstable region, the Caucasus Mountains area, with Russia to the north and the Middle East to the south.

The geographical location of Nagorno-Karabakh further complicates things, as it serves as a proxy both for Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as larger regional powers like Russia and Turkey. A war in the region could set off a larger conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which in turn could increase tension between Russia and Turkey. Furthermore, if Turkey was involved, as a member of NATO, the other members of NATO would be obligated to assist it. While there is no hint of this yet, the potential for volatility remains. To make the situation even more confusing and unstable, Azerbaijan is a major oil exporter. While the conflict has the potential to exacerbate tensions within the region, so far all outside powers have advocated for peace.

Unfortunately, the original dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh was never resolved and has festered for years, becoming what is known as a frozen conflict. One reason for this is that many regional powers seem to have conflicted interests at play. After all, several countries profit from related arms deals and, so far, the coveted oil supply has not been threatened. The simmering conflict is likely to continue as it has and Russia remains poised to play the largest role in influencing it, especially as the United States focuses on fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, with all the interconnected parties at play, the conflict could have implications beyond the contested region in Azerbaijan.

Resources

BBC News: Nagorno-Karabakh: Azeri-Armenian Ceasefire Agreed

BBC News: Nagorno-Karabakh profile

Council on Foreign Relations: Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Al-Jazeera: Armenia and Azerbaijan call Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire

U.S. News and World Report: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has Vowed to Back Azerbaijan in the Conflict with Armenia Over the Separatist Region of Nagorno-Karabakh

Law Street Media: The Armenian Genocide: The Battle for Recognition

The Heritage Foundation: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: U.S. Vigilance

OSCE: Minsk Group

Newsweek: Russia ‘Arming Armenia And Azerbaijan’ As Hostilities Increase

Voice of America: What’s Hiding Behind Russia’s Calls for Peace in Nagorno-Karabakh

Harretz: Nagorno-Karabakh: The Conflict No-one, Including Israel, Wants to Solve

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conflict in the Caucasus Mountains: The Battle over Nagorno-Karabakh appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, April 4, Tunisia became the first country to announce that it would reopen its consulate in Tripoli, the capital of Libya. While Tunisia did so out of concern for its citizens living in Libya, as well as for trade considerations, the move also reinforced Tunisia’s place as an outlier. Approximately five years after the Arab Spring, Tunisia is the only country left standing with a democracy and not mired in a civil war or an authoritarian takeover. While its neighbors, especially Libya, have all but collapsed, Tunisia has remained above the fray, even as the threat of ISIS rises.

Read on to find out how the Arab Spring affected Tunisia, how it is handling the ISIS threat, and what unique qualities have allowed the country to succeed following the Arab Spring when every other nation has essentially failed to live up to its promises.

History of Tunisia

The settling of the land where Tunisia now sits has been ongoing for thousands of years thanks to the country’s access to both the Mediterranean and the inland Sahara region. In classical times, Tunisia was home to Carthage, the powerful empire that challenged Rome but ultimately lost. After its defeat, it was ruled by Rome and later by the Berbers who converted to Islam in the 7th century after their defeat by Arab invaders. Tunisia was then ruled by a series of Muslim empires until 1881 when it was conquered by the French, becoming one of its colonies.

The French maintained control over Tunisia through a mixture of repression and concession, but that was not enough to stem the Tunisian independence movement, known as Destour. In the 1930s, Habib Bourguiba, who later became Tunisia’s first president, started the Neo-Destour party to renew the independence effort. Bourguiba was imprisoned in France but was later released by the German occupiers during World War II, at which point he began advocating for the gradual independence of Tunisia. In 1956, France officially granted Tunisia complete independence with Bourguiba as the head of state.

Habib Bourguiba served as Tunisia’s president from 1957 to 1987. During his tenure in Tunisia, Bourguiba ruled as a one-party leader who led a relatively western-style government. The first few years after its independence were marred by residual conflicts with France. Other significant events occurred later in Habib’s rule, such as when the Arab League and the PLO temporarily relocated their headquarters to Tunisia. In 1987, Bourguiba was replaced by his prime minister, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in a nonviolent coup. Problems with corruption and human rights violations led many to become dissatisfied with Ben Ali’s rule, eventually sparking a revolution.

Tunisia and the Arab Spring

Perhaps it is fitting that Tunisia is the last country espousing the promise of the Arab Spring since it was in Tunisia where protests initially started. In December 2010, an unemployed man named Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in protest after Tunisian police stopped him from selling fruit on the street. This act sparked protests that led to mass unrest. The protests eventually prompted the end of Ben Ali’s rule, forcing him to flee to Saudi Arabia. Since then, the country has had two democratic elections and enjoys relatively high levels of freedom.

However, things in Tunisia did not go off without a hitch. The first election was won by an Islamist group in 2011. By 2013 however, the momentum behind this group had stalled and was accompanied by the assassination of a prominent opposition candidate. Instead of collapsing, the party in charge looked at its neighbor in Egypt, which was seeing a nearly identical situation unfold, and agreed to try something different. In Tunisia, the ruling Islamist party agreed to step down while maintaining a role in the election process. This negotiation was orchestrated by four groups of activists which eventually earned them the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite some success, the country faces several significant challenges. Namely, Tunisia has been slow to clamp down on corruption or hold security forces accountable for their history of violence. It is also struggling to deal with the growing influence of extremism among its citizens. Still, it bears asking, how or why has Tunisia succeeded while every other country involved in the Arab Spring failed?

Preserving Democracy

One explanation of Tunisia’s success appears to be the very same Islamist party, Ennahada, which was elected after the revolution and then subsequently gave up power. Unlike many of its regional neighbors, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahada is much more secular and abhors the ideals of radical Islam. Aside from its ideology, what probably preserved democracy in Tunisia as much as anything else was its decision to give up power, which is one of the pillars of any democracy. By stepping aside in a volatile environment, Ennahada showed that change can be achieved peacefully through democratic means.

Despite these encouraging signs, more work needs to be done. In a recent poll, 83 percent of Tunisians stated they believed the country was going the wrong way. Much of this discontent is focused on slow-moving political reforms, especially when it comes to the economy. Many of Tunisia’s educated young working class have had a hard time finding jobs and are losing faith in the government’s ability to solve the problem. On top of all this is the security threat from Libya and ISIS. Tunisia has kept the democracy experiment alive through voting and the peaceful transition of power, but many Tunisians are getting frustrated with the current path.

The following video looks at Tunisia in the context of the Arab Spring and how it has been successful:

The Threat of ISIS

Tunisia’s success with democracy is all the more impressive given the large influence that ISIS has in the region and within the country. This paradox is most clearly illustrated by the fact that, despite being the most democratic and literate countries in the Islamic World, Tunisia is also the largest source of foreign fighters for ISIS. Between 6,000 and 7,000 Tunisians have left their homes to join ISIS with another 15,000 barred from making the trip. Even more interesting, many of these fighters have come from middle-class, even affluent, backgrounds. This throws the traditional narrative of terrorist breeding grounds into question. Some locals and experts attribute ISIS’s success in recruiting to a sense of disappointment with the post-Arab Spring government.

While Tunisia grapples with being simultaneously being the Islamic world’s most promising democracy and at the same time home to the most ISIS fighters, it must also look to danger from abroad. In 2015, Tunisia was home to two terrorist attacks that left 38 and 21 people dead respectfully. These attacks were conducted by ISIS and targeted tourists. As a result, the tourism industry, which makes up close to 10 percent of Tunisia’s economy, fell decreased significantly.

Perhaps Tunisia’s greatest threat, though, comes from neighboring Libya. Libya is where many Tunisian ISIS recruits go to train before coming back to plan attacks. One such attack was beaten back earlier this year in March when Tunisian security forces managed to fight off an invasion attempt from ISIS soldiers in the town of Ben Guerdane. Although they managed to successfully repel ISIS in Ben Guerdane, the fear and likelihood of more attacks remain strong. In fact, Tunisia is now constructing a wall along its border with Libya with help from the United States and Germany.

The video below takes a closer look at Tunisian government’s difficulty preventing its citizens from joining ISIS:

Conclusion

Five years after the start of the Arab Spring the results do not look promising. Three of the countries involved are engaged in civil war–Yemen, Libya, and Syria–and in Bahrain, the monarchy clings to its power. Meanwhile, authoritarian rule has been restored in Egypt. By most accounts, Tunisia is the only power to experience any meaningful progress toward democratization. Tunisia’s success is even more inexplicable because it is also the number one source of foreign fighters for ISIS and it remains under the constant threat of attack by ISIS fighters who are based in Libya.

But Tunisia and its Arab Spring idealism continue to endure. The nation is certainly not without difficulties and it nearly succumbed to the same problems that doomed Egypt. How was Tunisia able to navigate this mine field when everyone else failed? A leading explanation is Tunisia’s peaceful transition from one government to another, despite its political and social chaos.

Ultimately, though, people’s patience is not infinite and new polls suggest concerns over the political process, the economy, and national security may threaten the long-term success of democracy in Tunisia and the Arab Spring in general. But if Tunisia can solve these problems it will be a testament to a movement that believed that democracy is possible in the Islamic world.

Resources

Libya Herald: Tunisia to Reopen its Tripoli Embassy and Consulate

Encyclopedia Britannica: Tunisia

History World: History of Tunisia

Time: Why the Arab Spring Has Not Led to Disaster in Tunisia

The Wall Street Journal: How Tunisia Became a Top Source of ISIS Recruits

The Telegraph: Tunisia sees a Million Fewer Tourists after Terror Attacks

NPR: Tunisia’s Fragile Democracy Faces A Threat From Chaotic Libya

The Atlantic: Tunisia Is Still a Success

U.S. News and World Report: 5 Years After the Spring

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tunisia: The Last Vestige of the Arab Spring? appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the Kurds have been one of the most effective groups when it comes to fighting ISIS. But beyond that, little is known to some in the United States about who the Kurds are and what the history of the ethnic group is. With the United States and the many countries involved in the fight against ISIS relying on the group, it is important to take a closer look at who they are and what the majority want.

Who exactly are the Kurds and how did they become the largest ethnic group without a homeland? Read on to find out who the Kurds are, what their role in the Middle East is, and most importantly, what they are looking for.

History of the Kurds

The history of the Kurds is, in many ways, as convoluted as their present–with no exact date or time for when they first appeared on the world stage as an ethnic group. Some speculate they were part of an ancient group that ruled large chunks of the Middle East more than 2,500 years ago. The first widely acknowledged mention of the Kurds as a people came in the seventh century when they converted to Islam. The Kurds often “fought for other groups that succeeded as regional powers, receiving a reputation for being fierce fighters.”

Along with their fighting prowess, the Kurds were also known for their nomadic lifestyle. According to the Kurdistan Tribune, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds–like many other groups in the region–were guaranteed a homeland by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. But like many other groups, they were lied to. After Kemal Ataturk rose to power and Turkey’s borders were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were not given a country of their own. They were then left in the historically unenviable position of being an unpopular minority in an unwelcoming region. This led to a revolt by Kurdish groups and a subsequent violent crackdown by Turkish forces in the 1920s and 30s.

The Kurds and Turks have had an especially hostile relationship following these failed revolts. For years, the Turks tried to suppress the Kurds’ cultural identity by forbidding them to wear traditional clothes or teach their own language in schools. Not surprisingly then, a Kurdish leader named Abdullah Ocalan rose up and created an organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, to fight the Turks and gain a Kurdish homeland in 1978. Despite years of fighting and guerrilla warfare against Turkey, Ocalan ultimately failed and was eventually captured by Turkish forces in 1999. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization and its campaign to fight the group in the southeast region of the country has escalated recently.

Aside from Turkey, the Kurds also had issues in other surrounding countries where they have sizable minorities. After many years of allowing Ocalan to manage the PKK from within its borders, the Syrian government forced him from the country in 1998 after being pressured by Turkey. In Iran, the Kurds made two attempts, both with little success, to carve out an autonomous region.

Iraq rivaled Turkey in its harsh treatment of the Kurds. Throughout the 20th century, the Kurds in Northern Iraq launched several revolts, all of which ended in defeat. However, the worst situation for the Kurds came after Saddam Hussein took power. Angry over their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein targeted the Kurds with chemical weapons. These attacks stopped after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, however, he crushed another Kurdish revolt soon after.

The video below gives a look at Kurdish history:

Role in the Middle East

Today the Kurdish people live in an area at the intersecting borders of five countries; Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Despite not having a homeland, the Kurds are still an important group made up of as many as 30 million people–the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. So what role does such a large group, spread over a number of countries, play in the region?

Turkey

Currently, Kurds make up 15 to 20 percent of the population of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds have a long and bloody history of animosity. Much of this recent struggle has centered on fighting between the PKK and Turkey. Since the PKK took up arms in 1984, approximately 40,000 people have been killed. However, when the PKK toned down its demands and exchanged autonomy for independence in 2012, a ceasefire was finally reached. Nevertheless, all that work was undone in 2015 following a suicide bombing against the Kurds in Suruc. In response, Kurdish forces lashed out against Turkish authorities reigniting the old feud.

Still, the PKK is not representative of all Kurds and, in fact, many are actually entrenched in the Turkish economy. This group, in fact, is a strong pillar of support for the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Part (AKP).  There is also a third group that splits the middle between the supporters of the Turkish AKP and the militant PKK, the People’s Democratic Party or HDP.

Iraq

The Kurds make up as large of a portion of the Iraqi population as they do in Turkey–between 15 and 20 percent. As in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq have faced years of crackdowns and repression following unsuccessful rebellion attempts. However, they achieved some limited autonomy following the First Gulf War and even greater autonomy after the second in 2003. Since the formation of the new Iraqi government, the Kurds have been constant participants in Iraqi politics. Amid the rise of ISIS and the resulting conflict, Kurdish leaders have gone beyond autonomy and called for a referendum on independence.The Kurds and the Iraqi government eventually reconciled several of their differences and started working together closely in the fight against ISIS.

Kurds in Iraq have made the most significant progress toward autonomy relative to Kurds in other countries. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution actually guarantees the Kurds an autonomous area, in which they have established their own government that operates within Iraq’s federal rule. The Kurds have taken advantage of this arrangement with its involvement in the Iraqi oil industry. The Kurds operate a pipeline between Iraq and Turkey, for which they have a revenue sharing agreement with Iraq. A recent dispute over the revenue sharing agreement disrupted oil transfers pending a new agreement.

Syria

The Kurds make up a sizable portion of the population in Syria as well, accounting for between 7 and 10 percent before the Syrian Civil War erupted. This population was concentrated in urban centers and in the north of the country. Like in Turkey and Iraq, Kurds in Syria were also marginalized through repression from the government, which also denies citizenship to over 300,000 Kurds living there. Once the war in Syria began, however, Kurds began asserting their rights and now plan to carve out autonomous regions for themselves. They have also sought to be actively involved in the peace talks determining Syria’s fate.

The Kurds’ battle against ISIS has been particularly challenging in Syria. Several Kurdish positions were overrun by ISIS, partly because Turkey refused to let Turkish Kurds cross the border to intercede. But in October, Turkey eventually allowed some fighters to help Syrian Kurds push back ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes. However, the Kurds continue to encounter challenges in terms of their relations with Turkey, notably after their recent attempt to establish an autonomous zone in Syria. While they were quick to clarify they are not seeking independence to appease Turkey, this may have fallen on deaf ears. The Turks have worked to exclude the Kurds from Syria’s peace talks, meaning the appeasement may not be enough.

Elsewhere

Kurds make up about 10 percent of Iran’s population, however in total numbers, they rank only second to those living in Turkey. Nevertheless, unlike in other countries Iranian Kurds enjoy no autonomous regions and like in other neighboring countries they are violently repressed. There is also a much smaller Kurdish community living in Armenia; unlike in other places this group does not govern nor aspire to an autonomous region. The accompanying video looks at the Kurds role in the Middle East:

What the Kurds Want

As the world’s largest “stateless nation,” a priority for the majority of Kurds has long been a country of their own. This has been evident since the start of the Kurdish nationalist movement beginning after WWI, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It is also evident today in Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomous areas where it has large populations, which it has in three countries: Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The real question, then, is not what the Kurds want, but how they hope to achieve it.

But it’s important to note that the Kurds are by no means a monolithic group. While they share the same ethnicity, they are a very diverse group. In Turkey, where the largest Kurd population resides, there are three major Kurdish political groups ranging politically from loyal to the state to hostile to it. There are also major divisions in Iraq with one party controlling two of the Kurdish provinces and a different party controlling the other. The leaders of the dominant party have close relationships with Turkey and have even worked with the Turks in fighting the Turkish PKK. The Kurds in Iraq also fought a civil war during the 1990s which lasted three years.

The Kurds are also divided at even smaller levels with sizable differences between those in cities and those still adhering to their nomadic roots. Even in a country as small as Armenia, there are divisions between traditional Kurdish Sunni Muslims and Kurdish Christians. While many Kurds seek a homeland, for now, the best they may be able to get are autonomous regions like the ones in Syria and Iraq. The following video looks at some of the different Kurdish parties at play across the Middle East:

Conclusion

It is easy to characterize the Kurds as just one more ethnic group with deep historical roots wandering the Middle East searching for a homeland, but that characterization is overly simplistic. The Kurds are not a monolithic group, but a diverse set of actors spread mostly across five countries that are bound by a common heritage. Yes, many do want a homeland, but due to the diversity within the group, how they achieve it, or even if they can, varies widely.

In the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Middle East, the Kurds are a recurring actor. Much of what is known or understood about them comes from other generalizations–they are Sunni Muslims, they are searching for a country, etc. This is all true but the reality is more complicated. The Kurds’ situation is emblematic of many other realities in the Middle East, an intricate web of interconnected groups with, at times, converging and differing interests. While the Syrian conflict has actually given them the opportunity to further assert their claims, nothing in the fluid region is certain. Thus, only time will tell if those dreams can amount to more than that.

Resources

Washington Post: Who Are the Kurds?

New Historian: History of the Kurds

BBC News: Who are the Kurds?

The Atlantic: What Exactly Are ‘the Kurds’?

Reuters: Iraq seeks financial agreement with Kurds before pumping crude to Turkey

RT: Turkish fighter jets pound PKK targets in Northern Iraq

BBC News: Iraqi Kurdistan Profile

The New York Times: The Kurds Push for Self-Rule in Syria

TA Central: Kurds

Council on Foreign Relations: The Time of the Kurds

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect sources of information.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Kurds? appeared first on Law Street.

In the United States last month, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made headlines for committing food stamp fraud. The infamous cult, which the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to as “white supremacist, homophobic, antigovernment, [and] totalitarian,” has practiced polygamy and sexual abuse for years but the evidence of the food stamp case may be the key to shutting the organization down for good. Without lucky breaks like this food stamp case, law enforcement often has difficulty effectively disbanding cults.

Identifying a cult in the first place is often a difficult task, as the line between freedom to practice religion and illegal activity shifts depending on different cultural traditions. Members of cults rarely want to share information with the authorities which makes building a criminal case incredibly difficult.

However, eliminating cults should not be considered an impossible task. Consider the case of Israel. The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has recently introduced an anti-cult law designed to dismantle New Age sects of Judaism that are considered explosive forces within the country by the lawmakers trying to regulate them. Take a look at that situation in Israel and how other countries have handled cults in the past in comparison with the proposed Israeli law.

Spotlight on Israel: The Knesset’s Decision

Israel’s proposed bill was put forward by Orly Levy-Abecassis, a Member of the Knesset from the Yisrael Beytenu party. Levy-Abecassis has been committed to dismantling cults for some time now, as evidenced by her 2014 protest of homeschooling. She argued that homeschooling could shelter cults, allowing them to corrupt younger generations and evade the gaze of Social Services ministries that monitor children’s health.

The proposed law defines a cult as any group that:

Rallies around a person or an idea, in a way that there is exploitation, dependency, authority, or emotional distress experienced by one or more members, uses methods of mind control or controlling patterns of behavior, and operates in an organized, systematic, and sustained fashion, while committing crimes under Israeli law that are felonies or sexual offenses or serious violence.

The bill also labels the act of leading a cult as an offense punishable by up to ten years in prison. The Ministry of Welfare would be tasked with compiling a database of information about members, leaders, and practices of cults. The final segment of the bill asks for the establishment of a department dedicated to helping victims of cult abuse. If this bill is passed into law, it will be the first Israeli statute to distinguish cults from other religious groups that enjoy protection under freedom of religion clauses.

There have been a series of high profile court cases involving cults in Israel over the past several years. In 2014, accused cult leader Goel Ratzon was sentenced to 30 years in prison in October 2014 for a slew of sex crimes but escaped persecution for a count of slavery. One of his former “wives” was interviewed immediately after the court’s decision and said:

It seems that in the State of Israel, pimps, people who pimp other peoples’ body and soul, can continue to do so…they have the right – because there is no law and there is no justice.

There have also been allegations against a man named Rabbi Aharon Ramati for cult behavior. Ramati was arrested and then moved to house arrest but his sentence was relatively short. Parents of the young women who have joined Ramati’s cult argue that the girls are being brainwashed and kept against their will in squalid living conditions but because the cult members are all adults, the Israeli state has virtually no power to intervene. Unless they can compile sufficient proof of crimes on Ramati’s part, joining the cult is legally considered to be a choice that anyone is entitled to make.

International Impact

While the bill is designed to target groups within the borders of Israel, it could potentially be used to condemn Jewish cults throughout the world. One such alleged cult would be the Lev Tahor sect, an anti-Zionist cult that opposes homosexuality, birth control and evolution, and has expanded from Canada into Guatemala. Canadian officials have connected Lev Tahor to dozens of cases of child abuse, human trafficking and forgery and there are no signs that the cult has planned to shut down those practices within their new operation in Guatemala. There are fears that Lev Tahor may become increasingly violent in future years, becoming a threat to both the Israeli community and the greater population. Lev Tahor does not currently exist within Israel and Israel’s bill only applies within national borders, but the rise of the cult has concerned Jewish leaders, no doubt contributing to the impetus to pass a formal anti-cult law.

How do Different Nations Deal with Cults?

Israel is not the only country that is host to a variety of cults.  Different legal systems and law enforcement agencies deal with cults in a variety of ways across the globe.

The United States

U.S. law enforcement has historically struggled with regulating cults because of a hesitancy to violate First Amendment rights. Authorities have to wait until they have sufficient evidence to file criminal charges, which sometimes results in cults being designated criminal organizations. During the latter half of the twentieth century, a host of cults dominated American headlines–the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, the People’s Temple–but just because many of these high profile cults were destroyed does not mean that cult worship is not alive and well in America. The Children of God (now known as Family International) is an active cult that continues to operate in the United States today. Individual leaders and members have been charged with criminal offenses, but never enough to permanently shut down the organizations.

France

In contrast, the French government has actively sought to disband cults and has even created a “cult-fighting” unit within its law enforcement branch of government. While France runs across the same difficulty defining cults that the U.S. has, the French government did take the time to create a list of ten cult characteristics in 1995 which has proved important for legal cases against cults. The same commission that published that list also put together a set of 173 organizations that it considers to be cults–including Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Scientology.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, new religious groups are emerging that Indonesian authorities are tentatively labeling cults or “deviant sects.” Movements such as Gafatar isolate their members from mainstream society, asking them to follow a charismatic leader and subject themselves a religious hierarchy that controls their lives. Indonesian law allows the government to control religion in the public sphere but does not extend into the private lives of Indonesian citizens. Sects such as Gafatar have come under attack from religious majorities, inspiring outcry from the international human rights community. At this point, it is difficult to identify whether Gafatar is a cult with the same violent potential as those that existed in America several decades ago or if it is simply an emergent religion. Gafatar subscribes to some of the characteristics included on the French commission’s 1995 list but is not as clearly cult-like as an organization like the Branch Davidians. The Indonesian government should be able to monitor the group but cannot take direct action to disband it unless there is evidence of criminal activity.

Conclusion

In the twenty-first century, cults are an uncomfortable reminder of the most archaic and brutal aspects of major religions. As mainstream religious institutions adapt with time and become more open to equality and change, these organizations remain in the past, controlling their members through mental and physical abuse. Bringing the leadership of cults to justice is a priority for law enforcement but it is difficult to disband cults without causing an uproar over the violation of the right to freedom of religion. Israel’s proposed legislation could have lasting effects not only within Israeli borders but beyond, setting a standard for condemning hate speech and brainwashing around the world. However, persecuting cults is a difficult task as the very act of defining them is controversial. Organizations such as the Church of Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement have been labeled cults in some countries and acceptable religions in others. Bills like the one the Knesset is considering take on the blurred lines between religious freedom and criminal activity in a public forum that world governments have historically skirted around.

Resources

Vice News: Polygamist Cult Has Been Running a Major Food Stamp Scam

Daily Beast: Israel’s Cult Crackdown Could Snare Yoga, Rabbis, and Meditation

Times of Israel: MKs Bid to Tackle ‘Harmful Cults’ That Ensnare 20,000 Israelis. But it’s Not so Simple

The Jerusalem Post: Committee on the Rights of the Child: More regulations on homeschooling

The Jerusalem Post: Law and Order: Cult-Busting Bill Gets Ministerial Approval

YNet News: Suspected Ramati Cult Re-emerges

NPR: Dogged By Controversy, A Jewish Sect Is On The Move Again

US News and World Report: How to Address Indonesia’s Religious Cults

Rappler: As Religious Cults Emerge in Indonesia, How Should Gov’t Deal?

Slate: Cult Busters: How Governments Decide if a Religion is Real or Not

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Israel’s Battle to Dismantle Cults: An Inspiration for the Rest of the World? appeared first on Law Street.

Pope Francis has received accolades from around the world regarding his message of tolerance and his commitment to opening the Catholic church to populations that were historically excluded. However, there is a shadow hanging over his tenure that has yet to be fully addressed: decades of sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests that have come to light over the past decade.

Pope Francis has publicly condemned the perpetrators but has also been criticized for not doing more to renounce the culture of turning a blind eye to sexual abuse. This weekend, one of Pope Francis’ most trusted advisers, Cardinal George Pell, former Archbishop of Sydney, was asked to reckon with the consequences of participating in that culture. In Rome, Pell is known as the Secretariat of the Economy and has led sweeping reforms of the traditional Vatican system but in the city of Ballarat, Australia, Pell has become a household name for a much more sinister reason.

Pell provided testimony in Rome this weekend regarding an alleged cover-up of a sexual abuse scandal in Australia. Victims of clerical sexual assault claim that Pell knowingly let pedophile priests escape legal punishment and continue to assault numerous children throughout Australia. One of the most chilling examples of abuse comes from Ballarat, a town where dozens of survivors have stepped forward over the past five years, after decades of abuse. Read on for an introduction to the Ballarat abuse scandal.

Abuse in Ballarat

Ballarat is a city in the state of Victoria, Australia. As of May 2015, 14 Catholic priests have been accused of sexual abuse. Survivors provided testimony in 2015, citing abuse that spanned from the 1960s to the 1990s. Multiple abuse victims from Ballarat committed suicide before they ever saw their day in court, but those who did presented names, dates, and precise details about their abusers. The most prolific offender was Gerald Ridsdale, who was accused of over one hundred acts of abuse. Ridsdale pleaded guilty in 2006 to 35 charges of assault but many victims felt that his sentence of a maximum of thirteen years in jail was too lenient.

Cardinal Pell has been accused of moving Ridsdale from parish to parish for two decades rather than reporting his activities to law enforcement or removing him from the Church entirely. David Ridsdale, who was abused by his uncle, has stated that he attempted to speak about his abuse in 1993 but was silenced by Cardinal Pell. After David Ridsdale reported his uncle, Pell allegedly replied “I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet.” Pell has stated that he never bribed either Ridsdale or his family, but that accusation was bolstered by testimony from another witness who cited Pell brushing off a report of sexual abuse at St. Patrick’s College. The Royal Commission that is overseeing the abuse cases in Ballarat has discovered that abuse committed by several other priests was reported to their superiors but each time, the abuse was ignored and the priests were either moved to different parishes or sent on “treatment” trips.

Pell was summoned to give evidence in Melbourne earlier this year, but his legal team declared he was not healthy enough to fly and instead organized a video-conference from Rome. Upon realizing that Pell would not be coming to Australia, a national crowd-funding campaign was launched to fly Australian sexual abuse victims to Rome to speak with Pell face-to-face. The campaign raised over $200,000 in a matter of days, which paid for the travel expenses of 14 victims and their advisors. The stage was set for a significant confrontation between the upper echelon of the Catholic hierarchy and the survivors whose stories were denied for most of their lives.

Controversial Coverage 

The controversy over Pell has led to significant rifts in public discourse. Columnist Andrew Bolt, who calls himself a close friend of Pell, wrote a piece earlier this month claiming that Pell is an innocent man who has become the target of a national “witch hunt.” Bolt argues that public opinion has turned harshly against Pell, who he considers to be an advocate for sexual abuse victims. Bolt describes how Pell has met with abuse victims in the past and how, in 1996, Pell founded the Melbourne Response initiative, which was tasked with investigating sexual abuse allegations made against priests.

However, questions have been raised about how independent the Melbourne Response has been during its tenure, especially after a controversial “60 Minutes” interview (featured below) that explored Pell’s involvement in the Ballarat cases. Bolt also accused reporter Lucie Morris-Marr of launching a smear campaign against Pell after she reported that police were investigating reports that Pell himself had abused children. Morris-Marr defended her story, arguing that she published the piece after a thorough investigation with no intention of libel. Multiple news outlets picked up Morris-Marr’s piece, which led the Victoria police to announce a crackdown on leaking information to the media, even though the police have not formally acknowledged if they are investigating Pell for abuse. Cardinal Pell denied the allegations, but as press attention shifts towards his testimony in Rome this weekend, they may resurface in the coming days.

Pell has not yet been formally charged with obstructing justice or failing to report abuse but there are already calls for his resignation. Victims of the Ballarat abuse scandal have already named the priests who assaulted them and some, such as Ridsdale, have already received sentences, but many argue that the rift between these survivors and the Catholic Church will not be truly healed unless Pell is asked to accept responsibility for his failure to remove these priests.

Other Vatican Controversies Over Abuse

Ballarat is not the only parish where reports of sexual abuse have allegedly been swept under the rug. In 2011, a 1997 letter from Vatican leadership was released to the public.  The letter told Irish bishops not to report suspicions of child abuse to the police, but instead to handle abuse as they saw fit under canonical religious law. The letter came as a response to a 1996 initiative of “mandatory reporting” that Irish priests enacted to identify sexual abuse within the church.

There is also criticism over a recently released Vatican document that holds that even though bishops should be aware of local legal procedures, they are not obligated to report clerical child abuse to law enforcement. The document was part of training program for new bishops and was written by Tony Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council on the Family. The Guardian reports that

While acknowledging that ‘the church has been particularly affected by sexual crimes committed against children,’ the training guide emphasizes statistics that show the vast majority of sexual assaults against children are committed within the family and by friends and neighbors, not other authority figures.

Anatrella’s training document was published just a few days after Peter Saunders, a British victim of abuse serving on the papal advisory commission on clerical sexual assault, was forced out of his position via a vote of no confidence. The vote of no confidence came after Saunders was accused of being difficult to work with and too familiar with the media. The commission announced publicly that Saunders would be taking a leave of absence but Saunders told the press that he had no knowledge of that decision and that he refuses to step down unless Pope Francis officially asks him to. Saunders has been critical of the commission since it was formed two years ago, but as one of two survivors appointed to the commission by Pope Francis, his presence was considered an important victory for victims who want to participate in the discussion. His removal, whether or not it gets Pope Francis’ stamp of approval, may be viewed as a significant step backward in creating open dialogue and building trust between abuse survivors and the bureaucracy of the church.

Conclusion

The sexual abuse that Catholic priests engaged in for decades around the world is a heinous crime not only in its nature but because of the sheer scale on which it was committed. It is not only the priests who abused children who must be held accountable in court, it is also their superiors who ignored allegations of sexual assault over extended periods of time. The last decade has seen a sharp rise in victims coming forward, sharing their stories and formally testifying in court about their experiences, which will hopefully hold the Church accountable for its actions. As Pope Francis tries to usher in a new brand of Catholicism, investigations like the Ballarat case serve as a constant reminder of exactly how much reform is still needed to redress the past crimes. Pell’s testimony in Rome this weekend may not have deviated from the statements he made last year during the investigation conducted by Australia’s Royal Commission but the attention that the conference has garnered has put Pell in the spotlight, not just in Australia, but on the world stage.

Resources

New York Times: After Criticism, Pope Francis Confronts Priestly Sexual Abuse

New York Times: Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy

LA Times: Catholic Sex Abuse Hearing Will Take Place in the Dead of Night in a Hotel in Rome

The Age: Ballarat Abuse Survivors Head to Rome to see Cardinal George Pell Give Evidence

The Age: Victoria Police Refer Leak of Investigation into Cardinal George Pell to IBAC

ABC: Child Abuse Sex Inquiry: Bishop Paul Bird Denies as Many as 14 Ballarat Priests Involved in Abuse as Hearings Wrap Up

The Guardian: George Pell Tried to Bribe Abuse Victim, Royal Commission Hears

The Guardian: Ballarat Priests Involved in Child Sex Abuse sSent on ‘Treatment’ Trips, inquiry told

FT: Australia Clerical Sex Abuse Victims Travel to Rome

Herald Sun: Cardinal George Pell is the Victim of a Vicious Witch Hunt

News.Com.Au: 60 Minutes Reporter Tara Brown Digs Deep into George Pell’s Melbourne Response

Reuters: Critic of Vatican Refuses to Step Down from Sex Abuse Commission

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Reckoning in Rome: A Look at the Ballarat Abuse Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

After years of fighting destroyed cities, led to massive waves of refugees, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, world leaders are finally coming to the table in order to reach a peace agreement. On February 1, leaders from around the region and the world met in Geneva, Switzerland in order to lay the groundwork for a deal that might end the conflict.

While even getting this far is an accomplishment, actually achieving a sustained peace is further complicated by the various regional and world powers involved, each of whom has their own agendas to satisfy. Couple that with the role of non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front and the reason why peace has been so elusive becomes clearer. Read on to find out about the origins of the Syrian conflict, what each side wants and how those involved expect to create a lasting peace.

A Brief Overview

The war in Syria marks the last gasp of the Arab Spring. Beginning in March 2011, thousands of protesters took to the streets after government forces arrested, tortured, and killed opponents of the Syrian regime. But doing so escalated the conflict leading to the consolidation of several rebel factions that rose up in violent resistance. Since the conflict devolved into full-fledged civil war, there have been atrocities and war crimes committed by both the rebels and the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. The most infamous were the chemical weapons attacks in 2013, which nearly led to a direct U.S. intervention. The situation was eventually resolved when the United States, Russia, and Syria reached an agreement to dispose of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict has resulted in violence and destruction on a mass scale. As of the start of 2016, an estimated 250,000 people had been killed and 11 million others have been displaced either internally or abroad. The resulting refugee crisis has reached historic proportions, testing the limits of neighboring countries and the European Union.

Who is Involved?

Due to the long-running nature of the conflict as well as the number of people killed or displaced, many of the world’s major powers have also gotten involved. The contingent opposing Assad includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. The countries bolstering Assad are Iran and Russia. Along with these nations are non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al Nusra Front. With all of these groups involved, to understand how the peace process hopes to work, it is first necessary to understand what they each want.

The United States and its Allies

The clearest distinction in what the two sides are hoping to achieve comes in the targets of their respective airstrikes. The U.S.-led collation has focused on targeting ISIS positions while trying not to assist Assad in any way. The coalition’s main goal is to bring the conflict to an end peacefully, ensure that Assad leaves office, and also stop the flow of refugees.

So far, the west has focused almost exclusively on defeating ISIS and not fighting the Assad regime directly. The Obama administration initially authorized a program to train rebels, but it was viewed as a disaster and the program was shut down last October. Aside from logistical problems, one area of contention was Washington’s insistence that rebels focus on fighting ISIS over Assad, which they did not agree with. In its place, the United States began to directly offer arms to the Syrian rebels.

An ideal peace agreement for the United States would involve Assad leaving power and the creation of some form of a cooperative, moderate government to take his place. Doing so would need to also enable displaced Syrians to return home and allow the United States to focus on defeating ISIS exclusively.

Russia

Much of Russia’s interests in Syria run counter to what the United States wants to see happen. This starts with Russia’s airstrikes, which have reportedly been targeting the opposition groups fighting Assad and not terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Like Iran, Russia hopes to keep its client Assad in power in Syria, however, its larger aims in Syria and the greater Middle East are far-reaching and complex. For more information about Russia’s role in the Middle East and its interests there check out this explainer.

So far, Russia has been willing to openly assert its positions even at the expense of a potential peace deal. Most recently, as countries involved in the region agreed to a version of a ceasefire, Russia embarked on an airstrike campaign to support a Syrian government attack on Aleppo, frustrating potential peace partners. For Russia, the best case scenario would be Assad maintaining his power so that Russia maintain its foothold in the area and the stability of one of its longstanding allies.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Two other major players are Saudi Arabia and Iran. While the Saudis are tentatively an ally of the United States, the country has several important interests in the conflict. Iran is similarly situated but on the other side of the conflict, finding itself partially aligned with Russia. Both countries’ concerns with the Syrian conflict center over their expanding proxy war, which pits them against one another on religious and geopolitical grounds. The conflict was already sectarian in nature, pitting President Assad–a member of the minority ruling Shia Alawite sect–against the majority Sunnis. Iran, another Shia country, provides billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Assad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been funneling a lot of support for the Syrian rebels. The escalating feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia has already strained the existing peace efforts–the execution of a cleric in Saudi Arabia causing Iran to retaliate and tensions to rise.

For Iran, it would be a major victory if Assad is able to stay in power. Not only would it mean keeping him as a client, it would also help them maintain influence in Lebanon as well. Additionally, it would serve as a victory over both Saudi Arabia and the United States. For Saudi Arabia, victory would mean Assad losing power and a new government made up of the Sunni majority population. This would give the Saudis a badly needed win in a proxy war that has so far seen Iran gain influence throughout the gulf.

Non-State Actors

Adding fuel to the sectarian nature of this war is the presence of non-state groups such as ISIS and the Al-Qaida sponsored Nusra Front. These groups have battled each other, the other countries acting in Syria, and Assad’s forces. ISIS has proven to be the most successful and prominent group, taking and holding large chunks of territory in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, ISIS is the reason why the foreign powers are in Syria in the first place, although Russia, Iran, and likely some of the Gulf States are clearly there for other concerns as well.

The presence of ISIS and Al Nusra has severely complicated the situation in Syria. The mere presence of these groups makes any effort to arm Syrian rebels much more complicated, as countries fear that their weapons will fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is a member of ISIS and who is just someone fighting against the regime. Aside from ISIS and Al Nusra, Iran-backed Hezbollah and the Syrian Kurdish PYD have also been involved in the fighting.

Syria

Then there’s Syria itself. The ongoing conflict has destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and displaced massive portions of the Syrian population. Estimates indicate that the cost to fix the damage done to the country from a monetary standpoint could be as much as $200 billion. Considering how hard it has been to merely find the funds to help Syrian refugees, it appears unlikely that much money could or would be raised to rebuild an unstable country.

The best case scenario for Syria is hard to pinpoint. Assad’s departure would certainly be in the interest of the majority Sunni population, but doing so could also create a massive power vacuum furthering the rise of extremism. In this case then, perhaps forming some type of coalition which incorporates both the opposition and elements of the Assad regime in to order maintain some sort of peace may be the most that can be hoped for.

With all these parties involved and the constant infighting, little has been accomplished. The reality is, there is more than one war going on in Syria at the moment. To achieve peace in Syria, all these separate conflicts would need to be resolved at once, with the possible exception of the fight against ISIS.

The following video gives a sample of what may be next for Syria:

Peace for our Time?

In mid-December, the U.N. Security Council agreed to create a path that would eventually lead to peace in Syria. After years of violent conflict, peace talks finally began on February 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks started with a U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura meeting separately with the government and opposition representatives. The talks are tentatively planned to last for six months. However, there is not even a preliminary understating of how, let alone if, Assad will give up power.

In fact, the only reason these talks are even taking place now is conditions are so bad in some places as to potentially demand war crime charges. The opposition only considered participating because they were promised that major headway would be made toward addressing these most serious issues. And almost immediately after the process was initiated, it was suspended due to attacks by the Syrian government with Russia’s backing. How much ultimately comes from these talks and whether they even occur as planned remains a mystery. The following video gives a quick look at some of the problems plaguing the peace talks:

Conclusion

After years of fighting, millions displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead, peace talks in Syria must be a good idea, right? Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests that there is very little chance of a sustainable peace agreement on the horizon. While talks may help strengthen diplomatic ties as the conflict rages on, there appears to be very little in the way of progress to stop the violence.

The problem with this peace process is there are too many different parties at play, with very different sets of interests and strategic goals. One side wants Assad to stay, the other will not negotiate unless he is forced to leave. But that is just one of the many questions at hand, as many parties have a wide range of strategic interests in the war. This problem is compounded further, by the fact that the opposition to Assad is a hodge-podge of groups and no one can agree on who to trust. In fact, the strongest opposition group in Syria is probably ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, but neither of them was invited to the peace conference for obvious reasons.

While some sort of peace in Syria may be possible down the road, the possibility that it is favorable for all those involved, especially the Syrian people, is far less likely.

Resources

International Business Times: Syria: Shaky Peace Process to Start in Geneva Amid Deadly Bombings and Sieges

BBC News: Syria: The Story of the conflict

BBC News: Syria Crisis: Where Key Countries Stand

Law Street Media: Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

The Guardian: Future of Assad in Doubt as UN Unanimously Supports Syrian Peace Process

Euro News: Aleppo Assault Threatens Fragile Syrian Peace Process

Al Jazeera: Prominent Syrian Rebel Commander Killed in Airstrike

Al Jazeera: Saudi-Iran Crisis Throws a Wrench in Syria Peace Talks

History News Network: 6 Predictions About What will Happen in Syria

CNN: You Thought Syria Couldn’t Get Much Worse. Think Again

The New York Times: Syria Talks Are Suspended

BBC: Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US Went Wrong

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Does Peace in Syria Remain Elusive? appeared first on Law Street.

While Iran has a parliament and president, like many western nations, its political structure is far more opaque. From the Supreme Leader to influential religious councils, understanding Iran’s leadership presents a challenge in and of itself. This challenge has been highlighted by a number of high profile events where it was unclear who had the final say in important Iranian policy decisions. Read on to learn how the Iran leadership was developed, how it is currently structured, and how that leadership defines itself both domestically and abroad.

The Revolution and Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was years in the making; its origins go back to at least to 1953. During that year, the CIA helped overthrow the recently elected prime minister in favor of the Shah, who had Western leanings and was an opponent of Soviet-style communism. While the Shah honored his loyalty to the United States, he was less kind to his own people, frequently imprisoning and even torturing those opposing him.

This set the stage for the revolution of 1979. This movement was led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned from Paris where he had been exiled during the Shah’s rise. In place of the Shah’s one-party government, the Ayatollah installed his own based on Islamic teachings, placing himself as the country’s Supreme Leader. The new emphasis on strict adherence to Islam meant a rollback on the Shah’s few, more liberal reforms concerning the economy and women’s rights.

The following video details the specifics of the Iranian Revolution:

The Shah, who had come to power following World War II, ruled as the head of a constitutional monarchy with himself as the final arbiter. When he was deposed by Khomeini the democratic institutions that had existed were kept, however, any power they had was drained. In the new system, Khomeini ruled as the unquestioned leader of his own government which focused heavily on instilling Islamic concepts and resisting interaction with Western nations he viewed as corrupting Iran. The next sections will detail the unelected and elected elements of Khomeini’s Iran and how they are structured so that his power is virtually unchallenged.

Unelected Officials

Similar to the U.S. government, part of Iran’s government is appointed, independent of any elections. In the Iranian case, however, this aspect of the government is unquestionably the most powerful part, including many important institutions.

The Supreme Leader

As the final decision maker, the Supreme Leader has either direct or indirect control over nearly the entire government because his primary responsibility is to maintain the continued existence of the Islamic State of Iran. To ensure this, the Ayatollah has power over all three branches of government, the military, and even the state-run media. He also has power or influence on virtually every other political institution, the economy, and major policy decisions. In other words then, the Supreme Leader is the undisputed power in the Iranian regime.

The person who spearheaded the 1979 revolution and the first to hold this all important office was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini founded the state and defined his role in it by championing four key characteristics, “justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islamic Piety.” Khomeini also offered a religious justification for the office, believing he held the place on earth of a 12th Imam, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed who has since gone into hiding. Khomeini died in 1989 with no appointed successor.

The man who succeeded him and the current supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has served in this position since 1989 making him the second longest current ruler in the Middle East. Khamenei was a longtime loyalist to Khomeini and also served two terms as Iran’s president before outmaneuvering rivals for the coveted Supreme Leader position.

The Guardian Council

Next in Iran’s unelected hierarchy is the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is arguably the most important Iranian institution aside from the Supreme Leader. The council has the final say on legislation passed by the parliament and maintains the ability to determine which candidates are eligible to run for public office in the parliament, presidency, and the Assembly of Experts. There are 12 members, six chosen by the Supreme Leader and six chosen by the judiciary and confirmed by parliament. The members of this group serve six-year terms. This group’s ability to evaluate legislation is part of its role that is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court evaluates laws based on their adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the Guardian Council determines whether laws are compliant with both Iran’s constitution and Islamic law.

The Expediency Council

The Expediency Council serves as advisors to the Supreme Leader, much as the cabinet does to the president. This assembly is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and consists of highly regarded political, social, and religious authorities. Aside from advising the Supreme Leader, this body’s main responsibility is to act as the final arbiter in disputes between the Parliament and Guardian Council. In 2005, it was also granted sweeping powers by the Supreme Leader over all branches of the government.

The Judiciary

Iran’s judiciary is a multi-tiered system of courts tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the law and settling grievances among Iranian citizens. The Supreme Leader has a considerable amount of control over the judiciary as he appoints its leader, who then appoints the head of the Supreme Court and the top public prosecutor. There are three main branches of the judiciary, the public courts, the revolutionary courts, and the special clerical court. While the public court deals with criminal and civil matters, the latter two courts deal with everything else.

Based the structure of the judiciary and its position beneath the Supreme Leader, many believe that it is often used as a political tool to squash dissent and maintain strict control over the people of Iran. Critics also note that the trial process in Iran is often very opaque and restrictive, allowing greater government influence.

The Revolutionary Guard

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is yet another body whose leadership is appointed by the Supreme Leader, along with the regular army. This group was created following the revolution to defend its key figures and fight its opponents. Unsurprisingly, this group only answers to the Supreme Leader. Aside from being in charge of militia branches in every town in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard has widespread influence throughout Iranian life.

The Revolutionary Guard’s special place both within the military and within Iran itself comes from its initial purpose of serving as an armed body loyal to the revolution as the regular army that had been loyal to the departed Shah. Since its inception, the guard has acquired billions of dollars from a variety of activities such as shipping, construction, defense contracts, and oil production. The group uses many of these assets to fund militant or extremist groups abroad such as Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guard is so powerful, in fact, that some of the American and E.U. sanctions have targeted the IRGC specifically.

The two other major components of Iran’s defense forces are the army and the ministry of intelligence and security, which is essentially the Iranian CIA. All three of these groups are under the direction of the Supreme National Security Council. While this agency is again tentatively under the control of the president, in reality, the Supreme Leader possesses most of the control.

Elected Officials

Also similar to the United States, a portion of the Iranian government is elected by the people. Anyone over 18, including women, is eligible to vote. Also like in the American system, the different branches have some checks on one another.

The President and Cabinet

The presidency in Iran shares some of the characteristics of the same position in the United States. Namely, the presidential term is four years, and a president can only be elected for two consecutive terms. However, while the president, in theory, is the second most powerful person in Iran behind the supreme leader, reality suggests that the office’s power is drastically curtailed by unelected leaders. Not only does the president answer to the Guardian Council, which chooses who can run for the position in the first place, but the Supreme Leader retains final authority over most major political decisions. In fact, the President of Iran is the only executive in the world to not have control over the country’s military.

Parliament

Iran’s parliament has 290 members and is similar to most western legislatures. Notably, this body has its membership determined through popular elections. Once elected, members have the power to introduce and pass laws as well as summon and impeach cabinet ministers and the president. Once again, though, Parliament’s power and even who is eligible to run for office is determined by the Guardian Council. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian legislature is a unicameral body whose members serve four-year terms. The Iranian parliament’s sessions and its minutes are open to the public.

Assembly of Experts

The final part of Iran’s leadership that is directly elected is the Assembly of Experts. There are 86 members of this body and each one is elected to an eight-year term. To be considered, each member must be a cleric or religious leader. This group has the critical responsibility of appointing and subsequently monitoring the Supreme Leader. Members of this group are vetted first by the Guardian Council, the primary check on its influence. This group meets for only one week each year and although it has the power to depose the Supreme Leader it has never challenged any of his decisions since the Islamic Republic of Iran formed. The accompanying video gives a concise explanation of how the Iranian government is organized:

Major Challenges Facing Iran’s Leadership

Domestic Dissent

Protests in Iran became particularly significant in the 20th century, as Iranian citizens frequently spoke out against the government. For the first half of the century, this was aimed at the decadent dynastic government and later colonial masters. The resistance then focused on the Shah, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution. Following the revolution, discontent emerged in 2009 when people took to the streets to dispute then President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In 2011, another flare-up of protests occurred concurrently with the Arab Spring revolts in nearby countries. Much of the protest again focused on the contentious 2009 elections and were led by the Green Movement.

International Relations

Political decisions in Iran are often the result of a complex process that is typically driven by the Supreme Leader. Given the nature of the Iranian government, several international concerns have significant implications for the country and how its government responds.

Possibly the most pressing concern facing Iran is its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. The two countries have effectively positioned themselves as the defenders and standard bearers of Islam, but champion different denominations. This is especially true of the Supreme Leader who feels it is his mission to lead Islam and who also views Saudi Arabia as an obstacle in the way of that. This proxy conflict threatens to turn into more direct action if Iran reneges on its nuclear deal. The video below details the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:

The recent nuclear deal between Iran and the United States brings up another important challenge for the country. While the two groups have worked together to finalize the deal, a conflict remains. Aside from the history of distrust between both countries, Iran’s support for a number of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas–which are considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department–and its anti-Israel policy remain hurdles.

Conclusion

Iran has a large and complex leadership structure, which originated in the aftermath of the revolution in 1979. On one hand are democratic institutions such as the president and parliament, which are similar to American and Western models. On the other are a series of appointed offices that wield a significant portion of political power in the country. At the heart of this system lies the Supreme Leader who has control over many of the appointments and final say over virtually all of the country’s affairs. This system itself is a reaction to the previous secular regime of the Shah, which was founded upon a greater emphasis on Islamic law as well as inherent animosity toward the United States.

Iran is a mixture of theocracy and democracy, and understanding how Iran is governed and run is critical to understanding how to effectively deal with it. As history has shown, many countries, particularly the United States, have misinterpreted or misjudged the nation’s leadership.

Resources

The New York Times: 1979: Iran’s Islamic Revolution

United States Institute of Peace: The Supreme Leader

BBC News: Guide: How Iran is Ruled

Your Middle East: Iran’s Century of Protest

Global Security.org: Pasdaran: Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The Guardian: Iran Protests See Reinvigorated Activists Take to the Streets in Thousands

Politico: The Hidden Consequences of the Oil Crash

The New York Times: U.S. and Iran Both Conflict and Converge

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi

United States Institute of Peace: The Oil and Gas Industry

PBS: The Structure of Power in Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran’s Leadership: Inside the Complex Regime appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

Early in the morning on January 8, the notorious cartel leader Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, was captured, yet again, by Mexican authorities following a heated gun battle at his hideout. While Guzman’s story has a number of interesting subplots, including his multiple previous escapes and an interview with Sean Penn, it also points to something: the ongoing war on drugs taking place with its epicenter in Mexico. However, this has not always been the state of things, as South America, particularly Colombia, was once home to the heart of drug trafficking and its most infamous leader Pablo Escobar. But the recent arrest highlights how that center has moved north and, not coincidently, much closer to the U.S. border. Read on to see how the heart of the drug trade has shifted in recent years, what impact that has had in Mexico, the role of the United States, and if capturing El Chapo really makes any difference in the larger war on drugs.

It Started in South America Now it’s Here

To understand the importance of capturing someone like El Chapo, or even the Mexican drug trafficking industry in general, it is necessary to travel one step backward to Colombia. The Colombian drug trade really took off in the 1970s when marijuana traffickers began trading in cocaine because of increased American demand for the drug. Trafficking cocaine was considerably more profitable than marijuana and the growth in profits caused a dramatic increase in the scale of smuggling.

The amount of money in this industry led to the formation of two incredibly powerful competing cartels, the Medellin and the Cali Cartels. The Medellin Cartel, known for its ruthlessness and use of violence, was epitomized by its leader, the notorious Pablo Escobar. The Cali cartel, on the other hand, was much more inconspicuous, reinvesting profits in legitimate businesses and using bribery instead of violence to get its way. The competition between these two groups turned violent, eventually involving the Colombian government and even the United States.

In the 1990s, these two groups were finally undone by concerted efforts between the local Colombian government and U.S. advisors that led to their leaders being either imprisoned or killed. Since their peak, these empires have fragmented, as smaller groups took control over various parts of the cocaine-producing process. While the violence in Colombia has decreased, though not disappeared altogether, the dominant player in the drug trafficking world has shifted to Mexico.

Going North

Mexico had originally been the final corridor through which Colombian cocaine passed before entering the United States. Before Mexico, cocaine had been smuggled through the Caribbean to cities like Miami. Ultimately, though, those routes were shut down by the United States. During the peak years of operation in Colombia, Mexico was little more than a path into the United States. However, this began to change with the demise of the Cali and Medellin cartels, coupled with continued American pressure and aid packages to help the Colombian government fight the local drug trade. Due to fragmentation and weakening Colombian cartels, the center of the drug trade shifted north in Mexico. Mexico served as a natural hub due to its earlier involvement in distributing the drugs produced in Colombia.

While the Mexican cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade, their rise preceded the actual demise of their Colombian brethren. Much of the history of modern cartels in Mexico can be traced back to one man, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo. Gallardo was responsible for creating and maintaining the smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States. When he was arrested, his network splintered into several parts, laying the groundwork for many of the cartel divisions that exist today. The first major successor was the AFO or Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization. However, its status was usurped by the Sinaloa Cartel under El Chapo’s control.

The Sinaloa Cartel is believed to control between 40 and 60 percent of the drug trade in Mexico with that translating into annual profits of up to $3 billion, but it is only one of nine that currently dominate Mexico. The activities of these cartels have also expanded as they are now involved in other criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, theft, human trafficking, as well as smuggling new drugs to the United States.

The rise of the Mexican cartels can be attributed to other factors aside from the demise of the Colombian groups. One such factor was the role of the Mexican government. During the important period of their ascendancy, the cartels were largely left alone by the Mexican government, which was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for 71 years. When the PRI’s grip on power finally loosened, the alliance with the cartels also shredded.

The growth of the Mexican cartels may also have been the result of economic problems in the United States. Stagflation in the United States led to higher interest rates on loans, which Mexico could not pay. In order to avert an economic crisis, several international institutions stepped in to bail Mexico out, which shifted the government’s focus from its economy to repaying debt. As a result of aggressive policies directed toward Mexican workers and because of the deleterious effects of the NAFTA treaty, there was a dramatic loss of jobs and a shift to a more urban population.

In this new setting, there were few opportunities available, making positions with drug cartels one of the few lucrative options along with growing the crops like poppy, which is used to create the drugs themselves. According to farmers interviewed by the Guardian, growing poppy is the only way for them to guarantee a “cash income.” An increase in the availability of firearms and other weapons smuggled south from the United States only added to the violence and chaos. The video below depicts the history of the Mexican drug trade:

Impact on Mexico

These endless wars for control between cartels in Mexico have taken a significant toll on the country. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, 164,000 people were killed in America’s southern neighbor. While not all those murders are drug-related, some estimates suggest 34 to 55 percent of homicides involve the drug war, a rate that is still incredibly high.

Aside from the number of deaths, all of the violence has influenced the Mexican people’s trust in the government as a whole. That lack of faith may be well founded as the weaknesses of the judicial and police forces are widely known. When the PRI was the single ruling party, it had effectively served as patrons to the drug cartels where an understanding was essentially worked out between the two. When the PRI lost its grip on power, this de-facto alliance between the government and the cartels also splintered. Without centralized consent, individuals at all levels of government as well as in the judiciary and police became susceptible to bribes from the various cartels.  In fact, many were often presented with the choice of either going along with the cartels in exchange for money or being harmed if they resisted. The corruption and subsequent lack of trust in authorities have gotten so bad that some citizens are forming militias of their own to combat the cartels.

Role of the United States

In addition to the impact that the U.S. economy has in terms of job opportunities, particularly since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has had a major impact on the drug trade in two other ways. First are the U.S. efforts to curb the supply of drugs, which were organized as part of the overall war on drugs. While the United States has had a variety of drug laws on the books, it was not until after the 1960s that the government took direct aim at eliminating illicit substances. In 1971, President Nixon formally launched a “war on drugs,” taking an aggressive stance implementing laws like mandatory minimum sentencing and labeling marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made it equivalent to substances like heroin in the eyes of the law.

This emphasis on drug laws only intensified under President Reagan, whose persistence in prosecuting drug crimes led to a large increase in the prison population. During Reagan’s presidency, Congress also passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, which forced countries receiving U.S. aid to adhere to its drug laws or lose their assistance packages. These policies more or less continued for decades, often with more and more money being set aside to increase enforcement. Only in recent years has President Barack Obama offered much of a change as he has overseen modifications in sentencing and the perception of medical marijuana laws.

This focus on supply extends beyond the U.S. border as well. First, in Colombia, the United States repeatedly put pressure on the Colombian government to fight the drug traffickers. With these efforts still ineffective and with violence mounting, the United States again poured money into the country, helping to finance needed reforms in the Colombian security forces and for other things like crop eradication. In Mexico, a similar approach followed as a series of presidents, beginning in the 1980s, took on much more combative roles against the cartels with the approval and support of the United States. The United States helped support an armed forces overhaul to combat the traffickers and root out corruption within the Mexican armed forces, which had begun to permeate as a result of low wages. In Mexico, successive governments even went so far as to send the military into cartel-dominated cities and engage in assaults. While Presidents Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon sent in troops and met with some immediate success, in the long term it led to mass army defections, greater awareness of the reach of the drug economy, and ultimately other cartels filling the void where government forces were successful.

Since the inception of the drug war, the United States has spent an estimated $1 trillion. Primarily what the United States has to show for this is a number of unintended consequences such as the highest incarceration rates in the world. Another is one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDs of any Western nation fueled, in part, by the use of dirty syringes among drug users.

The problem is that for all its efforts to eliminate supply, the United States has done much less about demand, its other contribution to the drug trade. In fact, the United States is widely regarded as the number one market in the world for illegal drugs. To address demand instead of concentrating on supply, the United States could shift more of its focus to programs that educate or offer rehabilitation to drug users, which have been shown to be effective in small scale efforts.  Certain states have begun to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, a step which will certainly reduce the number of inmates and may also reduce levels of drug-related violence. Yet there is no single way to outright reduce the demand for drugs and some view decriminalization as actually fueling the problem. The following video provides an overview of the resources invested into the United Stats’ war on drugs:

The Importance of Capturing El Chapo

Considering all of the resources and efforts put in place, it is important to consider how much of an impact El Chapo’s arrest will actually have. Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is not much, if any at all. In fact, even El Chapo himself weighed in on his arrest’s effects on the drug trade, telling Sean Penn in an interview, “the day I don’t exist, it’s not going to decrease in any way at all.” El Chapo’s point is clearly illustrated through the number of drug seizures at the border. While exact amounts fluctuate, nearly 700,000 more pounds of marijuana were seized in 2011 than in 2005. The amount of heroin and amphetamines seized has also gone up as well.

The following video details El Chapo’s most recent capture:

His most recent arrest was actually his third; the first two times he escaped from maximum security prisons in stylish fashions, which is one of the reasons that U.S. authorities want Mexico to extradite him. Regardless of where he is ultimately held, since his first arrest in 1993 the drug trade has not suffered when he or any other cartel leader was captured or killed, nor has it suffered from the growth in seizures.

In fact, one of the major points of collaboration between Mexican and U.S. authorities has been on targeting, capturing, or killing of the kingpins of these cartels. While these operations have been successful in apprehending individuals, what they really result in is the further fragmentation of the drug trade. While some may argue that detaining top leaders and fragmenting the centralized drug trade is a mark of success, evidence suggests this is not so.

Conclusion

Aside from relocating the hub of the drug trade to Mexico, the war on drugs has had several other unintended consequences such as high civilian deaths, persistently high rates of HIV infection, and massive levels of incarceration to name a few. While the United States has had some success targeting suppliers and traffickers, it has been unable to reduce demand domestically.

Those involved in Mexico faced a similar conundrum. Not only do citizens in Mexico not trust their government, many of them have become dependent on the drug trade and shutting it down could actually hurt the economic prospects of many citizens.

While El Chapo’s most recent capture has the potential to provide the government with some credibility, it still may not mean much. Even if he is prevented from escaping again or running his old empire from jail, someone will likely take his place. That is because the drug trade does not rely on individuals but on demand and profits. Until these issues are addressed and Mexican citizens have legitimate alternatives to joining cartels, it does not matter how many cartel leaders are arrested, the situation will remain the same.

Resources

CNN: ‘Mission Accomplished’: Mexican President Says ‘El Chapo’ Caught

Frontline: The Colombian Cartels

Borderland Beat: The Story of Drug Trafficking in Latin America

Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations

Jacobin: How the Cartels Were Born

Frontline: The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War

Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Drug War

Drug Policy Alliance: A Brief History of the Drug War

Matador Network: 10 Facts About America’s War On Drugs That Will Shock You

The Washington Post: Latin American Leaders Assail U.S. Drug ‘Market’

The Huffington Post: Why The Capture of ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Won’t Stop His Cartel

The Guardian: Mexican Farmers Turn to Opium Poppies to Meet Surge in US Heroin Demand

CIR: Drug Seizures Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Finding El Chapo: What his Arrest Means for Mexico and the Drug Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Eight men have been arrested following the hundreds of robberies and assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. Over 600 criminal reports were submitted regarding New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and over half of those reports involved sexual harassment or assault. A large number of the victims who reported their attacks described their assailants as Middle Eastern, which triggered fears of backlash against Germany’s refugee population. Angela Merkel has remained firm in her commitment to refugee acceptance and integration but the attacks in Cologne may provide a critical groundswell of support for anti-immigration groups. At this time, one 26-year-old Algerian asylum-seeker is in custody for groping a woman and stealing her phone but the refugee status of the other suspects in custody is mostly unknown. Read on for a closer look at the events of New Year’s Eve and what they may mean for Germany in the coming years.

The Attacks across the City

Over 1,000 drunken men gathered outside of Cologne’s central train station, adjacent to its famous cathedral, to ring in 2016. It was within that neighborhood that a large part of the attacks took place, as young women emerged from the train station and headed off into the night. Groups of men who were reported to be of “North African/Arab” origin surrounded young women, groping and assaulting them. Dozens of men would circle women, both those walking alone and those in groups, forcing them to “run a gauntlet” to escape. In addition to sexual attacks, hundreds of people reported theft of money, phones, and valuables.

The identities of the attackers were initially unclear but in the days following the attacks, a significant number of the victims described their attackers as young men of Middle Eastern origin. The majority of the women targeted were German nationals. One woman reported that her rapist told her “German women are just for sex.” Media reports of the incidents were initially only running in local newspapers but within a few days, the story of the horrific night had spread worldwide.

The police have stated that they have never dealt with this kind of situation before and had not created a plan of action to combat such wide-scale criminal activity occurring at once. The preceding year, police officers were deployed in the same volume and had no problems with crowd control. However, with the influx of people outside the station, there were so many attacks happening simultaneously around the central station that security forces were essentially powerless to stop them. The violence was not confined to Cologne, as hundreds of other sexual assault cases poured in from across Germany on New Year’s Eve. However, the collective nature of the attacks in Cologne and the authorities’ disturbingly lackluster response on the ground outside the station mark them as unique. In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks, several German cities cancelled other winter celebrations out of fear of similar widespread violence.

Unexpected Implications

Continued Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Right wing protesters, already against the influx of refugees, have doubled down on their positions. During a recent protest, they clashed with police in riot gear, screaming at police officers for not defending local women–although it was unclear if they meant defending them from assault or defending them from refugees. One supporter of the anti-immigration Pegida movement went so far as to refer to the attacks as “bad for the women, but good for us, because the people are being woken up.” Anti-immigration rallies were held across the country in the wake of the attacks, with hundreds of people carrying signs reading “Rapefugees Not Welcome.” Although few of the women who were assaulted have come forward with anti-immigrant positions, Pegida and other groups have taken it upon themselves to be their voices.

Unfortunately, many onlookers worry that the transparent racism and xenophobia of Pegida undermines the validity of the victim’s reports. One young woman named Selina publicly discussed her attack and her attackers (men of Middle Eastern descent who spoke Arabic and did not seem to understand German) and was accused of being racist by a variety of internet sources. Women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them should feel comfortable reporting physical descriptions of their attackers but in the case of  the Cologne attacks, where race and violence are inextricably linked, those who report their attack may become targets for the vitriol of those who assume they are prejudiced.

An Attack on Women

Two weeks after the attack, The Irish Times published an editorial on the violence in Cologne which stated that

Perpetrators of sexual assault against women do have one thing in common, and it’s not religion or ethnicity, it’s gender…Perpetrators of sexual assault are typified by their diversity. But the common denominator is men. Until we are honest with ourselves about that, and until prevention focuses on stopping men from assaulting women – not blaming one demographic of men, or outlining ways in which women can avoid potential assault – we are kidding ourselves. What happened in Cologne, that mass act, was primarily unusual in its collective nature. But all over the world, in every village, town and city, mass acts of misogyny are fragmented daily, manifesting as individual assaults. We ignore them, because they are not as newsworthy. Victims of sexual assault are just as diverse. Being raped transcends all demographics.

A majority of news outlets have chosen to classify the attacks in Cologne as an issue of sexual assault and violence rather than an issue of race. Evidence from police data shows that refugees have, in fact, committed less crime than native Germans since arriving in the country, therefore outside of the right wing rallies, few news outlets have traced the crimes to be associated with race. While the German government has prioritized deporting refugees who are found guilty of sexual and physical assault, women’s advocacy groups argue that this is not about immigration policy–it is about protection for women. The events of Cologne are being attributed to a massive spike in the number of young men in Germany, which changes the demographics of security.

Regardless of race or socioeconomic status, men are more likely to commit violent acts than women. Considering that the majority of sexual assault cases involve the assault of women by men, the shifting gender dynamics of Germany may affect the country’s future. Cologne has been labeled a potential watershed moment for legal reform and creating protections for all women against all forms of sexual harassment and abuse. As Germany adapts to its new population, the legal processes and security of the nation will have to change in tandem. The brutality of New Year’s Eve in Cologne may inspire German officials to create comprehensive legal protection for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.

Conclusion

The attacks in Cologne will be remembered as an unprecedented night of terror but the implications of the attacks go beyond criminal activity. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million refugees (and potentially more in the coming year) into Germany was controversial and she will likely have to keep defending it for years to come. Asylum seekers engaging in criminal activity only fuels the fears of Germans who were already opposed to the influx of refugees. The entire refugee population should not be held accountable for the actions of a few, but as security services are sorting through hundreds of potential suspects who often match the description of Middle Eastern refugees, right-wing xenophobes are gaining public support. The German police presence will need to adapt and expand to deal with its swelling population if they want to avoid a repeat of Cologne in the coming years but that will require not only a new style of training, but an increase in the number of staff they have available for deployment at any given time. Cologne will not only be an important marker for the history of women’s rights and violent crime, it may serve as the trigger for an new era of policing in Germany.

Resources

CNN: Eight in Pretrial Custody in Cologne New Year’s Eve Mass Robberies, Sex Assaults

CNN: Cologne, Germany: Hundreds of Sexual Assault Charges from New Year’s Eve

BBC: First Suspect Held Over Sex Assault Claims

The New York Times: As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality

Huffington Post: Here’s What We Know So Far About The Sexual Assaults At Cologne’s Train Station

Daily Mail: Migrant Sexually Assaulted 25-year-old Victim after Telling her ‘German Women are Just There for Sex’

NBC News: Cologne Sex Attacks ‘Good for Us,’ Anti-Refugee Protesters Say

Breitbart: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim called a Racist and Harassed after Identifying Her Attackers

The Irish Times: Cologne Assaults a Mass Act of Misogyny

The Local: Police: Refugees Commit Less Crime than Germans

TIME: Reaction to Cologne Attacks Should Focus on Women’s Rights

Psychology Today: Male Aggression: Why are Men More Violent?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Impacts of Widespread Sexual Assault in Cologne appeared first on Law Street.

On December 28, 2015, South Korea and Japan entered into a monumental agreement as the countries addressed the injustices made against “comfort women“–approximately 200,000 South Korean women who were recruited into prostitution and servitude by the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. Women, some as young as 11, were kidnapped during this time, forced into sexual bondage and servitude where they were raped, tortured, and subjected to extreme violence by Japanese soldiers in “comfort stations” found in Japanese military camps. To date, this barbaric and horrific behavior left an open, festering, and unaddressed wound causing heavy tensions between the two nations for several decades.

The agreement reached required action on both sides as Japan admitted that it was “painfully aware of responsibilities from this perspective,” referring to the attack on the women of South Korea’s honor and dignity. Japan sincerely apologized–something it was not willing to do before as it questioned whether it was responsible for the development of “comfort women,” and additionally, it agreed to provide ¥1 billion ($8.3 million) in government funds to the South Korean women subjected to prostitution during WWII by the Japanese Army. In compliance with the agreement, South Korea agreed to accept the monetary compensation through a fund rather than a direct compensation to the women who had suffered so that the “money didn’t represent direct compensation for wrongdoing.” Critics of the agreement noted that the development of a fund rather than direct compensation was Japan’s way of avoiding the recognition that the women recruited into prostitution were done so “by the Japanese government and military systematically.”

Regardless of criticism, the landmark agreement reached between Japan and South Korea is a big deal for human rights. While forced prostitution, sex slaves, and human trafficking in Asia may not call for direct attention from the West, the trade is a massive violation of human rights and a booming business–as it is “the fastest growing industry in the world, and the second largest business after arms dealing in the 21st century.” Read on to learn more about “comfort women,” the wound left by the Imperial Japanese Army following WWII, and the attention that comfort women have brought to the human trafficking violations occurring today.

“Comfort Women” Beginnings

In August of 1910, Japan annexed the sovereign nation of what once was Korea and begun its 35-year-long imperial hold over the area and its people. In 1931, Japan launched what presumably would be noted as the start of WWII with its invasion of Manchuria, which ultimately led to its progression through China and Southeast Asia.

During this time, Japanese soldiers began to develop areas within their military camps dubbed “comfort stations” where they would be able unwind after long days of fighting and obtain sexual services. These stations were full of kidnapped and imprisoned women that were raped and forced to service soldiers dozens of times per day.

Japanese soldiers largely recruited women from Korean communities by luring them with promises of good jobs in big cities. Their dreams quickly came crashing down as they were locked up in three foot by five foot rooms in Japanese military bases and suffered the harshest of conditions–forced into sexual servitude, which at certain times could reach up to 60-70 encounters with soldiers per day. As war ensued, the Japanese military’s numbers increased and the soldiers began raiding villages and simply taking women as they pleased and killed anyone that stood in their way or protested against their behavior. The more need or desire that was expressed by the soldiers, the more brutal and barbaric the recruitment and treatment of comfort women became. Furthermore, women were cramped into tight spaces only separated by a tatami or a mat that did not reach the floor leaving the women exposed to others during rapes and beatings and allowing for sound to travel easily from cubicle to cubicle.

Accordingly, to ensure that a young woman was a virgin or of very immature sexual status and development, Japanese soldiers specifically targeted young women between the ages of 14-18. Women who tried to fight for themselves ended up dead or sterilized. Survivors of these horrendous crimes recounted the following:

We had to serve over 5,000 Japanese soldiers as sex slaves every day – up to 40 men per day. Each time I protested, they hit me or stuffed rags in my mouth. One held a matchstick to my private parts until I obeyed him. One Korean girl caught a venereal disease from being raped so often and, as a result, over 50 Japanese soldiers were infected. In order to stop the disease from spreading and to ’sterilize’ the Korean girl, they stuck a hot iron bar in her private parts. –Testimony of Chong Ok Sun

One day, a new girl was put in the compartment next to me. She tried to resist the men and bit one of them in his arm. She was then taken to the courtyard and in front of all of us, her head was cut off with a sword and her body was cut into small pieces. –Testimony of Hwang So Gyun

Venereal disease and fear of pregnancy plagued the women that were forced to service Japanese soldiers. One woman recollected that her son was born mentally handicapped because of the numerous diseases she had caught during her servitude. They were also expected to continue serving even through their menstrual cycle. The “Ten Day Report of the 21st Army Unit of the Japanese Army stationed at Kwandong, China, from 11 to 21 April 1939″ highlighted the fact that approximately 1,000 “comfort women” served 100,000 soldiers in that specified region during that time. Their service was required even in the harshest, most unacceptable of conditions, otherwise, these women met death.

Due to the lack of specific and official documentation, many of the injustices done to the young women kidnapped from their homes in Korea during WWII were not addressed. Very few documents throughout the course of history have directly been linked to the Imperial Japanese soldiers’ barbaric behaviors and actions. The substantive and now recognized facts pertaining to the recruitment and treatment of comfort women during this time was easily refuted post WWII as it was only recollected testimony from the victims and survivors themselves.

This is precisely why Japan long refused to acknowledge that it was responsible for the horrors done to comfort women. As decades passed and South Korean survivors demanded an apology without avail, Japan continued to ignore or defend its soldiers’ reprehensible acts. This emotional and dark past drove territorial disputes and in some cases caused the nations to work against each other on issues that threatened both due to geographical and geopolitical standing, such as “North Korean belligerence and Chinese assertiveness.” Japan and South Korea’s move to formulate an agreement and put the dark past behind them has allowed for some people of South Korea to feel as if justice was finally served and granted the two nations the ability to move forward in cooperation.

Modern Day Slavery: Sex and Labor Trafficking

It’s very difficult to estimate the exact number of modern-day human trafficking victims however, current data finds that approximately 36 million people are being trafficked, nearly 2/3 coming from Asia. While this industry is dark and dirty, it keeps growing because the revenue generated has totaled approximately $150 billion in profit. The international community has, to date, been unsuccessful in tackling human trafficking, both sex and labor trafficking, due to its inability to decipher the populations being affected, the geographical locations that face the most dire circumstances, how to properly define the issue, and how to enforce the agreements that have been in place but fail to be followed by local law enforcement of the regions suffering. The fact that it took Japan several decades to recognize its injustices and begin the reconciliation process with South Korea and its victims highlights the difficulty in showing harm done and getting all parties to listen for a meaningful resolution.

Weak national legislation and corrupt government conduct has contributed to the growing human trafficking problem in Asia. For example, all Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, are part of the “Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime,” which is a non-binding and voluntary forum created in 2002 that is co-chaired by the governments of Indonesia and Australia. Even with their involvement in such forums, and considering the fact there are only a few ASEAN nations that have yet to pass anti-trafficking laws, there is still a growing challenge in getting these countries to take practical action to combat human trafficking–funding for projects that are not a priority is next to impossible. Trying to find funding for such projects in nations where poverty levels are high and government funds depleted poses a significant challenge to victimized and suffering communities.

Human trafficking is not simply a problem to throw money at–it requires a plan with a solution, education of victims and law enforcement, and an adequately functioning government that will enforce the laws and procedures that it has agreed to regarding trafficking. The issue ultimately becomes local level enforcement, something that the international community has desperately failed to resolve.

Conclusion

While absolutely nothing will free these survivors of the grotesque crimes they endured, Japan’s recognition of the injustices done to South Korean women during WWII is a step forward in reconciling the deep and unapologetic wound left by Japanese soldiers, one that had thus far been denied altogether or swept under history’s rug. The agreement made between Japan and South Korea at the end of December not only sought to right the wrongs made at the hands of Japanese soldiers, but brought to light the horrors of human trafficking and modern day slavery that still largely exists in Asia.

Regardless of the difficulties that human trafficking presents for both survivors and advocates, it is clear that the agreement between South Korea and Japan has placed the horrors of sex trafficking and forced prostitution on a recognizable world stage, particularly by the West. It has worked to restore a sense of dignity and humility back into the lives of former comfort women that are still living today with the scars of a dark and unimaginable past and sought to provide funding to survivors in South Korea for the wrongs endured.

Resources

Primary

The Wall Street Journal: Full Text – Japan-South Korea Statement on “Comfort Women”

Additional

Yahoo! News: South Korea, Japan Agree to Irreversibly End “Comfort Women” Row

The Wall Street Journal: Japan, South Korea Agree to Aid for “Comfort Women”

The Huffington Post: The History of ‘Comfort Women’: A WWII Tragedy We Can’t Forget

 Vox: “Comfort Women”: Japan’s 70-Year Sex Slavery Controversy, Explained

United Nations: Economic and Social Council

 National Public Radio (NPR): Elise Goes East!: Revisiting a UN Report on ‘Comfort Women’ as Shinzo Abe Tours the US

Heritage: Combating Human Trafficking in Asia Requires U.S. Leadership

IRIN: Analysis: Southeast Asia’s Human Trafficking Conundrum

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Rights Justice Served as Japan and South Korea Address Violations Against “Comfort Women” appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been the focal point of public discussion for several months now and it seems like the group will not leave the spotlight anytime soon. But while we often talk about what the group is doing and how to respond, we often spend less time understanding how it is able to sustain itself. How do ISIS and other terrorist groups manage to continuously fund global operations while being attacked by several world powers?

In the case of ISIS, estimates suggest that the group’s assets equaled approximately $875 million in 2014, coming from a variety of sources that include oil production and taxes. ISIS and many other terrorist groups actually seem to resemble a sort of mix between a state government and a criminal syndicate, as their funding comes from a wide variety of sources. Read on to see where some of the money supporting ISIS, and other global terror groups, comes from.

Funding Terrorism in the Past

Traditionally terrorism has primarily been funded through private donations. This was certainly the case for ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida, which received much of its funding from wealthy Saudis. Charities can be effective because they are difficult to detect and tie to radical organizations. Many of these groups worked on legitimate causes while also funneling money to extremists, muddying the waters even further.

The money raised by these charities is then laundered through shell companies and some legitimate businesses, then transferred to a terrorist group. Another popular means of moving money is through remittances, which are popular in the Middle East. One example of remittances is the use of Hawalas, which are essentially untraceable wire transfers that allow people to send money from one country to their friends or relatives in another. According to a Treasury Department report, Hawalas are often cheaper and faster than traditional bank transactions, making them particularly appealing. Using middlemen with contacts in both countries, payments can be made without needing to transfer money for each transaction. While Hawalas are useful for many people who send money abroad for legitimate reasons, they are also well-liked by terrorist groups because they can be used in areas with little financial infrastructure and are hard to trace.

Efforts have been made to crack down on this type of financing–pressure has been placed both on Gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia, and financial institutions to look for any suspicious activity. While this certainly remains a viable source of income for terrorists, it has generally stopped being the number one source as governments have placed additional scrutiny on international financial transactions. Instead, ISIS and other groups have shifted to new tactics. The following video gives a look at money laundering and how terrorist groups raise funds illegally:

Help from Their Friends

While Gulf states’ support for terrorism has declined, it has certainly not been eliminated altogether. People in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have long been known as funders of ISIS and other extremist groups that include al-Qaida. These countries, which are in many ways American allies, argue that they are protecting Sunnis from Shiites in a larger struggle for the heart of Islam. The accompanying video looks at from where and how ISIS gets private donations, including those from American allies:

While banks, especially Western banks, have measures in place to identify money laundering and terrorist funding, the same is not true for all of the Gulf states. In places like Qatar, these controls are not as stringent and are not strongly enforced. ISIS also hires fundraisers to reach out to wealthy individuals and solicit money to support its cause.

Money can also be sent to ISIS in the form of fake humanitarian aid packages. These packages are often sent to war zones under the guise of humanitarian assistance but are not actually directed to an individual or organization. These transactions tend to be very difficult to stop for a host of reasons. In addition to poorly regulated banking systems, groups and individuals who send money are often influential in their home countries. Additionally, few humanitarian organizations have direct ties in the region to ensure that the assistance makes it to the proper aid workers.

Traditional Means

Taxes, Extortion, and Robbery

To fill the gap from private donations, ISIS, like traditional states, relies heavily on taxes. The group places a tax on everything it believes to be valuable, from businesses to vehicles. ISIS also taxes non-Muslims, giving them the choice between forced conversion, paying a tax, or facing death. These shakedowns take place at businesses, public areas, or at checkpoints, forcing people to pay or face violence and possibly death. ISIS also sends fundraisers ahead of its fighters to a town or city to demand money. It is important to note that the group only attacks and attempts to conquer areas with some sort of financial value. It rarely, for example, conquers vast tracts of desert simply to take more territory. Taxation has become an especially important source of income as its other revenue streams, like oil production, have declined.  In fact, taxation and extortion were actually ISIS’s largest sources of income in 2014, amounting to a reported $600 million in revenue.

In many ways, the taxation practiced by ISIS is a form of theft, but the group also does its fair share of outright robbery. When the group took the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit last year it seized vast quantities of money from bank vaults–estimates suggest those confiscations amounted to $1.5 billion. The group is also notorious for outright stealing possessions from people when it conquers a new territory.

Kidnapping

Another means for ISIS to offset its expenses is turning to organized crime. Emulating its predecessor al-Qaida, ISIS has relied heavily on kidnapping for ransoms. ISIS’s victims are traditionally Westerners, many of whom work for wealthy organizations. Although European countries sometimes pay ransoms, some countries such as the United States will not, though some corporations will discreetly pay ransoms for their workers.

In 2014, the U.S. Treasury estimated that ISIS made as much as $20 million dollars from kidnapping. This money did not only come from abducting foreigners, it was also the result of the group’s willingness to kidnap citizens within its own territory if it feels it can generate a high enough payoff.

Drug Trafficking

Along with trafficking in people, like any criminal organization, ISIS may deal in drugs. While it is unclear how much revenue the group receives from the practice, it seems likely that drugs are one more weapon in ISIS’s financial arsenal. This is another example of ISIS learning from its predecessor Al-Qaeda.

Oil/Water/Food

While these are all important revenue streams for ISIS, its most valuable asset is the one it shares with its Middle Eastern neighbors: oil. Iraq has the fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world and ISIS uses this supply to help fill its coffers. While many of the world’s nations impose sanctions on ISIS to prevent it from selling any of these supplies, the group still manages to smuggle oil for profit. Using paths developed in Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein, the group is able to smuggle out oil, cash, and other contraband to neighboring countries. In 2014, depending on the always-volatile price-per-barrel of oil, ISIS was making between $1 to $2 million a day off oil revenue.

Although much of the oil is smuggled illegally into neighboring countries, it may also be finding more legitimate routes. According to Russian sources, Turkey is allowing large shipments of oil from areas known to be under ISIS’s control. While this could very easily be a baseless accusation in the wake of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet, it may be worth considering. David Cohen, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Treasury noted that Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds have all made deals, through middlemen, to acquire oil from ISIS despite openly fighting the group.

Other Means

ISIS has also utilized other creative methods to fill its reserves. One such method is looting the historical sites that it has become notorious for destroying. Another is through its well-known skills with social media. ISIS uses apps such as WhatsApp and Kik to coordinate covert money drop-offs from its supporters. Other groups such as Boko Haram have even more innovative schemes, from acting as local muscle to employing internet scams.

Ultimately, though, how much ISIS relies on any one source and how valuable any one source is to the group tends to fluctuate a lot. After all, the group now makes far more from taxes than oil production and early sources of income like robbing banks may start to dry up. So far, this strategy has been effective as ISIS really only spends money on fighter salaries, while it salvages weapons and avoids building projects because of the threat posed by airstrikes.ISIS’s strategy is one of thriftiness, especially regarding the social services it offers to its conquered subjects, could prove more decisive than any allied bomb strike in determining its future.

The video below details how ISIS gets its money:

Conclusion

ISIS has proven to be extremely difficult to defeat by conventional means. Despite waves of airstrikes and military support for the Syrian, Kurdish, and Iraqi militaries, the group has endured and even thrived. This is a result of several factors, one of which is ISIS’s ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources while operating a crude form of local government. Another is its ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources much like a criminal enterprise. Many of these methods were pioneered by al-Qaida and are now also being adopted by Boko Haram as well.

However, ISIS’s ability to survive is also partly attributable to the difficulty, and the occasional unwillingness, of bordering countries to crack down on the flow of money to terrorist organizations. These countries have, in some cases, let ISIS smuggle goods into their countries, rampage unopposed and even somewhat directly financed its operations.

To eliminate ISIS, like al-Qaida before it, ISIS’s finances must be crippled. If you can’t pay people to fight for you, or provide services as a government, staying in power becomes increasingly difficult. However, ISIS and like-minded groups have become particularly effective at keeping the lights on.

Resources

Council on Foreign Relations: Tracking Down Terrorist Financing

Newsweek: How does ISIS fund its Reign of Terror?

The Jerusalem Post: How does the Islamic State Fund its Activities?

Security Intelligence: Funding Terrorists the Rise of ISIS

The Daily Beast: America’s Allies are Funding ISIS

Independent: Russia Publishes “Proof” Turkey’s Erdogan is Smuggling ISIS Oil Across Border from Syria

RFI: Nigerian Intelligence Chief Calls for Untangling of Boko Haram Funding

Perspectives on Terrorism: A Financial Profile of the Terrorism of Al-Qaeda and its Affiliates

Political Violence at a Glance: ISIS, Ideology, and the Illicit Economy

New York Times: ISIS Finances Are Strong

Vox: This Detailed Look at ISIS’s Budget Shows That it’s Well-funded and Somewhat Incompetent

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Cost of Terrorism: How is ISIS Funded? appeared first on Law Street.

Buried treasure often seems a fantasy that doesn’t exist outside of the movies but last week, Colombia announced an archaeological discovery beyond the imagination of any Hollywood writer. The Spanish galleon San Jose, which was sunk on June 8, 1708, has been discovered off the coast of Colombia. The vessel may contain as much as $17 billion in precious metals and gems. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is already hailing the wreck as a major discovery for Colombia but there have been conflicting claims over who should profit from the salvage. Take a moment to learn about the bounty of the San Jose, the ongoing legal scuffle, and who stands to benefit.

History of the San Jose

The War of Spanish Succession raged from 1701 to 1714, sweeping across Europe and sending a dozen kingdoms into turmoil. The conflict sparked proxy battles in colonial territories in the Caribbean and Latin America. The Spanish relied on jewels and precious metals from their colonies to fund some of their battles in Europe and the British Empire sent ships from its holdings in the Caribbean to attack Spanish vessels carrying these treasures back to the court.

On June 8, 1708, a battle which is now referred to as Wager’s Action broke out in the early evening. A squadron of British ships commanded by Charles Wager ran into a Spanish treasure armada led by Admiral Jose Fernandez de Santillan off the cost of what is now the city of Cartagena. Wager attacked the armada, hoping to seize the treasure, but during the battle the San Jose exploded, losing its cargo and almost the entire crew to the depths of the sea. It is unclear why the ship burst into flames, but now that the wreck has been discovered, archaeologists may be able to determine the source of the explosion. Wager was able to sink another ship in the fleet, the Santa Cruz, but the rest of ships escaped him and sailed on to Cartagena. The Spanish court history recorded the loss of the San Jose’s crew in its records:

Six hundred lives had been destroyed in an instant. Most of them either were vaporized in the explosion or went to the bottom of the Caribbean with the tons of precious metal which had been destined to finance the killing of thousands more on the battlefields of Europe

Competing Claims to the Treasure

President Santos is hailing the discovery as a Colombian success, but a group of American salvage investigators, who call themselves Sea Search Armada, have contested the president’s claim. Sea Search Armada (SSA) claimed that it first found the wreck in 1982 and the Colombian government is trying to cut them out of the profits. According to the Associated Press,

Two years later, Colombia’s government overturned well-established maritime law that gives 50 percent to whoever locates a shipwreck, slashing Sea Search’s take to a 5 percent ‘finder’s fee.’…A lawsuit by the American investors in a federal court in Washington was dismissed in 2011 and the ruling was affirmed on appeal two years later.

SSA claims that the Colombian government recognized how profitable recovering the wreck could be and purposefully changed the existing law to cut out the research team which found the wreck 700 feet below the surface in 1982. The group claims that the original research team from the Glocca Morra Company (contracted by SSA) struck a deal with the Colombian government to receive 35 percent of the treasures of the San Jose. Colombia has not delivered on this deal and SSA managed to win the right to a 50 percent share to any proceeds make off of the wreck in a Colombian court case. However, the government has denied SSA’s claim to the treasure since announcing its recovery last week. The Colombian government is already planning to build a museum dedicated to the San Jose in Cartagena, hoping to draw more tourists into the site of the wreck. The SSA could potentially benefit off of the museum and the treasure itself if it appeal its case in coming months.

The litigation between the Colombian government and SSA has been brewing for decades but this week  an unexpected claimant entered the contest: Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Garcia-Margallo is obtaining more information on the wreck, hoping to build a case for returning it to its nation of origin. In a recent interview, Garcia-Margallo claimed that Spain wants to resolve any ownership conflict with Colombia in a peaceful manner but also stated that, according to a prior UNESCO convention, the wreck can be considered part of Spain’s national heritage and may fall under Spanish protection. President Santos has struck back at both American and Spanish claims, arguing that the wreck is part of Colombian national heritage and that the claimants throwing their hats into the ring have no right to the wreck. During a recent press conference, Minister of Culture Mariana Garcés discussed how the salvage of the ship was an effort organized and undertaken by Colombians. The three competing claims will most likely have to be processed in multiple courts, making it a truly international legal battle.

The Role of UNESCO

In 2009, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage went into effect. According to UNESCO,

Underwater cultural heritage encompasses all traces of human existence that lie or have lain underwater and have a cultural or historical character. Over the course of earth’s history, entire cities have been swallowed by the waves, and thousands of ships have perished at sea. While these ships, structures and other cultural items are not frequently visible from the water’s surface, they have survived at the bottom of lakes, seas and oceans, safely preserved by the submarine environment.  Such heritage provide testimony to various periods and aspects of our shared history; for example, the cruelty of the slave trade, the ferocity of war, the impact of natural disasters, traces of sacred ceremonies and beliefs and the peaceful exchange and intercultural dialogue between disparate regions of the globe.

The 2009 act was designed to protect these underwater sites for generations, both from the ravages of the sea and from looters who steal artifacts and sell them for personal profit. UNESCO has been criticized for being vague in the definition of “cultural heritage” and for poorly defining the procedures for how artifacts should be retrieved and restored. Spain may manipulate those ambiguities in attempts to gain ownership of the wreck of the San Jose but Colombia is not a participating member of the 2009 treaty and therefore has no binding obligation to turn the ship over to Spain. The San Jose was built in Spain but Colombia now considers the wreck to be part of its national history.

This raises an interesting question for future wrecks that pit a former colonial power against a country they once exploited. The ship itself was Spanish but the treasure came from Colombian mines and was uncovered by Colombian laborers. Spain may have been using the treasure to finance its European endeavors, but did the treasure ever truly belong to Spain or was it stolen from Colombian indigenous tribes? With access to the treasures of the wreck, archaeologists may be able to determine who held original ownership of the gold and gems using markings in the gold and shipping records to retrace where they came from. Charles Beeker, Director of the Center for Underwater Science at Indiana University, argues that the wealth aboard the San Jose was taken during conquest and should be returned to the indigenous population.

Conclusion

President Santos has announced that the retrieval of the shipwreck will take years to complete, so neither Colombians nor Americans can expect to benefit off of the San Jose immediately. However, the wreck presents an interesting challenge for policymakers trying to determine ownership of archaeological sites. Should “finder’s fees” be the only reward for researchers who unearth major archaeological finds or should we cut them a bigger piece of the pie?  Do indigenous populations have a right to treasures that were stolen from them decades ago or should colonial powers retain the wealth they captured during the height of imperialism? Discoveries like the San Jose don’t turn up every day so the legal code on how to proceed when they do is far from clear. As the Colombian government enters the international legal quagmire to defend their claim to the wreck, archaeologists and treasure hunters around the world are waiting with bated breath to see who will win the prize.

Resources

Primary

UNESCO: The World’s Underwater Cultural Heritage

Additional

CNN: Colombia Says it Found Spanish Galleon; U.S. Firm Claims Half of Treasure

Facebook: Sea Search Armada

Encyclopedia Britannica: War of the Spanish Succession

Live Science: Sunken Treasure Ship Worth Billions Possibly Found After 300 Years

CBS News: “Holy Grail” of Shipwrecks Found off Colombia

BBC News: Spain Says it has Rights to Colombian Treasure Ship

The City Paper Bogoto: The ‘Rich’ History of the San José

Law of the Sea Institute: Ensuring the Preservation of Submerged Treasures for the Next Generation: The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in International Law

National Geographic: Treasure on Sunken Spanish Galleon Could Be Biggest Ever

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Wreck of the San Jose: Legal Battles Over Sunken Treasure appeared first on Law Street.

While the world mourned the terrorist attacks in Paris, another attack occurred in the African nation of Mali. Last Friday, terrorists took 170 hostages and killed 19 people at a Radisson Hotel in Mali’s capital of Bamako. The hotel allegedly was targeted because it was a popular place for foreigners. The group that claimed responsibility for the attack was Al Mourabitoun, a group associated with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. While the attack itself was a serious concern, for Mali it follows a series of troubling incidents that have included a rebellion, a coup, and several terrorist organizations, including one associated with the recent bombing, becoming increasingly aggressive, all within the least three years.

Kings in the North

The country of Mali has been populated for thousands of years by a hodge-podge of ethnic groups. It is also home to historically important places such as Timbuktu, once a regional center for trade and learning. The country became an important colony for the French during the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Following independence in 1960, Mali, like many other former colonies in Africa, experienced political and economic turmoil characterized by events such as coups and separatist movements.

The Tuareg

Last week’s terrorist attack was not the first from an internal insurgency. The Tuareg, a group that has lived in the territory that is now Mali since 500 BCE have been fighting against the state for decades. The Tuareg people are a collection of nomadic groups spread primarily across three countries; Mali, Niger, and Algeria, and it’s important to note that there’s significant diversity within the group.

Their society is hierarchical with very clear roles for individuals. They were originally animists before the arrival of Islam in the region. The group determined to win independence for the Tuareg in Mali goes by the acronym MNLA or National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. The video bellows gives a detailed look at the Tuareg and why they are rebelling:

Following independence in the 1960s, some Tuareg demanded their own autonomous region in the north, an area they dubbed Azawad. This first rebellion was over a perceived marginalization and repression of the Tuareg people by the more successful south. This led to a series of small-scale clashes, but the rebellion was ultimately crushed.

A second Tuareg rebellion followed in the early 1990s. This fight centered on many of the same issues. However, this time, the Tuareg group was able to win greater concessions and were more successful in battle. Some of this success can be attributed to some tribes’ years fighting and becoming battle-hardened in Libya for its then-ruler Muammar Gadhafi. Nevertheless, the main issue of Tuareg autonomy remained unsettled and led to a third rebellion. This third rebellion, which started in 2006, consisted more of hit and run type attacks by Tuareg fighters on Malian soldiers and failed peace deals.

The most recent rebellion began in 2012. In this case, battle-tested Tuareg rebels who had stolen large amounts of weapons from Libya once again attacked Mali soldiers. With their new weapons and alliances with various Islamic extremist groups, the Tuareg were able to make substantial gains this time, taking over the northern half of the country. Although these rebellions are divided into different campaigns, the Tuareg struggle has been going on so long that some observers regard them as one continuous fight with times of increased violence.

The 2012 Coup

In 2012 Mali, like many other countries in Northern Africa and the Middle East, was also the site of coup. But unlike many of the others, which echoed the positive ethos of the Arab Spring, the Mali coup was different. First, in Mali, the man in charge was democratically elected and nearing the end of his term without any intention of running again. Additionally, those in charge of the coup were members of the military. But while military coups are certainly not rare, this one started from the bottom up with regular soldiers and low-ranking officers rebelling against the government. This is the inverse of the traditional pattern in which higher ranking officers, such as colonels or generals, are behind a revolt.

So why did this coup happen, and what explains its uniqueness? Much of that can be blamed on the rebellion in the north. Soldiers who had just been routed by the Tuareg were the ones who initiated the overthrow. These men were dissatisfied with how the Mali government was handling the insurrection, namely, at how they were ill-equipped to take on the Tuareg rebels, who were now well-supplied from weapons seized in Libya following Gaddafi’s collapse. The accompanying video gives a quick look at the coup in Mali and its immediate aftermath:

Extremism

As has been the case in other countries that have experienced coups or rebellions since the Arab Spring, the movement against the government has also included radical elements, including those from recognized terrorist groups. In Mali’s case, despite the uniqueness of the coup itself, this same principle holds true.

Following the victories against the Malian government forces in 2012, a number of Islamic extremist groups got involved in the movement. This mix is made of five main groups; Ansar Dine, Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (Mujao), al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the Signed-in-Blood Battalion, and the Islamic Movement for Azawad (IMA). Of these five, the two main and most active groups are Ansar Dine and AQIM.

Ansar Dine is the nationalistic Islamic group in Mali and it hopes to impose Sharia law across the whole country. The IMA is a splinter of this group, which broke off because it opposed the violent tactics of Ansar Dine and wanted to return to talks instead.

The other major player in the region is the AQIM. It also wants to impose Sharia Law on Mali, as well as erase the legacy of French colonial rule. It was created out of a combination of groups in 2007 and afterward it allied itself with Al-Qaeda. The Mujao and Signed-in-Blood Battalion are both off-shoots of this group. The Mujao wants to expand AQIM’s goals to all of the Western Africa. The Signed-in-Blood Battalion meanwhile, formed following a fallout between its leader and the AQIM. While these groups claim to be fighting for Malian interests the sect of Islam they represent, the Saudi sponsored Wahhabi, is in fact in conflict with that of the majority of Malians who are Sufi Muslims. Al Mourabitoun, the group that committed the recent hotel terrorist attack, is also associated with the AQIM.

Outside Influence and Peace

Role of the French

As Mali’s former colonial power, the French played a key role in the fight against the insurgency, as well as the recent terrorist attack and its aftermath.  In the instance of the 2012 rebellion, France sent in ground troops to launch a counter offensive as well as fighter jets, which launched airstrikes. These attacks, in concert with Malian efforts, were critical in the Malian government pushing back the extremists.

Additionally, during the recent attack by terrorists, elite French troops along with American counterparts, helped rescue hostages and kill the terrorists. However, the future of France’s role remains up in the air as it shifts its gaze to Syria, meaning less resources are available to assist the government of Mali. The following video gives an in-depth look at the French efforts in Mali:

End of the Conflict?

The most recent peace agreement was reached on June 20^th, which called for a ceasefire and for Taureg rebels to give up the territory they had taken and the weapons they had acquired in Libya.  However, actual peace remains elusive. Rebels have continued to breach the ceasefire, thus preventing any further steps at reconciling the country. Furthermore, even if Mali can get the rebels to reach a peace agreement and more importantly honor it, they still have to deal with the various terrorist elements in the country–the hotel attack is just one example of the potential violence wrought by some of these groups. Unlike the Tuareg who want autonomy and greater governmental support, these groups’ motivation is often religious in nature and their demands are then much harder to meet.

Conclusion

Mali is the perfect example, and victim, of events beyond its control. If Gaddafi had not been killed in Libya, it is reasonable to wonder if the Tuareg, who had been repeatedly crushed by the government, would have ever made the gains they did. If the Tuareg had never been so successful, it is equally as likely that no coup would have occurred and then also no French involvement. Of course if the French had never made a colony out of Mali in the first place, it may have developed along ethnic lines instead of being welded to together unwieldy. However, Mali is also the victim of its own doings. If it had not tried to crush the Tuareg for so long or marginalize them, it may not have eventually felt there wrath. Additionally, if it had more strenuously confronted extremists it might have prevented their ideology from taking root and becoming so powerful as well.

In the case of Mali then, there are a lot of ifs and buts, however the reality is unmistakable. As the attack last week drove home the country is at war with extremists entrenched in its own borders and possibly on the verge of breaking in two, if it fails to honor the latest peace treaty. Only time will tell if Mali can navigate these perils.

Resources

The Guardian: Mali Attack: More Than 20 Dead After Terrorist Raid on Bamako Hotel

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mali

Global Research: The Crisis in Mali a Historical Perspective on the Tuareg People

Al Jazeera: What do the Tuareg want?

New York Times: Soldiers Overthrow Mali Government in Setback for Democracy in Africa

International Business Times: Mali Tuareg Rebellion: the Fight for Independence of the Blue People

BBC: Mali Crisis Key Players

Time: Mali Hotel Attack Highlights France’s Strategic Dilemma

United Nations: Path to Peace in Mali

CNN: Mali Hotel Attack

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mali: A Tale of Two Countries? appeared first on Law Street.

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When it comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused. However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Abroad

The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America.

The FBI realized early on that in order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries. Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website:

Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation.

In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation:

What the FBI Does

So what does the FBI do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia.

In addition to training, the FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects.

In order to understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11,

Since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We overhauled our counterterrorism operations, expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved coordination with our partners.

A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect back to the United States to faces charges.

Abuse Abroad?

While the FBI’s methods are targeted to prevent terrorism and assist organizations abroad, the bureau has faced a lot of scrutiny for its actions in other countries. There are several examples of people, often American nationals abroad, alleging that improper techniques were used to extract information or force compliance.

One example is of an American national, Gulet Mohamed, who was detained in Kuwait on suspicion of being connected with known terrorist Anwar Al-Awalaki. Gulet, who had traveled in Yemen and Somalia, was detained and aggressively interrogated. He was then placed on the no-fly list. Amir Meshal, another American national, fleeing Somalia and headed to Kenya, shared a similar fate. Meshal was detained in Kenya and claims that he was tortured in order to force a confession. Another instance is the case of Raymond Azar. Azar, a Lebanese citizen, was captured, stripped, and taken from Lebanon then flown to the United States to be charged with bribery.

Yonas Fikre is yet another example. Fikre was arrested in the UAE at the behest of the FBI. He claims that he was detained after he refused to be an FBI informant. According to Fikre, he was then subsequently tortured and added to the FBI’s no-fly list. Fikre is one of nine members of his mosque who he claims have been added to the FBI’s no-fly list for refusing to become informants. In Uganda, four men from Kenya and Tanzania claim that they were illegally detained and abused by FBI agents. They claim that they were tortured in relation to a bombing in Kampala that killed 76 people, a crime which they were suspected of committing. A spokesperson for the FBI said that all agents act within FBI guidelines and the laws of the country where they operate.

These methods have not gone unchallenged. Both Fikre and Gulet challenged their place on the no-fly list and the methods employed by the FBI during their detentions. Meshal also took issue with his capture and actually attempted to file a lawsuit against the FBI. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied him the opportunity because his case dealt with national security. The suspects allegedly tortured in Uganda took issues with the conduct of the FBI as well. Their allegations of abuse led to an internal investigation by the FBI. Ultimately, though, following the investigation, no charges were filed. In all cases, the FBI has maintained that its agents acted appropriately.

The video below details the specifics of the case:

Conclusion

Unbeknownst to many citizens, the FBI has had a large and increasing presence abroad since the early days of World War II. This presence generally takes the form of agents, known as legal attachés, who are stationed at American embassies all over the world. The agents are primarily concerned with acquiring information and disseminating it to local law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies in the United States. This system helps empower countries to effectively combat terrorism and domestic threats as well as further U.S. security interests abroad.

Aside from information gathering and training, FBI Legal Attachés are often called on for assistance in investigating crimes and terror threats. There are numerous examples of this, from the recent attack in Paris to earlier attacks in Africa; the FBI also has its own list of selected accomplishments. In these cases, the FBI offered expertise in analyzing a crime scene or technical skills that the local government did not have.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s efforts abroad are not universally acclaimed. In the course of its investigations, the agency has repeatedly faced criticism for abuse and punishments for not cooperating, such as adding suspects names to the no-fly list without probable cause. Despite criticism, the FBI often maintains that its agents acted properly and internal investigations rarely find wrongdoing.

The FBI’s shift from focusing on domestic investigations to gathering counterterrorism intelligence has led many to criticize the agency. But the FBI maintains that it must change in order to be “a global organization for a global age.” The FBI has continued to grow its international presence in the form of Legal Attachés and several counterterrorism task forces after the 9/11 attacks. While some may criticize this trend, most evidence suggests that it will continue.

Resources

New York Times: F.B.I. Sending Agents to Assist in Paris Investigation

San Diego Union-Tribune: Al-Shabab Leader Threatens More Ugandan Attacks

New York Times: In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

New York Times: Detained American Says F.B.I. pressed him

CBS News: American Can’t Sue FBI Over Abuse Claims, Federal Appeals Court Says

Los Angeles Times: Lebanese Man is Target of the First Rendition Under Obama

Open Society Foundation: FBI Responds to Kampala Abuse Allegations Cited in Open Society Justice Initiative

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the FBI Do Abroad? 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.

Barcelona wants independence. The parliament of Catalonia, the region in which Barcelona lies, voted to secede from the Spanish government by 2017. But this may or may not happen. Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has already publicly denounced the move and has plans to fight it. The region of Catalonia, especially Barcelona, is a prime destination for tourists visiting Spain. Although the news might come as a shock to outsiders, the seed of independence has been growing in the region for years. But why? And what are its chances of success?

Recent Events

On November 9, Catalans approved a plan to eventually withdraw from Spain. The two pro-succession parties won a majority of legislative seats in the Catalan parliament in a landmark win back in September, which paved the way for the recent parliament vote. The “Together for Yes” alliance won 62 seats in the 135 member parliament. In addition to the Together for Yes alliance, the pro-independence Popular Unity Candidacy Party (CUP) won another 10 seats, adding up to a majority. The local Catalan government is led by President Artur Mas of the Democratic Convergence for Catalonia Party, which is part of the alliance.

However, there is a slight caveat. A majority of seats doesn’t necessarily equate a majority of the popular vote. An odd Spanish election law grants a greater percentage of seats to rural areas with fewer voters. In other words, the two parties received just 48 percent of the vote, but a majority of the seats. Catalans who live in rural areas tend to favor separatism more than those in urban areas, but the vote gave more voice to rural Catalans. The leading candidate of the anti-independence Citizens Party, Ines Arrimadas, responded, “[Artur Mas] said the majority of Catalans were with him. Today the majority of Catalans turned their back on him and the only thing he must do is resign.”

“Together for Yes” and the CUP both favor separatism; however, they aren’t always in tune. For example, the CUP initially claimed it wouldn’t approve a succession plan unless the two parties cumulatively received more than 50 percent of the vote. The CUP also favor immediate withdrawal, in contrast to the current 18-month succession plan supported by the Together for Yes Parties. Back in September, the CUP’s leading parliamentary candidate, Antonio Banos, claimed that the CUP would not back Mas for president. However, differences were put aside (at least temporarily) to approve the current plan.

Members Approve A Withdrawal Plan

The plan for withdrawal was approved by the regional parliament of Catalonia with a vote of 72 to 63. But after the vote, Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy immediately claimed he would appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court and would join forces with the main opposition leader fighting against the cause. However, the plan instructs the regional government to not follow a contradicting court decision, calling for Catalonia to begin drafting a constitution within 30 days. The new constitution is to be voted on in a referendum in the future and the plan instructs the government to implement a new tax office and social security administration. Anti-secessionist branches of the Catalan parliament initially tried to block the vote, but the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the vote a week before. Although the court supported the vote, it is still expected to swiftly deem the plan illegal.

Leadership

Artur Mas’ third term is far from guaranteed. Most likely, the Catalan parliament will begin a debate over whether Mas should continue his reign as head of the region’s government. Mas only retains 62 of the required 68 votes needed to stay in his position. Obviously, the anti-independence parties are against him, as is the CUP. Mas has a history of conservative austerity policies. Either way, the regional parliament must form a government by January 9 or call for new elections.

The move toward Catalan separation will be a hot topic in Spain’s upcoming national election. Rajoy’s response to the issue may be a determining factor in whether his party, the People’s Party, will remain in power.

A Brief History of Catalonia

The Catalan people are extremely proud of their unique culture and identity. This is true for those that want to be an independent nation and for those that identify as Spaniards as well. Catalonia borders the Mediterranean Sea in the northeast of Spain and is separated from southern France by the Pyrenean mountains. Barcelona serves as the region’s capital.

Catalonia became a part of Spain when King Ferdinand of Aragon married Queen Isabella of Castille in the 15th century. Although Spanish culture seemed to be taking over the region, a resurgence of the Catalan identity emerged in the 19th century. This period saw the beginning of Catalonia’s campaign for political autonomy and at times, separatism. The movement was rewarded when Spain became a republic in 1931 and gave Catalonia its much-desired autonomy. Shortly afterward, Barcelona fell to General and dictator Francisco Franco, as did its autonomy. Franco heavily restricted the Catalan government, culture, and language.

The death of Franco in 1975 restored many freedoms to Catalonia, even though the bad blood has never quite been forgotten. Today, Catalonia has a “Generalitat” made up of its parliament and executive. The Catalan language is publicly used in education, government, and the media. Almost all Catalans are bilingual, speaking Spanish in addition to Catalan. As a region, Catalonia excels in manufacturing and technology. While it previously focused on textile production, its economy now centers on chemicals, food processing, and metalworking.

Why does Catalonia want independence?

Long story short, the desire for independence comes down to three basic elements: politics, economics, and nationalism.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative People’s Party is the fourth largest in Catalonia and strongly opposes the Catalan independence movement. Artur Mas is the leader of the Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya (CDC). The CDC, along with the left wing Equerra Republicana de Catalunya Party, the conservative Christian Democrates de Catalunya Party, and the social-democratic Moviment d’Esquerres Party make up the Together for Yes coalition. Although the political leanings of these four groups vary widely, they all want Catalan independence.

Catalonia is widely considered the industrial hub of Spain. It also brings in a large amount of money from its tourism industry. All in all, it produces 18.8 percent of Spain’s economic output. Many natives feel that Catalonia gives more to Madrid in taxes than it receives in government investment. Spain’s economic crisis only exacerbated these sentiments. Lastly, Catalonia pride needs to be taken into account. Catalans are immensely proud of their traditions and culture including food, language, and football.

An Informal Vote

In November 2014, an unofficial vote took place in Catalonia asking if the region should be independent. Over two million people voted out of approximately 5.4 million eligible voters. Over 80 percent of the voters backed an official referendum on Catalan independence. The vote occurred despite strong opposition from the Spanish government.

On the ballot, there were two questions. First, if Catalonia should be a state and second, if that state should be independent. In total, 2,236,606 Catalan citizens took part in the vote. A little over 10 percent voted yes for the first question and no to the second. Approximately 4.5 percent voted no to both questions.

Spanish Justice Minister Rafael Catala declared the vote to be a “sham” and stated, “The government considers this to be a day of political propaganda organized by pro-independence forces and devoid of any kind of democratic validity.”

However, the unofficial vote was an important factor leading to the official vote on independence. It proved the strength and numbers behind the movement.

Response

The Catalan independence movement was officially halted by Spain’s Constitutional Court shortly after the regional government’s vote as the court announced it would hear the Spanish government’s appeal. This is an official suspension pending the court’s ruling.

The government appeal was swift. Prime Minister Rajoy proclaimed, “This is an appeal against a resolution that aims to break up the unity of Spain.” He said, “this is about defending a whole country.” Spain’s economic crisis has resulted in the unemployment of one in five Spaniards. A major fear is that the loss of Catalonia will disrupt the country’s recovery.

The court’s ruling stated, “This is a warning to [Catalan leaders] that if they fail to comply with the suspension, they may commit disobedience.” However, as mentioned above, the Catalan government does not plan to adhere to the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

European leaders also warn that independence could result in an ejection from the European Union and the economic and security benefits that membership has to offer. However, leaders of the independence movement believe there may be ways to side-step such an ejection.

Tensions between Catalonia and Spain are increasing considerably and will likely continue as the dispute continues. Rajoy did not invite Mas to his meeting with Spanish political leaders concerning jihadist terrorism, although Catalonia has a relatively high level of jihadist activity relative to the rest of Spain.

Conclusion

As Catalonia’s attempt to secede from Spain mounts much remains to be seen. How will the Spanish Constitutional Court rule? How will the ruling realistically affect the endurance of the movement? The upcoming national election will be extremely telling in regards to the movement’s future. It will be a hot topic on candidates’ platforms and the country’s reaction as a whole will be insightful.

Another question to keep in mind is will the anti-independence Catalan citizens make a stand? There are many people convinced that the independence-seeking citizens in Catalonia may not even constitute a majority. Regardless, the world is watching.

Resources

BBC: Catalonia Profile

BBC: Catalonia Vote

CBS: Catalonia Makes it Official

CBS: Pro-secession Parties in Catalonia Win Landmark Vote

Euro News: Spain

The Irish Times: Standoff Puts Catalonia’s Independence Plans in Jeopardy

The Telegraph: Why does Catalonia Want Independence from Spain?

The Local: Catalonia Elections

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independence for Catalonia: Will it Become a Reality? appeared first on Law Street.

On Halloween night, a Russian plane leaving the Egyptian town of Sharm al-Sheikh crashed mysteriously in the Sinai Peninsula. While the conversation quickly shifted to whether this was a result of a bomb or not, it is just one more in a series of events that depict the chaos on-going within Egypt. The start of this chaos coincided with the Arab Spring that upended a decades-old dictator only a few years ago.

Read on to see the political evolution in Egypt, beginning with the Arab Spring, through its messy post-revolution transition, to the current government under military leader Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. How have these events shaped the country, and what role do countries like the United States and groups like ISIS play in the shaping of Egypt’s recent political turmoil?

Background

The Arab Spring

Fresh on the heels of widespread protests in Tunisia, a similar uprising emerged in Egypt over the rule of Hosni Mubarak, which was characterized by oppression and poverty. After the protests grew, President Mubarak eventually offered to step down at the end of his term and appoint a vice president for the first time in his reign. However, these changes did little to placate Egyptians who continued the protests in Tahrir Square. After continued dissent and the government’s failed attempts to  violently end the protest, Mubarak ultimately resigned, leaving power in the hands of the military. The following video provides a good insight into the Arab Spring and aftermath in Egypt:

Hosni Mubarak

Egypt’s longtime ruler came to power during a time of chaos as the vice president succeeding Anwar Sadat, who was killed by Islamic extremists during a military parade. Upon ascending to the presidency, a role he would maintain for the next thirty years, Mubarak declared a state of emergency which was in effect until he stepped down in 2011. While Mubarak at points seemed untouchable, eventually even his time would come. After finally ceding power, the longtime ruler was also arrested and subsequently put on trial. Mubarak was charged with embezzlement, corruption, and complicity in the killing of protesters.

In 2012, he was convicted for being complicit in killing protesters and was sentenced to life in prison. He was later granted a retrial in 2013 and was acquitted in 2014. Then, he was convicted of the other two charges as well, granted a retrial for these in 2013, acquitted of corruption in 2014 but found guilty of embezzlement. Mubarak’s final retrial will take place in January 2016.

Post Revolution

Following Mubarak’s forced resignation, power passed to a military consortium known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. This group vowed to draft a new constitution and eventually cede power to a democratically elected government. However, during the transition period, the military cracked down on protests and dissolved the previous government. The council also began gradually taking on greater powers, including the ability to pass new laws and regulate the budget. Concurrent to the presidential election, the council dissolved the recently elected parliament, which at the time was dominated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt eventually elected Mohamed Morsi president, setting up a power struggle between the elected government and the military.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood originated in 1928, combining political activism with charitable work based on Islamic principles. The brotherhood was initially banned in Egypt after trying to overthrow the government, but in the 1970s it renounced the use of violence. Instead, it sought to provide social services for Egyptians, which built up public trust and support. The group became so influential that President Mubarak banned the Brotherhood from competing in elections. However, after he left power, the Brotherhood won majorities in both Egypt’s lower and upper houses and eventually the presidency.

Mohamed Morsi

The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the presidency in 2012 to become the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Morsi campaigned on his desire to rule on behalf of all Egyptians, and not just Islamists who favor the Muslim brotherhood, but after his election much of the criticism claimed that he did just that. Critics argued that after his election Morsi consolidated power for himself and the Muslim Brotherhood and did little to spur economic growth. But Morsi argued that he had to take dramatic action in light of Egypt’s recent turbulence. Egyptians quickly became dissatisfied with Morsi’s rule and protests emerged. The dissenters intensified their efforts and eventually clashed with the government. After a period of large-scale uprisings, the military stepped in and ousted Morsi from power. His presidency lasted for just over a year.

After being forced out of office, Morsi was charged with a number of crimes, ranging from espionage to terrorism. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to death. After several legal battles, the court reaffirmed the sentence in June.

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi came to power in the elections following Morsi’s ouster, in which he ran virtually unopposed. Upon al-Sisi’s election, Egyptians thought they were getting a strong nationalist leader who would rid the country of the Brotherhood’s radical Islamism and reinvigorate the economy. Instead, al-Sisi has unleashed a crackdown on dissent, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Under al-Sisi’s presidency, the economy continued to falter, only staying above water thanks to support from nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States. Assessments of his presidency cite human rights violations and a crackdown on free expression and dissent.

The video below shows life in Egypt under al-Sisi:

Other Actors

The United States

Egypt has long been an important country to the United States because of its large population and the presence of the Suez Canal, one of the major avenues for world trade. The importance of this relationship can be quantified by the $76 billion in aid given to Egypt since 1948, including $1.3 billion annually for Egypt’s military.

Recently, however, this relationship has taken a different direction. In light of the forced removal of Mohamed Morsi’s government in 2013, the United States has been reevaluating its relationship with Egypt. The United States began withholding certain military equipment in 2013 to express dissatisfaction with the political trend in Egypt–although military cooperation continued.

As the Congressional Research Service notes, Egypt later signed arms deals with France and Russia and after terrorist attacks in the region earlier this year, the United States resumed its shipments. However, this aid is subject to continued evaluation and beginning in 2018 it will be directed for certain missions instead of being given as a blank check to the military. Egypt’s governing issues and changing U.S. policy priorities, like a nuclear deal with Iran, have reduced Egypt’s long-standing importance as an American ally.

The accompanying video gives a good look at Egypt-U.S. relations:

ISIS

Like other parts of the Arab world, Egypt has become a home for Islamic extremists loyal to the Islamic State. In Egypt, the group is based out of the Sinai, which has been loosely governed since it was returned to Egypt from Israel in 1979. This group has been responsible for a number of attacks and has claimed responsibility for the recent plane bombing that killed 224 people. Despite several military offensives, Egypt has been unable to rid itself of the terrorist group.

In addition to ISIS affiliates, other actors are also making a play in Egypt. Russia reached a preliminary agreement to provide Egypt with $3.5 billion in arms, a deal seen as filling the gap left by the United States. France also signed a major arms deal with Egypt that is valued at nearly $6 billion. Saudi Arabia and Iran are also competing for Egypt’s favor in their on-going proxy war. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of Egypt’s largest supporters helping keep the al-Sisi regime in control.

Conclusion

Like many other countries that experienced a change in leadership following the Arab Spring, Egypt has found itself stuck in place and may possibly be reverting to its old ways. While the prospect for democracy in Egypt looked bright shortly after the uprising in 2011, the military has successfully managed to maintain control. Mohammed Morsi’s brief rule was quickly followed by the election of a military leader. The current president, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, has continued the consolidation of power that led to Morsi’s ousting and will likely continue to do so, justifying it with the threat of terrorism.

While the United States may not approve of the recent governing issues in Egypt, other countries have stepped in to provide military aid to the al-Sisi government. Egypt now presents a challenge to both itself and its traditional allies. As the threat of terrorism grows in the region, a democratic Egypt is becoming less of a policy priority for the west. As a result, there is little pressure on President al-Sisi to uphold liberal principles. We’ll  have to see if that conundrum holds true in the new year.

Resources

Reuters: Russian Officials Believe Sinai Plane Brought Down by Bomb

Council on Foreign Relations: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Encyclopedia Britannica: Egypt Uprising of 2011

BBC: Hosni Mubarak

Frontline: What’s Happened since Egypt’s Revolution?

BBC: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

BBC: What’s Become of Egypt’s Morsi?

Biography: Mohamed Morsi

Al Jazeera: President Sisi’s very bad year

CNN: ISIS beheading an ominous sign in struggling Egypt

Reuters: Russia, Egypt seal preliminary arms deal worth $3.5 billion

Al-Araby: Saudi Arabia and Egypt friends or foes?

Congressional Research Service: Egypt Background and U.S. Relations

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Has Egypt Changed After the Arab Spring? 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.

After nearly three and a half decades, China’s famous one-child policy is finally coming to an end; the Communist Party announced last week that it will begin to allow families to have up to two children. The change will officially go into effect this upcoming March, when the parliament provides approval at its annual session. The policy, which was introduced in 1979, was meant to help ease the booming population of the country, which is now at approximately 1.36 billion. However, it has had enormous adverse effects on nearly every facet of Chinese society, and has created a chaotic demographic landscape within the country. Essentially, the Chinese population is too male, and too old, and that’s a problem.

So, why should the rest of the world care about this change in China? The one-child policy has been a human-rights disaster, and the demographic, social, and economic effects will haunt China for generations to come. Here’s an overview of what this policy has meant for Chinese society over the past 30 years, and what its end will mean for the country’s future.

The One-Child Policy: A Background

In 1949, the year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong proclaimed, “of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” This declaration reflected the government’s notion that population growth was beneficial and would help boost the economy. The government even went as far as to ban the import of contraceptives into the country in order to promote this agenda.

This backfired, however, when the population levels became so large that food supplies were not sufficient enough, resulting in famine that caused around 30 million deaths. The severity of China’s population growth became evident, and something needed to be done to slow it. As a result, the one-child policy was born in 1979 and declared that couples must limit their families to only having one child.

Violators who go over the mandated quota can face a variety of consequences, ranging from fines to forced abortions and sterilizations. There are some exceptions: ethnic minorities are generally excluded from the rule, and couples are allowed to give birth to a second child in certain circumstances. Additionally, the policy has been criticized for being applied unequally depending on one’s socioeconomic status: the rich are able to pay a “social compensation fee,” a fine that is a certain percentage of their income, or are able to travel abroad to give birth. This has turned the policy into a class issue as well, because the wealthy elite are easily excluded from the law.

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the policy is how unevenly it is enforced. Regulations and consequences can vary from province to province, in addition to socioeconomic status. Critics cite this as proof that the policy is simply unenforceable; there is no way to hold everyone to the same levels of accountability and ensure that everyone is receiving equal treatment. So, the argument follows, what good is a policy that can’t even be carried out as it is supposed to be?

The consequences of the policy

In a way, it could be said that this policy has been successful: ultimately, it ended up doing what it set out to do by preventing around 400 million births. However, in doing so, it has created enormous disruptions in various facets of Chinese society. The one-child policy is essentially a social experiment that seemingly has done more harm than it has good.

Strict Regulations on Fertility

This policy has led the Chinese government to implement severe methods to regulate fertility, including forced abortions on women who become pregnant with a second child. Official statistics say that there have been approximately 1,500 abortions an hour since the implementation of the policy. Another means by which this takes place is sterilization, which is often forced—nearly 196 million of these procedures have been performed since implementation of the policy. While this sterilization is effective in ensuring that couples do not have to worry about accidental pregnancies, it is not a trouble-free solution. An example of this can be seen in a story told by one reporter, who recounted that after the 2008 earthquake in Szechuan, many couples who lost children were rushing to reverse these procedures so that they would be able to conceive again.

Additionally, there is now a generation of “hidden children” (children born out of quota) who have been abandoned by their families and are often unable to receive official identification numbers from the Chinese government. This is just one of many ways in which the policy is viewed as harmful for human rights in the country.

In some cases, women feel that their reproductive organs are owned by the state, as they no longer have sovereignty over their bodies. The tight hold that the government has over women’s bodies enhances the already-patriarchal nature in Chinese society, which exists largely due to the sheer amount of males in China.

An Altered Demographic Landscape

The one-child policy has created an imbalanced sex ratio (1.16 boys born for every girl) that is becoming problematic for Chinese society. This is because it has encouraged sex-selective practices such as abortions, infanticides, and abandonment of female babies. The statistics regarding some of these practices are heartbreaking: the rates of girls at Chinese orphanages have been found to be as high as 90 percent.

These practices have created a new generation of Chinese bachelors who are finding it difficult to marry. In some rural areas, feudal practices have reemerged that dictate that if a man wants to marry, his family must pay a large price for the girl’s hand. Many men will likely never be able to marry, having even greater ramifications for future generations.

Additionally, the population of China is skewing older, and is likely continue to do so for many generations. The average population of the country is getting older and older, and will continue to do so in the future. However, since the number of younger people is declining, there will be less people to support the growing retiree population. As the video below shows, more people must rely on nursing homes for support, going against traditional Confucian traditions that dictate that families must support their elderly members.

What makes this issue even more serious is the fact that China lacks a social security system, so children are counted on to be the source of support for parents after retirement. In the 2008 earthquake many parents who lost children were rushing to undo their sterilization procedures; one of the main reasons why is that they need someone to provide for them as they age.

Lastly, China’s aging population will potentially harm the economy in a huge way. With a shrinking working-age population, China’s economic future may be in peril.

The consequences of the one-child policy on the demography of China are serious and affect nearly every aspect of Chinese life in the present and in the future. Even with the end of the policy, it will likely take generations for these repercussions to be undone.

How will the end of this policy benefit China?

While the end of the one-child policy is a step in the right direction, it probably won’t be able to undo the disastrous consequences that were created with its implementation. More so, this change won’t be able to make up for the millions of lives affected by the forced sterilizations, abortions and infanticide that took place under this policy. And while the two-child limit still exists, a Chinese woman’s fertility will still remain under the control of the government.

In an article in The Guardian, author Mei Fong argues that the one-child policy has not solely changed the number of kids that a couple has, but has overall changed the way that Chinese people live their lives. Major life decisions such as marriage, employment, and retirement have all been shaped by the policy, and as a result, it is unlikely that the end of the policy will result in any sort of “baby boom” that will undo its negative effects. Fong’s overview demonstrates an important point: it will take a long time before Chinese society sees any effects from ending this policy. So, for a long time coming, we will likely see more of the same in China.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the one-child policy was an ideal that could never be achieved. There is no simple answer to China’s population problems, but an authoritarian policy is obviously not the solution, and it seems that the country has finally recognized it. China will be a country to watch over the next few decades, as it struggles to figure out how to manage nearly one-sixth of the world’s total population.

Resources

BBC: China to End One-Child Policy and Allow Two

The Guardian: China’s Brutal One-child Policy Shaped How Millions Lived, Loved, and Died

National Geographic: How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

Wired UK: The Harrowing Reality of China’s One-child Policy

TIME: A Brief History of China’s One-Child Policy

The New Yorker: Judging China’s One-Child Policy

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post An End to China’s One-Child Policy: What Does it Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Burkina Faso, a small, land-locked country in Western Africa, is currently in the midst of a political transition that could be monumental for the region. Much like the North African nations that underwent political change during the Arab Spring, Burkina Faso is currently in the throes of political turmoil. In a country with a long history of military coups, mass protests recently forced Burkina Faso’s president to resign after holding power for 27 years.

While an interim government plans to hold elections at the end of the month, recent challenges have made the country’s transition extremely difficult. From a brief counter-coup to the relatively strong influence of the military, the country has a long way to go before its government is stable again. Read on to see exactly what is going on in Burkina Faso, how it all started, and where the conflict is likely to go next.

History of Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso, at the time called Upper Volta, achieved full independence from France in 1960 after a long period of colonial rule. Between its independence in 1960 and 1987, the country went through five separate military coups. The first coup occurred just six years after it gained its independence when the democratically elected Maurice Yaméogo was ousted by military leader Sangoulé Lamizana.

Upper Volta adopted a new constitution in 1970 giving Lamizana power until another coup, led by Saye Zerbo, removed him in 1980. Zerbo was quickly replaced by Major Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo in 1982. Ouédraogo’s forces quickly splintered into two groups: conservative and radical. Thomas Sankara assumed control of the radical faction and usurped Ouédraogo to become the country’s leader. After coming to power in 1983, Sankara implemented a series of left-wing policies. Upper Volta was renamed Burkina Faso in 1984.

Like his predecessors, Sankara’s rule was short-lived, as he was overthrown and killed in 1987. Blaise Compaoré, an aide to Sankara, led the 1987 military coup. Deviating from the previous instability, Compaoré managed to hold power in Burkina Faso for 27 years. A new constitution was put in place in 1991 and Compaoré won in a widely criticized election. He would go on to win three more elections, in 1998, 2005, and 2010.

The video below gives a brief history of Burkina Faso starting with Compaore’s coup in 1987:

Recent Developments

Compaoré Steps Down

Given Burkina Faso’s history of coups and Compaoré’s near overthrow in 2011, it appeared likely he would step down at the end of his term in 2015. However, like many of the rulers before him, Compaoré sought to maintain his power. In October 2014, Burkina Faso’s National Assembly considered a bill to remove the term limit on the presidency, meaning that he could run for reelection the next year. This immediately led to protests, the burning of parliament, and clashes between protestors and the military, much like what happened in 2011.

Authorities eventually imposed martial law due to the violence, which included protestors taking over state-controlled media outlets and looting the president’s home. In addition to martial law, the vote to extend the term limit was dropped, yet the protests continued. In a final effort to ease tension, Compaoré dissolved his hand-picked government and promised more dialogue with the protestors.  Finally, after all the other measures failed, Compaoré resigned from the presidency after 27 years in office. After Compaoré’s resignation, the military briefly took control before a panel appointed Michael Kafando the interim president; Kafando was formerly a foreign minister and Burkina Faso’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Leading up to the events that caused Blaise Compaoré to resign, Burkina Faso was in many ways primed for change. Despite recent economic progress and a large gold reserve, Burkina Faso was one of the poorest countries in the world. In fact, the situation became so dire in 2011 that it appeared a coup was imminent, as soldiers protested unpaid housing and food allowances. That conflict was likely only avoided because of a series of concessions offered by Compaoré. When the question of extending his term limit came up last year, Compaoré quickly ran out of options to appease protestors.

The video below details the fall of president Compaoré:

Recent Developments 

The coup, or forced resignation, of October 2014 fits into Burkina Faso’s long history of power struggles, but this time the driving force seemed to be dissatisfaction among the public and not exclusively through military intervention. However, in a unique twist, the interim government under president Michel Kafando was briefly overthrown in a counter-coup in September.

The brief coup was led by the Presidential Security Regiment, which remained loyal to Blaise Compaoré after his rule ended. Members of the regiment orchestrated a coup due to their of support for the previous ruler and the fear that they would not be allowed to participate in the country’s upcoming elections. The coup lasted for about a week before its leaders were taken into custody. They now face trial for trying to “stop the process to democracy and liberty for the people of Burkina Faso.” Pressure from country’s military, the West African Bloc, and once again, the citizens of Burkina Faso themselves ensured that the takeover was only temporary. Elections remain scheduled for the end of November.

The accompanying video below details the end of the attempted coup:

Impact Abroad

While a controversial figure, Blaise Compaoré was also an invaluable mediator and his absence from the country may have important consequences for the region. Compaoré played a vital role in negotiations aimed at ending the violence in nearby Cote D’Ivoire and Mali. In 2013, the International Crisis Group implied that if he left power in 2015 it would be a significant loss for a strategically important point in West Africa.

Compaoré was also an important ally in the west’s fight against extremism in West Africa. Both the United States and France, Burkina Faso’s former colonial ruler, have troops stationed there. Following the protests, there were no immediate signs these troops would be removed or forced to leave. At the time of Compaoré’s resignation, it was also feared that his ouster could be a sign of things to come, a movement dubbed the “African Spring.” However, this concern never became a major issue.

Moving Forward

So what’s next for Burkina Faso?  Some view the recent changes in Burkina Faso as part of a larger movement, akin to the Arab Spring in North Africa, but possibly even larger. Zachariah Mampilly, an associate professor of Africana Studies at Vassar College, argues that the developments in Burkina Faso reflect a major trend in Africa. To Mampilly, the protests in North Africa and in places like Burkina Faso are not separate but intertwined over issues of inequality and perpetual poverty. In other words, the Arab Spring and the African Spring were not different movements, rather one larger movement across Africa. While relatively little progress has been made, the emerging trend in protests across the continent may be related.

On the other hand, some see the transition as far less altruistic. Immediately after Compaoré resigned, yet another, Lieutenant Colonel Zida, was elected to be Prime Minister of the interim government. The fact that a military man was once again involved raised questions over whether this was a change sparked by people or just another coup. While many remain skeptical, others are hopeful as the country continues to prepare for elections at the end of the month.

Conclusion

After 27 years under the rule of Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Faso is undergoing a period of rapid political change. After Compaoré’s forced resignation, an interim government was appointed only to be briefly overtaken by yet another coup. While the interim government has regained its control, the country has a long way to go before stability can return. Although elections are scheduled for the end of the month, the military’s involvement in the interim government has led many to question whether it will continue to consolidate its power in the vacuum left by Compaoré.

If Burkina Faso can stem off future coups and actually hold elections, it will go a long way to proving that it has made strides. If and when that happens, the country must then find a way to cultivate its natural wealth, while avoiding past pitfalls. If not, Burkina Faso could easily fall back into the cycle of coups that has plagued its history. If that turns out to be the case, the comparisons between what happened in Burkina Faso and the Arab Spring may, unfortunately, be quite fitting.

Resources

Encyclopedia Britannica: Burkina Faso

History World: History of Burkina Faso

Time: What You Need to Know About the Unrest in Burkina Faso

New York Times: Burkina Faso Charges General Who Led Failed Coup

World Politics Review: Compaoré’s Fall in Burkina Faso Signals Trouble for Africa’s ‘Presidents for Life’

Washington Post: Burkina Faso’s Uprising Part of an Ongoing Wave of African Protests

Al-Jazeera: Burkina Faso: Uprising or military coup?

New York Times: Violent Protests Topple Government in Burkina Faso

The Guardian: Burkina Faso Coup Leader in Custody

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Burkina Faso: A Troubled History and Looming Elections appeared first on Law Street.

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East.

History in the Middle East

Russia’s intervention in Syria is not the first time that the country has been involved in the Middle East. In fact, the country has a long history in the region. The Soviet Union was a major supplier of the Arab forces who fought against Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kuppur War. The USSR later invaded Afghanistan in 1979, occupying the country for nearly 10 years. In 1990, it lost a key ally in the region when what was then South Yemen merged with the North. Growing U.S. influence in the region further hurt the Soviet Union’s control of the region, particularly after the success of the Operation Desert Storm, a significant victory for the United States over Saddam. Shortly afterward, the Soviet Union collapsed and its influence in the Middle East largely receded.

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

Russia worked its way back into the region as an alternative arms supplier to the United States. Many Middle East countries saw Russia’s more lenient human rights perspective as an appealing reason to do business with the country. This shift allowed Russia to attract many Middle Eastern countries away from their traditional supplier, the United States, which was quick to abandon authoritarian leaders during the Arab Spring.

While the Arab Spring helped Russia increase its arms exports, the region was already an important market for Russia. Between 2006 and 2009 Russia’s largest arms buyers were in the Middle East. While the Arab Spring increased demand for weapons in the Middle East, Russia did not immediately expand its sales to new countries. However, its traditional customers did significantly increase their demand–most notably Syria, which increased its purchases by 600 percent.

The breakthrough for Russia came later in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, as countries who were normally loyal customers of the United States began looking to Russia. This movement started with Egypt, whose relationship with the United States soured during the Arab Spring and the subsequent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Morsi. Seeing an opportunity, Russia secured a deal with Egypt. A potential deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States’ closest ally in the region outside of Israel, highlights Russia’s ambitions for its weapons industry. However, the Russians also supply Iran, Saudi Arabia’s most significant regional enemy.

The video below details Russia’s displacement of the US in formerly pro-Washington areas:

Current Operations

In addition to expanding its weapons exports in the Middle East, Russia recently started conducting military strikes in Syria, making the ongoing civil war even more complicated. At the end of September, Russia began a controversial airstrike campaign, which largely helped the Assad regime by targeting Syrian rebels. These actions have had an impact on the relationship between Russia and several key nations within the region as well as observers in the west.

The accompanying video provides an in-depth look at Russia’s actions in the Middle East:

Turkey

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is potentially its most complicated. Turkey relies on Russia, as well as Iran, for energy and trade, which amounted to $31 billion in 2014. The leaders of the two nations are often compared to each other, with President Erdogan reminding many of Putin based on his leadership style and his motivations to remain in office.

However, the relationship has been strained recently with Russia’s bombings of anti-Assad rebels and its repeated violations of Turkish airspace. There is also a historical legacy hanging over the two countries dating back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, which repeatedly fought the Russian Empire.

Syria

Even before Russia’s recent intervention in Syria, the two were close allies. This relationship has existed for years based, initially, on military contracts that Russian arms dealers had with Syrian buyers. Their relationship was strengthened back in 2010 after Russia’s U.N. Security Council veto–Russia, along with North Korea and China, blocked a resolution to force President Assad to step down. Since then, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer outside of the Middle East. Russia also successfully negotiated the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in 2014, diffusing a particularly controversial issue with the United States.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia’s recent incursion into Syria and its civil war. It started with Russia sending advisors and fighter planes but has continued to include ground troops, artillery, and stationing ships off Syria’s coast. Russia’s intervention in Syria has been particularly controversial because of the targets that the country has chosen to attack. While Russia initiated its air campaign with the intention to focus on ISIS and fight terrorism, many of the strikes have benefited the Assad regime.

Iran

Russia’s relationship with Iran is also particularly complex. Recently, Russia played an important role in securing the deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program. But after the deal, Russia quickly unfroze an $800 million deal–previously suspended during negotiations–to give Iran a missile defense system. Additionally, it approved an oil-for-goods deal, which allows Russia to buy up large amounts of Iranian oil in exchange for food and other goods. But oil is also an area that could create conflict between the two countries. Iran’s now-unsanctioned supply of oil, when dumped on the market, could lower the international price of crude oil even further. Lately, the falling price of oil has hurt Russia’s economy, particularly in light of sanctions after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Since the Iranian Revolution, the two nations have been joined by their desire to keep the West at a distance. Even as sanctions are lifted on Iran, this relationship is likely to endure, allowing Iran to continue its anti-western rhetoric. Both nations are also united in strong support for the Assad regime in Syria. However, this shared sentiment flies in the face of more distant history–one that involved Russia either trying to acquire Iranian territory or intervening in the country’s affairs, as it did in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. More recently, Russia continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies and has gone along with American sanctions on the nation.

Iraq

Along with its collaboration with Iran and the Assad Regime in Syria, Russia also recently agreed to share information with Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Doing so has put the United States in a challenging situation, as it has been sceptical of Russia’s increased presence in the region, but has also advocated for international action against the Islamic State.

Russia also has a history of supporting Iraq, most notably in the form of funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the American invasion in 2003, it has also worked to normalize relations with the new government, especially in order to re-secure lucrative energy contracts.

Conclusion

So why is Russia wading back into the Middle East, especially given its history in the region? For most, an interest in the Middle East generally relates to the wealth of oil found there, but for Russia it is more complicated than oil alone. While Russia has worked to get energy contracts there, it is also one of the leading producers of crude oil and is widely regarded as having the largest proven reserves of natural gas. Traditionally, the Middle East had been a major market for Russian weapons, but as the politics of the region changed the United States took hold of the market. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, Russia has been working to expand its weapons exports, while also strengthening ties to its regional allies, like Syria and Iran. The revenue from arms sales is even more important considering the growth of sanctions from the west and the falling price of oil, a crucial source of revenue for Russia.

While a more involved position in the region may help Russia economically, either through energy or weapons, that does still not seem to be the major impetus for its invasion in Syria. Ultimately, Russia’s growing role in the Middle East may simply be a product of its efforts to grow its influence around the world. Russia seems to be positioning itself to be an effective alternative to the United States and its recent actions best reflect that goal. This move, while viewed critically in the West, has also been welcomed by leaders in the Middle East as a counterweight to American influence. Russia’s recent involvement in Syria, combined with its important role in the Iran nuclear deal, lends it even more regional significance.

Resources

The National Post: Why is Russia further expected to increase its presence in Syria?

Washington Post: Russia’s move into Syria upends U.S. plans

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

Al-Monitor: New Russian arms deals could shakeup Mideast market

New York Times: Russia’s military actions in Syria cause rift with Turkey

New York Times: For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep

Wall Street Journal: Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria is completed

CNN: NATO Secretary General questions Russia’s aim in Syria

The Washington Post: Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of opportunity

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

Financial Times: Iraq and Russia to collaborate in fight against ISIS

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided 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.

After 70 years of pacifism, the Japanese parliament recently voted to allow the use of military force under specific conditions, potentially moving the country away from a longstanding policy that guided it since the end of World War II. While this decision immediately drew an outcry of criticism from Japanese citizens, it was strongly supported by Japan’s conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The new legislation will not completely do away with the country’s policy of pacifism, but it does allow for the use of military force under a set of narrow circumstances. After years of stagnant economic growth, this decision reflects the efforts of conservatives in the country’s parliament to expand its role in the region. Read on to see how Japan has currently defined itself and what that will mean for its future.

Japan’s Economy

The strength of Japan’s economy has been central to defining its place in the region. Japan was the first in Asia to modernize along European lines, starting at the end of the 19th century. Adopting a Prussian-style, government-dominated economy, Japan became a powerhouse up until WWII. Following the war, while Japanese industries struggled to recover, the nation was helped by a large surplus of young educated workers and free trade.

Then, starting in the 1960s, Japan began its economic miracle in which it relied on exports to make it a world power economically, second only to the United States. That miracle, however, came to an end in the early 1990s, as GDP growth leveled off. From 1992 onward, Japan’s GDP growth remained largely stagnant. Despite a brief period of growth in the 2000s, those gains were erased by the 2008 global recession.

Japan’s most recent effort to reverse this trend was the election of Shinzo Abe as prime minister in 2012. After three years and a large economic stimulus, there has been very little to show for it. But despite that stimulus, there have been brief periods of recession. Economic stimulus has also come with significant costs–the national debt in Japan is currently 240 percent of its GDP, the highest in the world.

Demographics

Part of Japan’s economic problem is the demographics of its workforce. On average, Japanese citizens have the longest life expectancy of any people on the planet. While that is certainly good for the people of Japan, when you couple that with the country’s extremely low birth rate it creates a significant issue for the Japanese workforce. Namely, while life expectancy is going up, the birth rate is going down. This means that there are fewer young workers to replace the older retirees. So, the younger workers must now support more retirees per person, along with themselves and their families. The best way to visualize it is as an inverted pyramid. This problem is only made worse by Japan’s relatively young, customary retirement age of 60. The video below details the issues plaguing Japan demographically:

Foreign Relations

China

Up until the end of the 19th century, Japan had been under the influence of China, even adopting its customs and language. However, beginning in the 1890s and continuing into WWII, the roles were reversed as Japan became the dominant power. Japan earned long lasting infamy and hatred among the Chinese when its army killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people.

Japan’s current relationship with China can be characterized as contentious, particularly in light of China’s growing military and economic power. In this case, Japan serves as the traditionally dominant power that it is being overtaken by the upstart China. The following video below shows the difficult relationship between the two nations:

North and South Korea

Many of the complications with Japan’s relationships with its neighbors stem from its deep history in the region. For thousands of years, there existed an exchange of ideas and customs between Korea and Japan. But in 1910, Japan annexed Korea, holding the territory as a colony until its defeat in World War II. This period involved particularly harsh rule and oppression from Japan, which is the source of strong resentment that still exists today. Despite Japan’s policy of pacifism adopted after World War II, resentment from past conflict continued to shape Japan’s relations with its neighbors.

Japan’s relationship with North Korea is also filled with wariness, much like the one with China. However, the reasons why Japan mistrusts North Korea are different. Unlike the Chinese, an economic and territorial rival, North Korea’s danger lies in its instability. Couple this instability with its nuclear capability and the repeated missile tests near Japan and it presents Japan with a very dangerous and unpredictable potential adversary close by. Recently Japan has been part of the six-party talks about North Korea’s nuclear program. As North Korea has proven committed to the program, Japan has employed sanctions, further distancing itself from North Korea.

Despite their similarities, Japan and South Korea have had a strained relationship since the early 1900s. Both countries have democratic market-based economies, causing them to share several interests in the region–both are wary of China’s growing role in the region and are close allies with the United States. Scholars argue that formal relations between the governments are largely shaped by public opinion. In their book, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash, Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder argue:

We conclude that the threat-based and alliance-based evaluations of conditions for Japan-ROK [Republic of Korea] cooperation cannot overcome the psychological and emotional gaps in perspective on Japan-ROK relations, chasms that are reflected in public opinion in both countries. For this reason, this study has chosen to utilize public opinion data as a way of getting into the heads of the publics on both sides and more deeply understanding the nature and parameters of identity-related issues that have inhibited development of the relationship.

United States

Prior to its defeat in World War II, Japan was a staunch rival of the United States. Japan’s imperial interests in Southeast Asia conflicted with the United States’ interests in the region and threatened the United States’ Open Door policy in China. But after the war, Japan developed on the United States’ terms and has since become one of the most important U.S. allies over the past several decades.

In an almost ironic twist, relations between the United States and Japan are as good, if not better than with any of its neighbors, which is significant given the legacy of WWII. Since the end of the war and American occupation, Japan has been a close ally–it now hosts a major U.S. military base on the island Okinawa. Japan is also a major market for U.S. goods and an important regional partner for diplomacy.

Japan’s Military

The Cost of War

Japan’s movement away from pacifism also has the potential to affect the nation’s bottom line. Although next year’s budget increase for military spending is not huge, about $41.7 billion or 2.2 percent, it matters quite a bit in the context of the country’s economy, as Japan is mired in extreme debt.

Along with rising costs of an expanded military, there are the effects on the weapons industry in Japan. Last year, the country allowed its weapons manufacturers to export military weapons for the first time. Prior to 2014, companies were only allowed to sell weapons to the Japanese military. But it remains unclear whether this move will actually benefit these companies, which are usually part of much larger corporations. This is because these manufacturers have never had to compete for business before. While exposure to more markets may seem like a good thing, removing the protections in place may not provide many short-term benefits.

Nuclear Weapons

When we talk about a less-passive Japan, the topic of nuclear weapons may also come up. Most of this rhetoric comes from China, Japan’s chief rival, who suggests with Japan’s advanced nuclear energy knowledge, building a weapon would be very easy. The second part of the assertion is certainly true, as most experts believe that with their know-how and inventory of radioactive material, the Japanese could likely build a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. However, the idea that Japan would do so seems unlikely for several reasons. These reasons include a nuclear guarantee from the United States, a strict commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the growing criticism of nuclear technology in Japan in general following the nuclear meltdown disaster in Fukushima. Finally, the historical significance of nuclear weapons still resonates with Japan after the nation was decimated in World War II. The following video gives a complete analysis of Japan ending its policy of pacifism:

Conclusion

Like its economy, Japan itself seems caught in a malaise which threatens to affect its role within the region. Japan’s economy remains in neutral despite the election of Shinzo Abe, who pledged to turn things around with government spending and other innovations. Diplomatically, relations with its Asian neighbor remain simmering, especially with China and the Koreas.

This may explain Japan’s recent decision to move away from its 70-year-old policy of pacifism. However, popularity and concern for spending certainly remain issues for the country, as the decision flies in the face of both. The decision also threatens to further aggravate tensions with Japan’s neighbors, who still carry memories and grudges from World War II.

Japan’s role in the region seems to be the same as that of many countries in their respective spheres, not as big as it thinks it is or should be. Perhaps becoming a more assertive military power is a way for Japan to bolster itself, especially in the face of a rising China. It may also just be a reaction to the arms races currently ongoing in Asia, set off by a rising China.

Resources

CNN: Assertive Japan Poised to Abandon 70 Years of Pacifism

BBC: China & Japan: Rival Giants

Stanford: Learning from the Japanese Economy

The National Interest: The Demographic Timebomb Crippling Japan’s Economy

The Heritage Foundation: Japan Needs Real Economic Reform

Wall Street Journal: Japan Military Spending in Cross Hairs

CNN: Pacifism bill: Why Japan Won’t Build a Nuclear Weapon Quickly

The ASAN Forum: North Korea in Japan’s Strategic Thinking

Department of State: U.S. Relations with Japan

Voice of America: American History: US-Japan Relations Before World War Two

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defining Japan’s Place in the World appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? 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.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are fleeing war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan, making a perilous journey to Europe. For those who arrive in Europe, the reality may not be much better as the European Union, already struggling to stay together amidst financial issues, is now faced with one of the greatest migration crises in history. Meanwhile, in the United States, known for its history of immigration, the question of what can be done to help is gaining attention. Read on to learn about immigration history in the United States, what it has done so far, and what it can do in the future to assist Europe and the migrants risking their lives to make it there.

History of Immigration in the United States

The United States takes pride in being a nation of immigrants, from its initial colonization through several waves of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first big wave of immigrants came to the United States in the mid-19th century, consisting largely of Irish and German migrants fleeing famine and blight in their own nations. The arrival of new people to the United States was not universally welcomed. Because many of the immigrants who came during this period were Catholic, anti-immigration sentiment emerged among many American Protestants who feared the rise of Catholicism in the United States. Another wave of immigrants came during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This group was comprised of Southern and Eastern Europeans such as Italians and Russians. Opposition to the changing U.S. population proved lasting, affecting several different policy decisions in Congress.

Laws Limiting Migration

As large waves of immigrants came to the United States, Congress enacted several new laws to manage, and most notably, limit, the flow of people. The first was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which outlined who was allowed to become an American citizen. While the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed free white people to become citizens, the Naturalization Act of 1870 expanded to include people of African descent, but still prohibited people from other places of origin. Many early U.S. immigration policies attempted to restrict the flow of immigrants from Asia. For example, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which was later repealed in 1943.

The most notable change to the U.S. immigration policy came in the 1920s when Congress passed the Johson-Reed Act. The act, passed in 1924, established a quota system that limited the number of immigrants of each nationality to the levels present in the 1890 census. This effectively restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and stopped immigration from Asia–seeking to prevent changes to the racial composition of the population. Finally, in 1965, Congress passed another immigration law, which established the visa system that the United States has today, doing away with the formal quota system. This law sought to focus on reuniting families and allowing skilled immigrants to live and work in the United States. The law also allowed for a notable increase in immigrants from countries in Asia.

How to Enter the United States

Despite the various changes to U.S. immigration policy in the 1900s, becoming a citizen or even coming to the United States remains an arduous process. Currently, there are several ways one can become a citizen or live in the United States temporarily. The first is family-based; a person can come to the United States if they are a child, direct relative, or spouse of someone who is already a citizen.

Second is the visa system, which can be broken down into temporary and permanent categories. Foreign nationals can receive temporary visas for tourism, business, or education. For long-term visitors, the U.S. government can issue a green card giving them permanent resident status if certain conditions are met. There is also a diversity program that encourages immigration from countries with low levels in the United States, in an effort to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Refugees

Refugees are also a large part of the yearly immigration total in the United States. Following WWII and the passage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, approximately 650,00 people were admitted from war-torn Europe. In subsequent years, additional waves of refugees settled in the United States, often escaping oppression from their home governments. The Cold War led to a notable rise in refugees to the United States, particularly after the Vietnam War.

Congress passed the Refuge Act of 1980, which standardized the definition of who is a refugee and how he or she can be resettled within the country. Every year, the president and Congress decide how many refugees the country will accept and from where they will come. Since 1975, roughly three million refugees have been permitted to settle in the United States. The number of refugees accepted annually has ranged from 207,116 in 1980 to 27,100 in 2002.

The Migrant Crisis

What’s Going on in Europe

Before we get to the United States’ role in the current crisis, let’s first go over what is going on in Europe and the Middle East. The immigration crisis affecting Europe is unlike anything the region has ever seen. So far, 350,000 people have migrated to the continent, dwarfing last year’s record high of 219,000 people. Many of the migrants come from Syria where a civil war has caused over four million people to flee the country. More than 2,800 have died while attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.

The massive influx of migrants has created a significant problem for the European Union, which so far leaders have failed to properly address. For more information about the crisis in Europe check out Law Street’s explainer as well as the video below.

Refugees in the United States

According to the U.S. Department of State, a refugee is, “someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” For any refugee, the first step is to apply for refugee status with the United Nations in the country where he or she is seeking asylum. Even if a person is granted protected status, there is no guarantee that he or she will be accepted in the United States (there are as many as 15 million worldwide). The idea behind admitting refugees is often to provide a temporary home until they can return to their own countries. While few refugees are admitted, even fewer are allowed to stay somewhere permanently.

Current U.S. Efforts

So far, the United States’ primary contribution has come financially–America has given Europe $4 billion in aid to combat the crisis. However, when it comes to accepting migrants, the United States has come up short. Many of those fleeing to Europe are Syrians, trying to escape a civil war in their homeland. Nonetheless, the quota allotted to Syrian refugees was just 1,500 until recently. On September 10, the Obama Administration called for the United States to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian immigrants in the next fiscal year, which starts October 1.

Some non-profits have called for a much higher number. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants believes the United States should accept as many as 100,000 migrants from Syria in addition to 70,000 to 100,000 immigrants from other countries. This has stirred debate in Congress, where some Republican members are worried that allowing more Syrian refugees could increase the threat of terrorism. The following video outlines the U.S. government’s actions so far in this crisis:

Illegal Immigration in the US

Another consideration for the United States is the number migrants already inside the country. As of right now there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants–of those, around 50 percent are from Mexico. Illegal immigration remains a hot-button issue for the U.S. government, making its willingness to help Europe even more complicated. When you factor in the population already here, the likelihood of the United States accepting a large number of Syrian refugees is not very high.

 Conclusion

The current migration crisis in Europe threatens to overwhelm the European Union, which is struggling to handle so many people. Europe’s inability to control the influx has led to a wide range of criticism. Many are now looking for the United States to step up its involvement in the crisis. So far the United States has given a significant amount of money to help alleviate some of Europe’s problems, but it has done relatively little in terms of accepting refugees. The recent announcement to accept 10,000 Syrians will certainly help, but given the number of refugees fleeing Syria and other conflict-torn countries, both the United States and Europe will need to do more.

People attempting to migrate to the United States, even refugees, face an array of requirements that make the process difficult. Couple that with fears of terrorism and the existing immigration problem facing the United States, and it seems unlikely that it will fill its historic role as the home of last resort. Whatever the United States decides to do, it and the European Union must move quickly, as pressure continues to mount.

Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: 5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the US

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

Additional 

HSTRY: A History of Immigration in the USA

CNN: European Migrant Crisis

France 24: Hungary to Return Economic Migrants to Where They Came From

American Immigration Council: How the United States Immigration System Works

Refugee Council USA: History of the US Refugee Resettlement Program

US Department of State: Refugee Admissions

The Economist: Migration from Europe

New York Times: As European Crisis Grows, US Considers Taking in more Syrians

Voice of America: US Pledges to Accept More Migrants

INQUISITR: 29 countries accepting refugees from Syria and the Middle East

Center for Immigration Studies: US Immigration Population Record 41.3 million in 2013

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Role in Solving the Migrant Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

The European migrant crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. Although it has only recently become a hot topic, the number of migrants passing into Europe has been on the rise for the past five years. After a storm of tragedies this summer, the EU’s immigration problem has become an important issue for Europe and even the United States. Unfortunately, it has been a season of all questions and few answers. But recently, European leaders have shown some willingness to address the issue.

Recent Tragedies

On August 28, the bodies of 71 smuggled migrants were found in the back of an abandoned truck near Vienna, Austria. The victims included 59 men, eight women, and four children. This incident led to a strong backlash against human traffickers. Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, released a statement saying, “This tragedy is a concern for us all. Smugglers are criminals. They have no interest in the welfare of refugees. Only profit.” Around the same time, a fishing boat and smaller boat sank off the coast of Libya, claiming the lives of approximately 150 migrants.

On September 2, the lifeless body of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found by a Turkish policeman on the shore of Bodrum, Turkey. The Dogan News Agency captured the scene. An image of the Kurdish toddler face down in the sand instantly went viral– resonating with people around the world. Aylan Kurdi’s body was found after boats sank off the coast of the Greek Island of Kos. His five-year-old brother and mother were also among the dead. Teema Kurdi, his aunt, applied to sponsor the family’s entry to Canada, but was denied due to missing documents.

On the same day, September 2, migrants trying to cross from Greece to Macedonia clashed with police at the border. The police, permitting groups of 50 people at a time, inadvertently separated loved ones. In a panic, migrants rushed the border resulting in a scene of chaos. The confrontation is only the latest of several clashes at the Greece-Macedonia border.

Where are the Refugees and Migrants Coming From?

So far, 2,800 people have died in the Mediterranean this year while attempting to make it to Europe. Why are so many people putting their lives at such risk?

The Middle East

Syria has, by far, the largest dispersed population trying to find shelter in EU countries. As many as 4.1 million Syrians have fled the country since the start of its civil war in 2011 and another 7.6 million are displaced, but remain within the country’s borders. Syrians account for a little over half of the 381,000 migrants and refugees that made it to Europe this year. The EU had an estimated 210,000 asylum applications from Syrian nationals between July 2014 and July 2015.

Large areas of Syria are under the control of the Islamic State, which has further displaced a large portion of Syrians. The overwhelming amount of violence and instability in the country has caused hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their homes. ISIS controls several large cities in both Syria and Iraq, including Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul.

The two other countries from the Middle East that contribute to the migrant crisis are Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are undergoing violent conflict. According to the latest figures, 32,581 Afghans traveled to the European Union through the East Mediterranean and 29,245 Afghans traveled through the West Balkans in 2015. Even though Iraqis only account for four percent of the influx of immigrants into the EU, the number is on the rise.

Africa

A large portion of the migrants leaving Africa come from Eritrea, where the oppressive rule by President Isaias Afwerki has caused hundreds of thousands of Eritreans to leave their homes. A recent report from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that an estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave the country each month.

Most other African immigrants come from Somalia as well as several countries on the west coast–including Nigeria, Gambia, and Senegal. In 2014, 80 percent of African immigrants choose Libya as a gateway to the EU. The road is extremely dangerous–filled with kidnappers, corrupt smugglers, and inadequate transportation. Some boats aren’t even designed to make it all the way to their destinations but embark hoping that a merchant ship, fishing boat, or Coast Guard from an EU country will find them.

Refugee vs. Migrant

Migrants must first make the perilous journey to the EU, but then what happens when they arrive at its door? Upon arrival, migrants cannot simply walk in; they must go through a legal process before entering.

According the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” For example, Syrians and Eritreans can most easily make the case for refugee status due to, respectively, the Syrian civil war and the Afwerki regime.

Refugee status is vital. Under this protection, a person can apply for political asylum or protected status according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even more importantly, once someone reaches Europe and is granted refugee status, he or she cannot be forced back to his or her original country. This is a pivotal point in international law.

The term migrant is more inclusive and is applied to anyone traveling to another country for any other reason than escaping political persecution and war. Migrants often seek better opportunities by leaving impoverished countries, but they aren’t offered the same protection as refugees. Governments are legally allowed to deport migrants without legal papers.

The influx of people arriving in Europe today are mostly refugees, but not all. Both refugees and migrants take the same dangerous routes, often at the hands of human traffickers.

Where are the Migrants and Refugees Going?

381,000 refugees and migrants have reached Europe so far this year, but the distribution among EU countries is unequal. Many pass through Greece and Italy temporarily on their way to a further destination. 244,000 migrants and refugees have landed in Greece this year, almost two-thirds of the total that have reached Europe.

Among all EU countries, Germany has seen the highest number of asylum applications. This year, between January and June, Germany had 154,000 migrants seeking asylum, more than twice the number during the same period last year. The other countries receiving a relatively high number of asylum applications are France, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, and Hungary.

The situation has caused significant problems for many EU countries. According to the New York Times, there have been over 200 direct attacks on migrants in Germany this year. Violence from locals in Italy forced police to evacuate refugees and migrants at its reception centers. Hungary built an 110-mile razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to keep refugees and migrants out. Hungary also shut down a major train station in Budapest, stopping asylum seekers trying to travel to Germany and Austria.

Greece, which is going through its own financial crisis, is struggling to provide assistance in its overwhelmed reception centers. Macedonia was forced to declare a state of emergency on August 20 in order to try and stabilize its border regions.

Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey feel the strain on their resources more than most as neighboring countries of Syria. Jordan currently hosts more than 630,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to others from Palestine and Iraq. The unemployment in Jordan has increased sharply and locals fear future consequences of more refugees. Lebanon is in the middle of its own political crisis and now has one refugee for every four people. Although Turkey has the strongest economy in the region, the massive influx of refugees is beginning to deplete available resources. Together, the three countries host more than four million Syrians.

According to the European Union’s Dublin regulation, the first country that a migrant steps foot on must take responsibility for him or her. Naturally, southern countries, like Italy, claim they suffer the worst of the burden; however, Germany, France, and Britain claim most of the migrants continue to their lands.

Many migrants avoid staying in the first country of entry, seeking a secondary country deeper in Europe in violation of the Dublin regulation. This creates a challenge for the European Union because once a person is inside the EU, they can freely travel between member-states in the Schengen zone. This area consists of 26 EU countries that have eliminated border controls.

What’s the Solution?

Previous attempts at solving the crisis have been relatively fruitless. In June, EU leaders shot down the first quota system initiative in favor of having countries voluntarily accept refugees and migrants. The initial summit, held in Brussels, dedicated more time to trying to stop illegal migration, rather than determining the best way to handle the influx of asylum seekers. By July, the EU announced it had fallen short of its voluntary distribution goals by 8,000 people, and the numbers have only increased. Additionally, some blame popular nationalist and anti-immigration platforms, which are increasingly gaining traction in the EU, for various countries’ unwillingness to provide aid.

However, European Union leaders are currently working on a new plan to more equitably distribute migrants throughout the region. Each EU country will be designated a certain number of refugees to host based on a 160,000 total. Greece, Hungary, and Italy will be exempt from the system since each country already hosts so many refugees. Britain, Ireland, and Demark are also exempt from European asylum policies based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Several countries, most notably Germany, have independently announced that they will increase the number of migrants that they will accept. While these announcements are a step in the right direction, most leaders acknowledge that an EU-wide system is necessary to appropriately deal with the issue.

U.S. Involvement

Up until September, the U.S. has been silent on the resettlement issue. Although the U.S. has been a leader in providing financial aid to Syria, it has only taken in 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. President Obama recently made headlines by pledging to house 10,000 Syrians in the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in October.

Conclusion

Clearly, the EU needs a united, comprehensive plan; the situation cannot remain as it is. Countries like Turkey and Italy will soon burn out their resources completely. Helping refugees isn’t any one country’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the world. The ongoing summit will be crucial in deciding the fate of so many. And it is high time the United States got involved. America is a global leader in humanitarian assistance and needs to contribute its fair share. The welcoming of 10,000 refugees is an important step.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

UN Refugee Agency: Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean

Additional

NPR: The Migrant Crisis, By The Numbers 

The Economist: Everything You Want to Know about Migration Across the Mediterranean

BBC: The Lisbon Treaty

BBC: Syria Iraq

BBC: Why is EU Struggling With Migrants and Asylum?

Brookings: Why 100,000s of Syrian Refugees are Fleeing to Europe 

CFR: Europe’s Migration Crisis

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to Mediterranean

The Guardian: European Leaders Scrap Plans for Migrant Quota System

The Guardian: Hungarian Police Arrest Driver of Lorry that had 71 Dead Migrants Inside

The New York Times: About 150 Migrants Feared Dead After Boats Sink Off Libya

The New York Times: Eritrea

The New York Times: Migrant or Refugee? There Is a Difference, With Legal Implications

The New York Times: Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000

The New York Times: Which Countries Are Under the Most
Strain in the European Migration Crisis?

Time: Migrants Rush Macedonian Border as Chaos Separates Families

UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention

The Washington Post: Iraqis join an intensifying flow of refugees to Europe from Turkey

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the location of cities controlled by the Islamic State as well as the location of African countries where migrants have fled.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Migrant Crisis Continues: What’s Going on in Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

Thailand is a warm, tropical country situated south of China on the Asian mainland, home to a wide range of vegetation and animal life. From an outside perspective, it is a veritable paradise, but on the inside it is far from perfect. This reality was brought to light last May when a military coup ousted the sitting government, and again last month when a bombing at a major shrine in Bangkok shook the country.

Lately, Thailand has been turning from its traditional allies in the west to those that more closely mirror its new authoritarian government, like China. This shift comes at a critical time for Thailand; its economy has stagnated and many of the issues that it has worked hard to overcome–like border conflicts and its central role in the sex trade–have persisted. Read on to learn about the recent challenges facing in Thailand, stemming from its history to where the country is heading now.

History of Thailand

From as early as the 7th century, Thailand has been populated with a variety of people. Up until the 18th century, Thailand was ruled by several competing monarchies. Beginning in the early 19th century, the country began to modernize along European lines while still maintaining its monarchy. This seemingly culminated in its support of the British in WWI.

Thailand’s allegiance briefly changed in WWII when it joined with the Japanese, but after Japan’s defeat Thailand returned the territory that it took from its neighbors and once again allied with the west. In fact, it served as a base for U.S. operations during the Vietnam War. Domestically, Thailand was also going through a rash of changes spurred by a string of protests, coups, and conflicts.

Thailand’s Current Government

In a military coup last May, the elected legislature was forced from power and the military took over. After ousting the government, the military junta imposed martial law, lasting for nearly a year. Military coups are nothing new for Thailand, however, between 1932 and 1991 there were at least 17 different coups. The video below details the most recent military takeover:

Following the coup, and even after lifting martial law, the situation has not improved much. The military junta granted itself new, all-encompassing powers assuming formal control of the government. The junta originally justified its control as a way to avoid violence between the existing government and protesters. But as the military has increased and prolonged its rule many are growing skeptical of its desire to hold elections and give up control. Controversy arose recently when the military junta rejected a draft constitution, which extended its control over the government into next year.

Current Challenges

Recent Attack

In August, a large explosion occurred at the Erawan Shrine, one of the most popular shrines in Thailand–killing 22 people and injuring 120. The Erawan Shrine is located in Bangkok, the capital of Thailand.

In the aftermath of the attack, two men have been arrested, while as many as seven more suspects remain free. So far, the government does not suspect a connection between the attack and international terror organizations, but the motive behind the bombing remains unknown. While the two men in custody have been charged with illegally possessing explosive materials, authorities do not consider them the masterminds behind the bombing.

Insurgency

While the recent bombing garnered a lot of attention in the capital, most of the violence in Thailand has historically occurred in the south, where insurgents fight for territory. The insurgency has plagued the country’s southernmost regions for over a decade, killing nearly 6,400 and wounding nearly 11,000 people. The unrest is the result of a struggle between the Malay Muslims–who demand local autonomy after attempts to incorporate with the rest of Thailand failed–and the Thai government, which refuses to give up land. The rebels fear assimilation and the loss of their culture, which has been an issue since the area was incorporated into Thailand in 1909. While the territory has been a point of contention since 1948, recent violence did not emerge until 2004–coinciding with the election of an unpopular Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. In addition to their fear of cultural assimilation, the rebels’ other grievances relate to poor access to education and high rates of poverty.

The conflict has persisted largely due to the government’s inability to find rebels to negotiate with, as the movement is largely decentralized. Even more so, it is the result of the government refusing to make any concessions while attempting to downplay the issue altogether. The new military government has vowed to take a tougher stance–pledging to end the conflict within 12 months, but also does not plan to make concessions to the insurgents.

The following video explains the insurgency in southern Thailand:

Sex Trafficking

Another long-standing issue for Thailand is sex trafficking. The country is one of the world’s most notorious centers for sex trafficking. Although exact numbers are difficult to determine, estimates indicate that there are tens of thousands of victims. A recent State Department report gave Thailand a third tier rating for its response to human trafficking issues, the lowest rating possible. Due to its location, local corruption, and the government’s reluctance to intervene, Thailand has become a regional hub for sex trafficking.

Prior to the military coup, Thailand made some efforts to crack down on the sex trade. In 2008, it passed the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act which made it illegal to traffic in any persons. Additionally in 2011 the government passed its second six-year national policy strategy aimed at eliminating trafficking. Despite these efforts as well as further collaboration with international organizations and NGOs, trafficking remains a major problem. While the military government has made some attempts to crack down on trafficking, critics argue that these efforts have done very little to address the underlying problem.

Thailand’s Place in the World

Thailand’s domestic issues are only compounded by the country’s increasingly unclear place in the world.

United States

As a result of the military coup in 2014, relations between Thailand and its traditional partner, the United States, have become strained. Evidence of this can be seen in the negative reactions from the United States and its EU allies in response to the military’s increasing authority. Directly after the coup, the United States suspended military aid, as is required by U.S. law after a coup, as well as ceased joint military exercises and aid. The accompanying video depicts Thai-US relations:

China

To fill the gap left by the United States, China has stepped in. Initially, this was through a deal in which Thailand would buy submarines from China in an effort to arm itself in relation to its increasingly armed Asian neighbors. The relationship has expanded as Chinese diplomats began visiting the nation, and talks of a railroad connecting the two nations are currently in progress. Thailand also recently deported more than a hundred Uighurs to China, which the United Nations and several human rights groups condemned. Uighurs, a minority in China, face repression and possibly torture at home.

Thailand’s Economy

Thailand’s relationship with China is not only important as the countries grow closer militarily, but also because China is Thailand’s number one trading partner. Thailand needs China to buy its goods, for which it shows support for the regime in Beijing. So far Thailand has delivered–supporting initiatives like the Maritime Silk Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, both of which are headed by China.

Trade is important to Thailand because, like many economies in Southeast Asia, Thailand is overly reliant on exports for growth. In fact, exports make up more than half of its GDP, making it the second-largest economy in Southeast Asia behind Indonesia. The rest of its production comes through a variety of industries including tourism, agriculture, and fishing.

Although Thailand has one of the largest economies in the region, it has not shown much growth lately. In 2014, its GDP grew by only 0.7 percent and may actually contract this year. The exact cause of Thailand’s economic woes is difficult to trace, but most believe the recent coup and the resulting uncertainty have not helped. The recent attack on the Erawan Shrine could also damage Thailand’s economy–particularly in terms of tourism, which has accounted for a significant portion of its economic growth lately. While these fears may be legitimate, the government maintains that last month’s bombing will not affect the tourism industry.

As economic uncertainty mounts, Thailand continues to align itself with countries like China and Russia in order to maintain trade relationships as its connection with the West becomes increasingly strained.

Border Disputes

Thailand’s most notable border dispute is with Cambodia, which is centered on the Prear Vihear Temple. A ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962 originally awarded the area to Cambodia. However, the decision has left Thailand unsatisfied and led to a three-year conflict from 2008 to 2011. The conflict ended with a new decision by the ICJ in 2011, which gave control of the temple to Cambodia, but left much of the surrounding area undetermined. Currently, both countries are in talks to create a solution for the remaining land, but little progress has been made.

Another dispute, between Thailand and Malaysia, was largely settled decades ago. However, control over Bukit Jeli, a stretch of land on the border between both countries, remains unsettled. Despite the lack of agreement, a conflict between the two countries remains unlikely. Some believe that a similar agreement, or lack thereof, could be applied the situation with Cambodia.

Conclusion

Thailand is home to an ancient civilization and the country was one of few never to be colonized by Europeans. But, the recent coup and the military junta’s expansion of power are beginning to reveal the many issues facing the country. Given issues with sex trafficking, border disputes, and an insurgency in the south, Thailand’s domestic troubles may also affect its position in Southeast Asia.

So what does all this mean going forward?  If Thailand continues with its military-controlled government, which looks likely, it may also continue to alienate its old allies such as the United States. Subsequently these decisions push Thailand further into the orbit of countries like China who have their own authoritarian governments. While this may not be what the people of Thailand want, the importance of China as a trade partner leaves few options for the country.

All this is subject to change if the government gives up power or is deposed, and when you look at its history another coup in Thailand is certainly possible. However, the growing concentration of power among military leaders reduces the likelihood power will change hands. As long as the military stays in control the situation is likely to remain while social issues–such as unrest, border disputes, and sex-trafficking–go unaddressed.

Resources

Primary

CIA World Factbook: Thailand

Additional 

Human Trafficking.org: Thailand

BBC: Bangkok’s Erawan Shrine bomb

Combating Terrorism Center: The Smoldering Thai Insurgency

DW: Why Thailand is boosting ties with Russia and China

BBC: Thailand Profile

Al Jazeera: Thailand

The Economist: The Darkened Horizon

BBC: Thai Military Government Replaces Martial Law

CNN: Bangkok Shrine Explosion Kills 22 Including Tourists

The Interpreter: Religion in the Southern Thailand Conflict

Value Walk: What do Growing Thai-China Relations Mean for the U.S.?

Tourism Thailand: the Economy of Thailand

East Asia Forum: Thai-Cambodia Relations One Year After the ICJ Judgment

DW: A look at southern Thailand’s smoldering insurgency

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Attacks, Insurgency, and a Military Takeover in Modern Day Thailand appeared first on Law Street.

The South and East China Seas conflicts are suddenly dominating the news. Multiple countries are claiming ownership over a number of islands in the South and East China Seas–and the debate has gone international, even involving the U.S. But why does the United States even care who owns these islands? Read on to learn about why these islands and territories are so important, and why we should all be paying attention to this conflict.

A History of Conflict

What is under dispute?

The islands under question are located in the East and South China seas. China claims about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including those islands. But along with China, the Philippines and Vietnam both claim the Paracels and Spratley Islands. China and the Philippines both claim the Scarborough Shoal. And Malaysia and Brunei also claim disputed maritime territory in the South China Sea as well.

The East China Sea Conflict revolves around a group of five inhabited islets named the Diaoyu Islands according to China or the Senkaku Islands according to Japan. Taiwan, along with China and Japan, also claims these islands in the East China Sea, although China also claims Taiwan.

South China Sea 

China’s claims in the South China Sea base from ancient times. China documents territorial rights from the Xia and Han dynasties. China uses a map with a nine-dash line to chart its territories that include 291 islands and reefs in the area. The nine-dash line was formulated in China by the nationalist Kuomintang party in 1947 and is still used in China’s maps today.

But other countries don’t agree. Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all have a military presence on at least some of the islands in the region as well. But it is really in the last eighteen months that China’s massive construction has started to spark tensions higher than ever.

East China Sea

The beginning of the East China Sea Conflict can be dated back to the end of the first Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s, fought between China and Japan over Korea. In defeat, China ceded a number of territories to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were a part of this cession, although there is no mention of the islands specifically in the treaty. Japan claims to have had them all along, since it discovered and annexed the lands in 1895. In 1937, Japan invaded China and fortified its military strength. This time period really honed the bad blood between Japan and China, as the Chinese people suffered gravely. After WWII, China demanded the islands back, even though China never actually controlled the islands and they were now under U.S. control. When the United States finally left the islands in 1972, post WWII, the Japanese government resumed control. Whether the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were ceded to Taiwan or considered part of Okinawa (remaining with Japan) remains a heated point of debate today.

What’s so special about these islands?

When it comes to the South China Sea, it all boils down to economics. The area is home to an abundance of natural resources, fertile fishing grounds, and “the world’s most dynamic economies.” The South China Sea holds vital global trade routes, especially for oil. The dominant country in the region, China, could control trade shipments from all over East and Southeast Asia and control foreign military access. The South China Sea conducts $5.3 trillion in total trade each year. There are 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic of feet of natural gas in the South China Sea. If that isn’t enough, 90 percent of Middle Eastern fossil fuel exports are expected to pass through Asia by 2035.

The conflict over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is a little more complicated. Presumed oil and gas reserves are important factors. But the conflict is also a bit more symbolic–China is now the big man on campus, and wants to show its strength. Nationalism and honor play big parts on this side of the maritime conflicts. Old wounds are not forgotten. “Maritime disputes suggest that China’s rise is not going to be without its frictions,” says Council on Foreign Relations Director for Asia Studies Elizabeth Economy, “That is many instances China feels that its economic throw weight really does give it a greater stance and a greater ability to assert its interests, in some cases to reform norms, and in some cases to upend them.”

Recent Developments

In recent news, the conflicts are heating up due to China’s major building. In the last eighteen months, China has created more “new island surface” than all the other countries involved combined, amassing to about 2,000 acres. Although China already started land reclamation in controversial areas close to the Spratly Islands last year, this recent action is on a whole other scale. China has placed military equipment such as military airfields and motorized artillery pieces on the man-made islands and plans to continue that action in the future.

China isn’t the only one building however. Similar actions have been taken by Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia on much smaller scales. For example, in 2008, Taiwan completed a 3,900 foot land strip on the Itu Aba, part of the Spratley Islands, fit for search and rescue missions and military aircrafts. In a more recent example, Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein announced a plan in 2013 to place a marine corps on a yet to be created naval base on Bintulu in Sarawak.

U.S. Involvement

The major concern for Americans is a conflict between the U.S. and China. Conflict amongst the Asia-Pacific countries can easily bring in the U.S. We have a stake in the trade markets and no interest in allowing China to control the region and our allies like Japan.

This month Secretary of State John Kerry met with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Malaysia. Kerry pressed for China to immediately halt “problematic actions” and expressed concern for the “militarization of features there.” After the meeting, Kerry was optimistic to other diplomats and called the conversation a “good meeting.” Kerry stated, “We want to ensure the security of critical sea lanes and fishing grounds, and we want to see that disputes in the area are managed peacefully and on the basis of international law.” Still points of contention remained. Although Wang promised to stop land reclamation, he did not promise China would vacate current projects .

This previous May, a U.S. surveillance plane flew over some of the contested waters. The flight was conducted in order to apparently “make clear the U.S. does not recognize China’s territorial claims.” The Chinese sent eight warning against the aircraft from an island over 600 miles away from the Chinese coast. The warning made clear that China considers the area its jurisdiction.

Kerry and Wang were in Malaysia for a meeting held by ASEAN, a 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. China and ASEAN previously agreed to negotiate a “code of conduct” regarding the disputed regions. But ASEAN secretary general, Le Luong Minh, is not happy with the progress. ASEAN calls for an earlier resolve of the “code of conduct” and for China to stop all building.

Conclusion

We haven’t seen the last of the arguments over the islands in the East and South China Seas. While the conflict may have served as a show of strength between the United States and China, it also involved many other nations that continue to have influence in the region. Moreover, given other extenuating factors like the Trans-Pacific Partnership debacle, the Chinese-American relationship may definitely be heading toward icy waters. Whether or not that will affect the disputes in the East and South China Sea will have to be seen.

Resources

CFR: China’s Maritime Disputes

Associated Press: ASEAN wants China to stop work in disputed sea

CNN: China Warns U.S. Surveillance Plane

The Economist: Who really owns the Senkaku islands? 

The New York Times: Kerry Urges Beijing to Halt Actions in South China Sea

Reuters: Everything you need to know about the South China Sea conflict

The Wall Street Journal: China to Build Military Facilities on South China Sea Islets

The Washington Post: China is not the only country reclaiming land in South China Sea

The Washington Post: Tension with China loom larger as Obama prepares to welcome Xi Jinping

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The South and East China Seas: Conflict Continues appeared first on Law Street.

The nation of Turkey sits at a crossroads. Stretching from Europe to Asia, the country serves as the major path between the two continents and has done so through one form or another for centuries. The nation is also proverbially stuck between two competing forces as well. While it has advanced economically, politically, and through foreign policy much further than many of its Middle East neighbors, recent setbacks have shown just how far this process has yet to go. On top of this is the continued threat of ISIS and homegrown groups that recently reached such a fevered pitch that Turkey has called on its NATO allies for assistance. Read on for a look at this critical junction for Turkey, examining its past, politics, economy, and security situation.

History

Present day Turkey was formerly known as Anatolia in ancient times and was part of many of the world’s strongest and longest-lasting empires such as the Romans and Byzantines. Beginning in the 11^th century however, it was invaded by a number of Turkic tribes from the Asian Steppe. These groups spent the next 200 years warring with each other, as well as with the Byzantines. Through this fighting the region gradually came to have an overwhelmingly Turkic population, leading to the origins of the nation’s present name, Turkey.

Out of that chaos rose the Ottomans, who slowly expanded the borders of the burgeoning Anatolian state and moved to finally crush the Byzantium Empire to the west. Finally in 1453, after nearly 100 years, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine capital Constantinople. The city was renamed Istanbul and rechristened the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Following this rapid rise, the Ottomans then spent the next 300 years building and consolidating their empire.

The tide of history began to work against them though, in the 18^th century, as the empire was pinned in under threat from all sides; the Austrians to the west, the Russians to the north, and Persians to the east and south. This led a gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was soon dubbed “the sick man of Europe.” Ironically, the empire survived only through efforts of European nations, which were anxious to maintain it as part of the balance of power.

This weakness was exacerbated by defeat in the Crimean War and the independence of a number of the regions under Turkish rule in the late 1800s. This also led to a reform movement, which culminated with Ataturk and the Young Turks who took control over the country in a bloodless coup in 1909 and ushered in a modern European-style democracy.

Aside from imitating European democracy, Ataturk also modernized Turkey in other ways including through farming, education, and even the Turkish language. His most lasting objective though and the most divisive to the present day, was to make Turkey a secular nation. While its inhabitants are still overwhelmingly Muslim, the country is modeled more after others in which the church and state are separate.  The video below provides an in-depth look at Turkey’s history.

Turkey and the EU

When Ataturk imitated European life he dreamed of one day ingratiating Turkey into the continent or at least being strong enough to challenge it. This has translated through the years into a desire by Turks to join the European Union. In fact, it has been a candidate for membership since 1999. The partnership would be a natural one for a number of reasons including Turkey’s growing economy, as well as its existing partnerships within NATO and the G20.

Nevertheless, after more than 15 years, Turkey remains on the outside looking in. Despite its strong economy and its capital, which is technically in Europe, the Turks have not been able to convince the EU it is worthy of membership. This is due to a number of reasons that extend beyond Turkey’s Muslim population, which it alleges is the main problem.

To start, while Turkey is wealthy, that wealth is unequally concentrated at the top. Thus while Turkey’s economy overall is growing and there are extremely wealthy people, the majority live in poverty. This could be problematic for the EU because it would bring a population even larger than Germany’s into the fold, which might need extensive government help. This is even more of a concern in the wake of the repeated bailouts of Greece, a much smaller country than Turkey both economically and population-wise. Additionally, Turkey brings further baggage through its problems with the Kurds, the contentious issue of who rules Cyprus, and its democracy, which looks increasingly less representative and more like a dictatorship.

Perhaps most importantly though, in light of Greece’s recent issues, is the slowing Turkish economy. Since its rise from the ashes of the IMF bailout it received in 2001, the economy of Turkey boomed averaging between five and ten percent annually. However, this growth has stalled and plummeted the last few years, averaging closer to three percent.

This is a result of less innovation and deregulation of the economy, regulations which helped it climb out of its earlier hole. At the center of much of this, is former Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Erdogan has been criticized for intervening too much in the nation’s economy, particularly concerning its central bank. Erdogan claims that the central bank acting as if it is under a foreign authority has reduced confidence in the economy and the government.

The Turkish Government

Speaking of its government, since the founding of the modern state by Ataturk, Turkey has made a concerted effort, unlike its neighbors, to be secularist and not become dominated by Islamists. This attempt has been carried out, historically, by the military, which has initiated a number of coups to preserve the country as is.  The following video depicts the military’s role in the government.

However, these efforts are under threat of being rendered moot, thanks to Turkey’s most powerful politician since Ataturk, Recep Erdogan. Erdogan built his political career piece by piece, rising from professional soccer all the way to the position of Prime Minister. After serving the maximum allowable 12 years, he became the first ever directly elected president in the country’s position.

While Erdogan has been immensely popular during his rule, many view him as a threat to Turkey’s secular identity. This is due to many factors, including his religious upbringing, laws he has attempted to pass that prohibit certain freedoms with regard to Islamic doctrine, and his political leanings. The fear is growing because Erdogan is now attempting to alter the constitution in a way that grants the president far-reaching powers, which would be a massive shift for a position that until now has been mostly ceremonial. Erdogan has also had a combative foreign affairs history, including alienating a once-close ally in Israel and in failing to live up to promises offered to Kurds living in the south.  The accompanying video details Erdogan’s political career.