A Chinese court just found in favor of New Balance in a trademark case. This is a big win for the American sneaker manufacturer. After all, it has been traditionally very difficult for companies to win IP suits in a country that has many times been accused of turning a blind eye to counterfeits.

The Chinese court ruled that three companies in China–New Boom, New Barlun, and New Bunren–all infringed upon New Balance’s logo, a distinctive N. The three companies owe a combined $1.5 million to New Balance. But while that sum may not seem like much, it’s more than American companies usually get. And it may pave the way for other American companies to be successful in IP disputes in China.

In the past, American companies usually ended up as losers when contesting trademarks. In 2016, Apple lost a lawsuit against a Chinese company using the “iPhone” trademark. Pfizer has lost multiple fights over its Viagra trademark. And Michael Jordan went through a protracted battle over the use of his own name. Most of these losses were based on the fact that Chinese law grants a trademark to whoever filed for it first, and most big American companies were just not quick enough.

But, that may be changing. The U.S. has put pressure on China to tighten its IP laws. China revamped its trademark law in 2014, allowing courts to award higher damages. Scott Palmer, a New York-based IP lawyer told the New York Times:

I don’t think this is a one-off. This is a fairly high-profile case, but I think that it falls squarely within a trend, in which the direction is more toward more significant damage awards when indeed it is warranted.

It doesn’t seem likely that American companies will necessarily start winning IP cases in China left and right. But for companies frustrated with their treatment in one of the world’s largest markets, this could be a good sign for the future.

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 New Balance Wins Huge Trademark Case in China appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, transgender discrimination, bar exam changes, and medical marijuana protections made headlines. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

Is the California Bar Exam About to Get Easier?

The California Supreme Court has decided that it’s time to change the state’s notoriously difficult bar exam after observing very low passage rates for the past few years compared to other states.

Senate Committee Approves Medical Marijuana Protections

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment Thursday that would block the Department of Justice from using any funds to undermine state medical marijuana legislation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Volvo has set itself apart from other mainstream automakers this month by announcing that all of its new models from 2019 onwards will be electric or hybrid. Five fully electric models and a range of hybrids will become available between 2019 and 2021. In a year in which Tesla has surpassed Ford Motors and GM in market value, the shift toward electric can only be seen as a smart move for Volvo. But, interestingly enough, it was not actually a choice made to corner the American market.

Volvo is owned by Geely Motors, a little known Chinese company that purchased the Swedish brand from Ford in 2010 for a fraction of the cost that Ford had originally paid. The purchase could have driven Volvo into the ground but instead has given it new life in the Chinese market, where government regulations favor electric and hybrid vehicles in large cities. Geely has built a name for itself with its reinvigoration of Volvo and has now moved on to purchasing the makers of London’s ubiquitous black cabs, the racing brand Lotus, and the flying car start-up Terrafugia. Volvo is not the only brand under the Geely umbrella to go green–Geely opened a solar powered factory near Coventry, England this year which has created all-electric cabs for London Taxi Co. The UK government has been preparing plans to give taxi drivers grants for switching to these low emission cabs.

Geely stock price has been climbing ever upward over the past several years, tripling over the course of 2016-2017. The Chinese juggernaut may not be a household name in the U.S. at the moment, but it is expanding across Europe and into the Southeast Asian market, where American automakers have historically struggled to gain a foothold. If the company continues to commit to low emissions vehicles and transforming iconic brands into electric powerhouses its success may spread to the American market. Although the company will probably never have the immense production facilities of its direct competitors, with Ford and GM sales taking a downward turn, Geely may have found its moment to begin edging into the North American market.

The shift to electric has been underway for several years and Volvo is truly just a high profile manifestation of a larger trend–however every effort to drive consumers toward electric energy should be applauded. From the Nissan Leaf to Tesla’s more affordable Model S to the ever popular Prius, electric and hybrid vehicles are now settling into a price range that first time buyers are more comfortable with–but what about drivers with loyalty to a certain brand? In those instances, a massive transformation like the one Volvo is undergoing captures a section of consumers that may never have planned to buy electric–but could change their minds when the vehicle comes from a name they trust. Whether or not the Volvo transition is just a drop in the bucket on the path to a fully electric future, Geely clearly has a vision and commitment to electric energy that makes it unique in the conventional automotive market.

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 Geely Motors: The Power Behind Volvo’s Electric Bid appeared first on Law Street.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is officially in D.C. to meet with President Donald Trump. Elected in May, following the impeachment of South Korea’s former leader, Moon comes to Washington with a vision on how to deal with North Korea that is much different than the Trump Administration’s.

Moon has scaled back maneuvers that could be seen as aggressive toward North Korea, while stressing the importance of dialogue with his country’s northern neighbor. Trump, on the other hand, lacks a coherent Pyongyang strategy, and has flirted with both an armed response and a diplomatic one.

Before the two leaders met, Moon, who landed in the U.S. on Wednesday, sought to highlight the countries’ common interests. To kick-off his first visit to the U.S. as president, Moon visited a Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, and laid a wreath to commemorate the Marines who died fighting in the Korean War. He used the occasion to underscore the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

“Together we will achieve the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program, peace on the Korean Peninsula and eventually peace in Northeast Asia,” Moon said. Later, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Moon highlighted South Korea’s economic and trade ties with the U.S., and called for further cooperation. He said:

The U.S. market share in Korea’s import market has increased and Korea has also seen an increase in its share of the U.S. important market. Expansion of bilateral trade is enriching the daily lives of our peoples…Both our countries have new governments in place; let us become best partners by creating new jobs in our countries. Let us move forward hand in hand toward a path of joint and common prosperity.

Despite the very real economic and military ties between Washington and Seoul, the presidents are bound to clash when it comes to North Korea. Moon is South Korea’s first liberal president in decades; he supports increased dialogue and investment with Pyongyang rather than the more military-based, isolationist approach of his conservative predecessors.

Moon also recently delayed the deployment of additional missile defense batteries supplied by the U.S. He said the delay is intended to provide time for an environmental review. But some analysts see it as a move to placate China, which opposes the system, known as Thaad. Still, where Moon and Trump might bump heads most forcefully is on how to deal with North Korea in the immediate future.

The Trump Administration’s most recent public comments on its North Korean strategy came on Wednesday, from National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The U.S. is preparing “all options,” McMaster said on Wednesday, “because the president has made clear to us that he will not accept a nuclear power in North Korea and a threat that can target the United States.”

Under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, North Korea has increased its ballistic missile tests over the past few years. The launch frequency has increased since Trump took office, and Kim has stated his nuclear arsenal is nearing the capacity to strike the continental U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile.

Though analysts say Pyongyang is months, if not years, away from acquiring such capabilities, the threat is growing by the day. In addition, thousands of U.S. soldiers are spread across South Korea, Japan, and Guam, all of which are currently within North Korea’s range. A few months into his tenure, Trump seemed to have embraced the idea of using China to bully the North to curtail its nuclear ambitions. That tact has apparently failed. Last week, Trump tweeted:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

On Thursday, the Trump Administration tightened the screws on China, imposing sanctions on a Chinese bank that deals with North Korea. On Wednesday, in a stark reminder of the threat North Korea poses, its state-run news agency issued a “death penalty” on former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and her former spy chief. Accusing the former president of attempting to assassinate Kim, the statement said, she might receive a “miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and South Korean Leader Moon Jae-in Meet Despite Different North Korea Strategies appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is considering taking punitive action against China for its trade practices and its inability to reign in North Korea, three senior administration officials told Reuters.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could announce tariffs against Chinese steel as soon as this week, along with the results of an departmental probe into steel imports. Some analysts worry that such a move could spark a trade war between the world’s two largest economic powers.

In April, Trump released a memo directing Ross to conduct a review of “unfair trade practices and other abuses.” The memo added:

In the case of steel, both the United States and global markets for steel products are distorted by large volumes of excess capacity–much of which results from foreign government subsidies and other unfair practices.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly inveighed against Beijing’s trade practices, accusing it of dumping steel and manipulating its currency. But in April, after a warm meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump walked back his harsh language. Placing his faith in China’s ability to influence North Korea–a near-nuclear power that relies heavily on trade with China–Trump admitted that China is not a currency manipulator.

Trump is reportedly upset with Beijing over its lack of progress on North Korea. The insulated country continues to test medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and is inching toward having the capability to strike the coastal U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile. North Korea has balked at negotiation attempts by South Korea’s new president, and has shown no signs it’s willing to scale back its nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Trump sent out an ominous tweet that seemed to signal further actions against China might be on the horizon:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

Steel stocks rose Tuesday in anticipation of Trump’s potential actions against China.

“They did a little, not a lot,” one of the White House officials told Reuters, referring to China’s efforts to curtail North Korea. “And if he’s not going to get what he needs on that, he needs to move ahead on his broader agenda on trade and on North Korea.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump About to Start a Trade War with China? appeared first on Law Street.

Adam Schiff Says Obama Should Have Done More About Russian Meddling

On Friday, news broke that former President Barack Obama knew about Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election long before it was publicly known. Obama was apparently told about the Russian efforts in August of last year. Over the weekend, Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Obama should have done more to address the issue and informed the public earlier. On Saturday, Trump tweeted the same thing.

Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017

But Obama’s team says it didn’t want to make it look like they were trying to sway the election results, especially after Trump’s repeated allegations that the election was rigged. Instead, the administration imposed sanctions and issued stern warnings to Russia. Also, most people thought that Hillary Clinton would almost certainly win the election regardless of any Russian interference.

Yes, Obama should have been more decisive in countering Russia’s actions but leadership is about figuring out a solution, not just complain.

— Anirvan Ghosh (@anirvanghosh) June 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Panama established official diplomatic ties with China last Tuesday, thereby renouncing its ties to Taiwan. This decision comes as a major political victory for China as it seeks to further isolate Taiwan and strengthen vital economic partnerships in Latin America.

A joint statement issued by representatives of both countries said that Panama recognizes “only one China” and that the “government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing all China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

And then there were 20: Taiwan’s isolation solidifies

Panama’s decision leaves Taiwan with just 20 international allies. Many are just small countries or islands in Latin America and the Pacific (its only European ally is Vatican City), yet every loss to China further secludes the island nation.

Both Beijing and Taipei require foreign countries to decide whether to forge diplomatic relationships with either the People’s Republic of China (China) or the Republic of China (Taiwan)–never both.

In recent decades, as China’s global economic influence has grown, many countries have found it more advantageous to build ties with China. The latest country to switch its allegiance in favor of China was São Tomé and Príncipe, which announced the move in December.

Taiwan severed its ties to Panama on Wednesday, one day after Panama’s announcement. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it felt “anger and regret” over the “very unfriendly” diplomatic turn by Panama, which it deemed “yielded to economic interests by the Beijing authorities.”

Beijing has increased its pressure on Taiwan after Tsai Ing-wen was elected president last year. Her liberal democratic party views have regularly heightened tensions with China. She did not endorse the “One China” policy, after she took office, a common practice between the two countries, which agree to endorse the policy but hold different interpretations of what it means.

Then in January, after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Tsai called him to offer her congratulations. China took offense to the fact that the U.S. took the call and because it saw the potential for the two countries to get closer.

Tsai has tried to foster that possibility. She stopped in the U.S. in January, en route to Central America for diplomatic visits, and made a point to visit politicians such as Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL.).

Tsai, who visited Panama just last June, emphasized the years of friendship between the two countries in a speech she gave on Tuesday. She maintained that Taiwan would not engage in “a diplomatic bidding war” with China, despite the fact that China continues to “pressure Taiwan’s international space.”

“We are a sovereign country,” Tsai said. “This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded.”

An important play for Panama

China is currently the Panama canal’s second biggest user and it’s clear this new relationship will give China an economic advantage over the historically U.S.-controlled Panama canal.

China was funding a $50 billion alternative to the Panama Canal in Nicaragua. However, financial struggles and environmental critiques have halted construction before it even started. Though that project has largely fallen through, China can now comfortably rely on Panama’s canal to circulate its goods.

The Panama Canal Authority also just announced it will be looking for contractors and customers to modify infrastructure surrounding the canal later this year, further providing China with strong potential business opportunities.

Asia-based political risk analyst Ross Feingold said that “enhanced communication channel between the Panamanian and Chinese governments following diplomatic recognition can only be a positive for Chinese logistics and infrastructure companies that operate in the canal zone.”

However, China may not be the only party to benefit from this alliance. In the last few years, two of Panama’s main economic drivers, the canal and its status as a fiscal sanctuary, have taken a hit.

In late 2013, President Xi Jinping announced the Maritime Silk Road plan, a development strategy aimed at integrating and coordinating trade between Eurasian countries. This plan completely excluded North and South America. In 2015, the Suez canal, perhaps the Panamanian canal’s main competitor, underwent a renovation, which allows it to accommodate larger ships and ease congestion.

China’s renewed interest in Panama through this diplomatic relationship can be seen as an indicator that Panama and its canal will not be cast away in favor of newer, more convenient options.

New Chinese direct investments are also an opportunity for Panama to revive its financial and fiscal image, which had taken a toll after last year’s “Panama Papers” revelations.

At the time, many officials had complained that the shorthand used by international media outlets for the Mossack Fonseca case hurt the country’s reputation.

“It’s not about Panama, it’s about one company. Nobody called it the Texas fraud when Enron [went] bankrupt,” vice-minister of the economy Ivan Zarak said at the time. “It’s unjust. You are holding accountable the whole country for the actions of one company,”

A renewed relationship with China could indeed help the nation re-boot. In a televised speech given last week, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, who actually met with President Donald Trump earlier today, said he was “convinced that this is the correct path for [the] country.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Shift Away From Taiwan, Panama Established Key Relationship With China 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.

Two Chinese labor activists investigating a factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump’s brand have gone missing, and a third was recently arrested. The three men work for China Labor Watch and were looking into the alleged abuse of workers at the Huajian International shoe factory. The group is based in New York but focuses on workers’ rights in China.

According to the Associated Press, Hua Haifeng was arrested for illegal surveillance after working undercover at the factory since April. The group lost touch with the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. The parent company of the particular factory, Huajian Group, produces between 10,000 and 20,000 shoes for Ivanka’s brand every year. It also makes shoes for brands like Coach and Nine West.

According to the director of China Labor Watch, Li Qiang, his employees found evidence that workers were forced to work overtime without pay, and that workers who left were fired. They also could be fired if they took sick leave, and were forced to sign false time sheets.

JUST IN: One arrested, two missing after investigating working conditions at Ivanka Trump shoe factory in China https://t.co/nB6f48k2eh pic.twitter.com/OzCQjJjIFF

— The Hill (@thehill) May 30, 2017

Chinese police claimed that the men had used illegal surveillance technology, but according to Li Qiang they just used their cellphones to shoot video. He said he thinks the police are protecting the factory since it is affiliated with the U.S. president’s daughter, considering he has investigated hundreds of Chinese factories before without any incident like this.

The wife of the man who was arrested said that she received a phone call from the police saying that Hua had been detained, and that she didn’t need to know anything more than that. “I understand and support my husband’s work,” she said. “I feel his work is legal and meaningful, so why should they arrest him?”

Li Qiang said that his company was planning on releasing a report on the factory next month. The Democratic National Committee responded to the news by releasing a statement calling for the White House to act on China’s human rights abuses:

We deeply hope that these detained or missing human rights workers are safe and can be reunited with their families as soon as possible. For years, Ivanka Trump has ignored public reports of awful labor conditions at a factory that makes her shoes. Now, she must decide whether she can ignore the Chinese government’s apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Activists Investigating Factory Used for Ivanka Trump’s Brand Are Missing appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will Trump Pull Out of the Paris Climate Deal?

This morning, news broke that President Donald Trump is expected to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. During his recent European trip, he had said he would announce his decision over the next few days. If confirmed, the decision to leave could have a disastrous impact on the environment and public health, but also on America’s status as a world leader. China is far ahead of the U.S. when it comes to developing renewable energy sources, so there are concerns that the relationship between Europe and China could deepen, at least when it comes to environmental collaboration.

Pulling out of #ParisAgreement is a massive moral, economic & leadership failure for Trump admin. Loss of business, jobs, & intl standing.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) May 31, 2017

Trump has reportedly been torn between those who want him to stay in the deal, like his daughter Ivanka and tech billionaire Elon Musk, and those who want to leave, like EPA head Scott Pruitt and Steve Bannon. European leaders seemed frustrated after meeting with Trump. His stubbornness when it comes to climate change discussions is especially noteworthy–Germany’s Angela Merkel called their talks “very difficult, and not to say very unsatisfactory.”

In 100 years, Trump withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will be considered the seismic event. This election will be a footnote.

— Ellie Mae O’Hagan (@MissEllieMae) May 31, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A day after North Korea launched yet another missile test, the Pentagon tested a missile defense system on Tuesday, its first in three years, in recognition of the closer-than-ever reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. The system, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is designed to thwart inter-continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, that can strike the continental United States.

Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, suggested Pyongyang is nearly capable of launching such a missile, and its recent flurry of medium and short-range missile tests has proved Kim’s rhetoric is more than mere words.

Here’s how the $244-million defense system works:

A test missile is launched off an atoll in the Marshall Islands. Concurrently, a so-called “interceptor” launches from an underground airbase in California, spitting out a “kill vehicle” that collides with the missile–hopefully destroying it–mid-air before it can hit the earth. The system, which launched its first test in 2004, is far from a sure thing: it has been successful in four of nine attempts.

According to the Associated Press, Tuesday’s test was a success:

BREAKING: Pentagon says it has shot down mock warhead over the Pacific in key success for US missile defense program.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 30, 2017

“This is part of a continuous learning curve,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, recently said. “We improve and learn from each test, regardless of the outcome. That’s the reason we conduct them,” he added. “We look forward to understanding the results so we can continue to mature the system and stay ahead of the threat.”

That threat is perhaps more pressing than ever before. North Korea has launched a handful of missile tests since President Donald Trump took office in January. Trump has vowed to stop the threat, and has looked to China, the North’s neighbor, largest trading partner, and primary benefactor, to pressure Kim to cease his provocations. Trump, meanwhile, reacted to North Korea’s latest test on Twitter:

North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2017

In addition to Tuesday’s interceptor test, the Pentagon is deploying two U.S. aircraft carriers to the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, for a few days of training. Despite the training sessions taking place hundreds of miles off of the Korean Peninsula, one U.S. official told CNN, “how can we say it’s not sending a message?”

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear that the U.S. is taking the North Korean threat seriously. He said: “They have been very clear in their rhetoric — we don’t have to wait until they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on it to say that now it’s manifested completely.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pentagon Tests Defense System Designed to Thwart North Korean Missiles appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s vow to renegotiate NAFTA is one step closer to materializing: the Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative nominee, on Thursday afternoon. The 82-14 vote ended months of uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s trade plans, because it had been functioning without a chief trade envoy. Trump has repeatedly promised to retool the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. The president has called the 1994 deal a “disaster.”

Lighthizer, 69, has decades of trade experience, both in the public and private sectors. He served as a senior trade official in the Reagan Administration. Since then, Lighthizer has worked as a trade lawyer, representing clients in the U.S. and abroad. His work for foreign firms–between 1985 and 1990, he represented five foreign clients, including Brazil’s government–threatened to derail his nomination.

UPDATE: U.S. Senate confirms Trump’s pick for trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, setting stage for NAFTA renegotiation https://t.co/nlr5Ql8DWS pic.twitter.com/XcnxhXKb2M

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 11, 2017

A 1995 amendment to the 1974 Trade Act stipulates a nominee who “directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity” cannot serve as the U.S. Trade Representative, unless granted a waiver from Congress. But in spite of the potential legal landfalls, the Senate decided that it was high time to install the chief U.S. trade representative, and confirmed Lighthizer by a landslide.

“Mr. Lighthizer’s years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice make him extremely well qualified to serve as our nation’s trade representative,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his colleagues on Thursday from the Senate floor.

Now that he has been confirmed, Lighthizer will move to carry out the Trump Administration’s trade agenda, including exploring ways to renegotiate NAFTA. Lighthizer has also expressed concerns that China is indeed a currency manipulator, a worry Trump promulgated throughout the campaign, but has since walked back on. During his confirmation hearing in March, Lighthizer said he previously believed China “was a substantial currency manipulator,” but whether it still is “is another question.”

Still, though a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans ultimately supported his confirmation, two Republican Senators were in the “nay” camp, Senators John McCain (AZ) and Ben Sasse (NE). In a recent letter to Lighthizer, the two explained their hesitation, saying “your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Overwhelmingly Approves U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump to Comey: “You’re Fired”

Last night, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the investigation into his campaign’s connections to Russia. Comey’s firing was almost unprecedented–usually, FBI directors serve for 10 years, regardless of political affiliation. The only previous firing of an FBI director was in 1993, when President Bill Clinton fired William S. Sessions. Comey found out that he lost his job when it was broadcast on the news while he was meeting with FBI employees in Los Angeles.

A lot of people think this is very suspicious, especially since Trump cited Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a reason to let him go. Trump himself praised the FBI’s investigation into Clinton during the campaign and said that she should be imprisoned. The move had many people drawing parallels to events during the Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was investigating him. Now everyone is assuming Trump wants to hide something about the Russia collusion affair, and both Democrats and Republicans are calling for an independent investigation.

An incredibly ominous sign, no matter your view of Comey. He investigated + was removed by Sessions, who is implicated in interference case. https://t.co/zNgMqkCnus

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a crackdown on religious freedom, the Chinese authorities have banned Islamic baby names and other religious symbols in the mainly Muslim region of the country, Xinjiang. About half of China’s 23 million Muslims live in this region, which is one of the most militarized in the country due to violent conflicts that authorities blame on religious extremists. Xinjiang is home to a Muslim minority group called the Uighurs.

Now Chinese officials have said that “religious” names like Islam, Quran, Saddam, and Mecca are prohibited, as such names could “exaggerate religious fervor.” Children that are given these names will not be eligible for household registration, which is what gives citizens access to social services, healthcare, and education in China.

The new rules follow other restrictions issued last month by the Xinjiang authorities that ban men from wearing an “abnormal beard.” Specific cities in Xinjiang already had bans in place prohibiting women from wearing face veils in public spaces like airports or train stations, but now the ban will apply to the whole region.

Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, called the actions by the Xinjiang authorities “blatant violations of domestic and international protections on the rights to freedom of belief and expression.” She said that officials are punished by the state if they are too lenient on these “crimes” or other actions deemed inappropriate. One official was reprimanded for complaining about the new rules to his wife through a messaging app. Another one was fired from her job for having her wedding ceremony at home and not at a location approved by the government.

China bans Islamic baby names in Muslim majority Xinjiang province https://t.co/cWsITdTHeL pic.twitter.com/13i04R9yll

— Aüd (@CodeAud) April 25, 2017

There have been a number of violent incidents in Xinjiang in recent years that have been blamed on Muslim extremists. In 2013, 35 people, including 16 Uighurs, were killed in a confrontation between rioters and police. State media claims a group of religious extremists attacked police officers after one of their group members was arrested. Police killed 11 of them and labeled the act a terrorist attack.

That incident made many worry that the violence of 2009 would be repeated, when protests led to the deaths of at least 197 people. Many killed were Han Chinese, the main ethnic group in China. And in 2015, more than 50 people died in a knife attack at a coalmine in northwestern Xinjiang. State media claimed that one of the suspects said he had been carrying out a jihad.

But human rights experts say that the Chinese government’s harsh crackdown on Muslims will only deepen the Uighurs’ resentment. A spokesman for an exiled group of Uighurs, Dilxat Raxit, said that the violence was sparked by the Chinese government’s indiscriminate detentions of Uighurs. Others say that the government strongly exaggerates the level of organization behind protests and violence. “If the government is serious about bringing stability and harmony to the region as it claims, it should roll back–not double down on–repressive policies,” said Richardson.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Islamic Baby Names, Beards, and Veils in the Xinjiang Region appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Shooting in Paris Could Impact Presidential Elections

Just a few days before the first round of voting in France’s election, a terror attack in Paris has the potential to deepen the nation’s already dramatic political divide. One man, identified as Karim Cheurfi, opened fire with a machine gun on the Champs-Elysee, one of Paris’ famous streets. Cheurfi killed one police officer and injured two others. He was then shot by law enforcement.

There may be a connection to Islamic State–a note supporting the terrorist organization was found near Cheurfi’s body, and the organization claimed responsibility for the attack. However, Islamic State also got salient details about the attack wrong, and it’s unclear why.

Belgian minister says gunman killed in Paris shooting was French national https://t.co/hctNtRoZGQ pic.twitter.com/QyRaHgVvOT

— ITV News (@itvnews) April 21, 2017

The first round of voting for the French presidential election will take place on Sunday, and today was slated to be the last day of campaigning. The attack could have an impact on the election–far-right candidate Marine Le Pen has called for the closure of all “Islamist” mosques in France, and one of her leading opponents, Emmanuel Macron has encouraged the French people to not “give in to fear.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 21, 2017 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.

Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Seoul on Sunday, a day after North Korea is expected to test a nuclear missile. The U.S. military recently threatened a preemptive strike to thwart the North’s nuclear ambitions. The first stop on a 10-day Asia trip–which includes stops in Tokyo, Jakarta, and Sydney–Pence is expected to discuss the North’s latest provocations with South Korean officials. Trade will also be on the agenda.

Pyongyang recently threatened to conduct its sixth nuclear test in a decade, rising tensions–and the odds of a military confrontation–to the highest levels in recent years. Its threat carries added weight because of Saturday’s “Day of the Sun” celebration, which commemorates its late founder Kim Il-Sung’s 105th birthday. North Korea, which has inched closer to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the coastal U.S., commonly engages in military posturing on its founder’s birthday.

A senior White House foreign policy adviser said on Thursday that Pence will address North Korea’s latest provocations with South Korean officials on Monday. “We’re going to consult with the Republic of Korea on North Korea’s efforts to advance its ballistic missile and its nuclear program,” the adviser said. Referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the adviser added: “Unfortunately, it’s not a new surprise for us. He continues to develop this program, he continues to launch missiles into the Sea of Japan.”

The U.S. is prepared to take a preemptive strike against the North’s nuclear sites, the adviser and other officials said. Earlier this week, in a show of force, the military sent aircraft carrier Carl Vinson toward the Korean peninsula. Two destroyers, one a mere 300 miles from a North Korean nuclear site, were also recently shipped to the area.

North Korea recently warned of a “big event” for this weekend’s ceremony. On Thursday, it released a statement that promised a “merciless retaliatory strike” for any U.S. attack. Trump has reportedly reached out to Chinese President Xi Jinping a few times since their meeting last week, imploring him to corral Kim’s nuclear buildup. China, the North’s biggest trading partner and the crutch that keeps its economy afloat, has so far shown little appetite for pulling the plug on North Korea.

Meanwhile, North Korea has shown no signs of backing down. In its statement released Thursday, it warned: “By relentlessly bringing in a number of strategic nuclear assets to the Korean peninsula, the U.S. is gravely threatening the peace and safety and driving the situation to the brink of a nuclear war.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mike Pence Heads to Seoul as Military Clash with North Korea Looms appeared first on Law Street.

It is not unusual for a politician to say one thing publicly, and believe another privately. It is also not unusual for a politician–even a president–to change his or her tune on a specific issue. Presidents’ thinking on certain issues evolve over time. But with President Donald Trump, a political novice who seems to favor a transactional style over an ideological one, his flip-flops have been seismic. Especially on foreign policy, Trump has gone from embracing marginal viewpoints antithetical to mainstream thinking to, you guessed it, mainstream thinking. Here are three of the president’s foreign policy shifts to date:

Russia

We all know the narrative for this one: throughout his campaign, Trump lavished Russian President Vladimir Putin with praise. He hinted that, if elected, he would lift the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia. But that barely scrapes the surface of Trump’s initial cozying up to the Kremlin. In hacking into Democratic operatives’ email accounts, Russia aimed to aid Trump in his quest for the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded. And since July, the FBI has been investigating his and/or his aides’ communications with Russia. The House and Senate also have ongoing probes into potential collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

But that good will has all but dissipated. Trump has dropped the idea of lifting the sanctions, which were levied on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its incursion into Ukraine. And earlier this month, Trump authorized a retaliatory strike on a Syrian airbase for a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials concluded was carried out by the Syrian regime. Russia, a vital backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not happy with the action, and Trump recently said relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low.”

China

On his first day as president, Trump used to say, he would label China a currency manipulator. A dubious, if not dangerous claim, not only has that not happened nearly four months into his presidency, Trump recently wrote the idea off completely. “They’re not currency manipulators,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, referring to China. While Trump has seemingly moved on from his tough rhetoric, his administration plans on signing an executive order targeting countries that dump steel in the U.S. market, a practice long-suspected to be undertaken by China and others.

Trump has evolved on other China-related policies as well. As president-elect, Trump suggested everything regarding China was “under negotiation,” including the decades-old One China policy. A post-election phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen ran counter to that policy, which recognizes Taiwan as a piece of the larger Chinese puzzle. In a February phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump affirmed his commitment to the One China view.

NATO

Obsolete. That is the adjective Trump the candidate used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europe’s most effective bulwark against Russian aggression on the continent, and in the Baltic states in particular. He publicly pressed NATO members to pick up their slack in funding the bloc’s budget–a stance previous presidents privately shared. Since deeming the alliance “obsolete,” members of his administration–including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson–have traveled to Europe in the hopes of soothing NATO members’ concerns of a dwindling U.S. commitment.

On Wednesday, during a press conference with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump acknowledged his 180: “I said it was obsolete,” he said. “It’s no longer obsolete.” So what has led to Trump’s change in thinking, especially on foreign policy matters? Maybe it’s the fading voice of Steve Bannon, or the rising influence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Or, just maybe, his more unorthodox positions have been tempered by the weight of the Oval Office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Changing Stances: Three Foreign Policies Issues POTUS Has Flipped On appeared first on Law Street.

Seriously, Sean Spicer?

Sean Spicer has done it again. At the daily press briefing yesterday, while criticizing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people, he referenced World War II. “You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” he said, implying that Assad is worse than Hitler while somehow forgetting that Hitler killed millions of Jews via gas chambers.

I hope @PressSec takes time to visit @HolocaustMuseum. It’s a few blocks away. https://t.co/24fNoMUyS8

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) April 11, 2017

When trying to clarify his comments, Spicer continued to flub, saying, “He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.” But between 160,000 and 180,000 Jews that the Nazis killed were from Germany, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The comparison drew immediate backlash on social media and elsewhere, and Spicer later apologized on CNN.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? 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.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

In a passing-of-the-torch meeting weeks after the election, President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump of the gravest threat facing America today: North Korea. Not a belligerent China. Not an adventurous Russia. Not terrorism. But North Korea, a tiny, starved nation led by a portly 33-year-old who launches ballistic missiles every now and then. 

A few months after Obama and Trump met, the North Korean threat remains as stark as ever: Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, claims his country will soon have the capacity to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon; on Monday, North Korea tested four ballistic missiles simultaneously; and China, North Korea’s longtime security blanket, is wavering in its support. As North Korea continues to pursue nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, a dark cloud is slowly expanding over the Korean Peninsula, and the looming threat of potential conflict grows with each passing day.

Missile Tests

For the past year or so, North Korea has been flaunting its military capabilities for all the world to see. It tested a nuclear missile last January, and again in September. It has unleashed a flurry of medium and intermediate-range missile over the past few months. And on Monday, the North sent four missiles east toward Japan; they fell into the Sea of Japan, three of them dropping within the boundaries of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called Monday’s test a “new stage of threat.” According to Abe, he spoke with Trump for 25 minutes to discuss a response to the threat. Last week, the North warned a test was on the horizon: “New strategic weapons of our own style will soar into the sky,” read a piece in the North’s state-run newspaper. Monday’s missile launch was a response to the annual joint-exercise between U.S. and South Korean military forces, a show of force that often draws an aggressive response from the North.

America’s Response

On Wednesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S ambassador to the U.N., said Kim Jong-un is “not a rational person.” Speaking after an emergency U.N. meeting on North Korea, Haley hinted the U.S. might be considering a military response to the North’s latest missives. “All the options are on the table,” she said. Sanctions imposed by the international community, while crippling for North Korea’s economy, have not had much success in reigning in its nuclear program.

The U.S. has already responded more forcefully to the North’s threat, deploying its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) system to South Korea months ahead of schedule. Mounted on the back of a truck, Thaad detects incoming missiles and intercepts them mid-air. While the move might placate South Korea’s and Japan’s fears, it has heightened tensions with China, who sees Thaad as a check on its own missile launches.

China’s Response

China, for decades, has been the linchpin to North Korea’s survival. Beijing’s support for Pyongyang could be wavering, however, as it recently announced a year-long freeze on imports of North Korean coal. But while China traditionally responds to North Korean missile launches with a gentle “don’t do that again,” it has yet to show the appetite for anything stronger. On Wednesday, China issued its sternest warning to date, advising the North to cease its missile and nuclear launches in order to “defuse a looming crisis.”

In exchange, however, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested the U.S. and South Korea could end their joint-exercises. Both sides have balked at that suggestion, citing past failures in trying to engage North Korea diplomatically. What happens next is anyone’s guess–will China retaliate for the Thaad deployment? Will South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities? What Obama told Trump in that private meeting in January may be slowly shifting from prophesy to a concrete global reality.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the U.S. Considering a Military Response to North Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, President Donald Trump criticized China for not doing enough to curtail North Korea’s nuclear program: “China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won’t help with North Korea. Nice!” Trump tweeted. China seemed to respond to Trump on Saturday by banning coal imports from North Korea through the rest of the year.

Now, the ball is in Trump’s court. How will he engage the insular, and increasingly insolent, country of North Korea? He had a muted response when it tested a ballistic missile earlier this month. Trump’s willingness to actually engage with North Korea will be tested in March, when a meeting is planned between Pyongyang officials and former U.S. officials in New York. If the White House issues visas for the North Korean officials–it has not explicitly said it will or will not–then that would send a signal that Trump is open to diplomatic engagement, something his predecessor, President Barack Obama, was unwilling to do.

Whether the New York meeting takes place or not, China’s decision to freeze imports of North Korean coal is a decisive action that could weaken its resolve. Aside from being a response to Trump, China’s move is also likely the result of increased frustration at North Korea’s endless stream of provocations. Just last week, the half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. North Korean officials are suspected as having played a role in the attack.

China’s coal freeze could badly hurt North Korea’s already precarious economy. For one, coal is North Korea’s most lucrative export; it accounts for 34 to 40 percent of its exports, most of which ends up being shipped to China. In response to North Korea’s nuclear test last September, the United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions that urged China to cap its coal imports from North Korea. But China, fearful that a collapsed North Korea could lead to an influx of refugees and a united Korean peninsula backed by the U.S., has circumvented the UN sanctions. That is, until its announcement on Saturday.

“Imports of coal produced in North Korea — including shipments already declared to the customs but yet to be released — will be suspended for the remainder of this year,” said a statement from China’s Ministry of Commerce. However, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday that the move is a bureaucratic procedure, and that China, within the first six weeks of the year, has already reached its annual quota for North Korean coal imports.

A clue to China’s unexpected stiff-arm of North Korean coal came last Friday, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Germany. According to State Department spokesman Mark Toner, Tillerson suggested to Yi that China “use all available tools to moderate North Korea’s destabilizing behavior.”

Diplomatic efforts to reign in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, which have been stretched under Kim Jong-un, have largely failed. Until 2009, China hosted seven-nation talks, which included seats at the table for the U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea. Similar talks, like the one planned for March in New York, have taken place in Kuala Lumpur and Berlin.

But the reclusive country has not budged in ceding its nuclear ambition; it has ramped up its efforts. As the international community–including the U.S. and now, potentially, China–takes a firm stance against North Korea, the question becomes: how long can it continue to provoke without being severely punished?

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea: What Does the Move Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Protests After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun During Altercation with Teens

On Tuesday, an off-duty LAPD officer seems to have lost it in an altercation with some kids who walked on his lawn in Anaheim, California. A video that went viral on social media yesterday shows a group of young teenagers outside a house and the cop pulling the limbs of a 13-year-old boy. When the boy’s friends start pulling him in the other direction, the cop fired his gun. No one was injured, but photos surfaced of the boy with bruises on his neck.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The boy, Christian Dorscht, allegedly stood up for a 13-year-old girl after the officer started shouting profanities at her for walking on the lawn. According to Dorscht’s father, the boy said he was going to “sue” the cop, which the cop allegedly misheard as “shoot,” and decided to arrest him. The incident ended with Dorscht being charged with criminal threats and battery while the cop walked free. Hundreds took to the streets of Anaheim to protest and the ACLU of Southern California said it is deeply disturbed by the video and demanded a full explanation. The LAPD will conduct an internal investigation of the unnamed officer.

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 23, 2017 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.

Peter Navarro, the author of “Death by China,” a scathing critique of China’s trade practices, will head the new White House National Trade Council, President-elect Trump announced on Wednesday. Navarro, 67, is an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine, and will oversee U.S. trade and industrial policy in his new post. Trump also announced Carl Icahn, an 80-year-old billionaire investor, will serve as an adviser on regulatory issues.

The appointments represent the divergent trade philosophies running through the circle of advisers and cabinet heads Trump is now surrounded by. Navarro and Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for commerce secretary, both favor clamping down on what they see as China’s unfair trade practices. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to bring back lost manufacturing jobs, losses he pegged squarely on China. Trump has also suggested slapping 45 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, a move many economists warn could ignite a trade war, and raise prices for American consumers.

Peter Navarro is a brilliant policy mind and a tireless worker: “Trump picks China hawk Navarro for new trade post https://t.co/n71RqpOAUU“

— Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) December 21, 2016

A handful of other Trump appointees favor free trade, including Icahn. Gary Cohn, Trump’s choice to head the National Economic Council, and Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA), Trump’s appointee for ambassador to China, both support free trade. It is unclear which philosophy Trump will embrace when making trade-related decisions.

Navarro is “a visionary economist,” Trump said in a statement, adding that he will “develop trade policies that shrink our trade deficit, expand our growth and help stop the exodus of jobs from our shores.” Trump has consistently railed on China for stealing American manufacturing jobs. Experts say China, or any other country, is not the primary reason for the decline in U.S. manufacturing; automation and increased efficiency are more consequential factors.

Navarro, like a number of Trump’s appointees, has no government experience. But he has pursued a political path. Between 1992 and 2001, Navarro unsuccessfully ran for a political office four times as a Democrat, losing a mayoral bid in San Diego, and a campaign for a House seat. At the beginning of his 2012 “Death by China” documentary, based on his book, Navarro said: “help defend America and protect your family – don’t buy ‘Made in China’.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Taps Vocal China Critic Peter Navarro to Head Trade Council appeared first on Law Street.

At first, Nigerian officials didn’t notice anything unusual about the bags of rice. But on a closer inspection, they could detect a faint chemical smell, and when the “rice” was boiled, it was way too sticky to be normal rice. It turned out to be plastic rice. The customs chief in Nigeria’s largest city Lagos, Haruna Mamudu, said that the fake rice was intended to be sold on the city’s holiday markets.  “Only God knows what would have happened” if people ate it, he said.

Given that it was difficult enough for customs officials to recognize that the rice was fake, they have issued a warning for people to not eat rice that seems suspicious. A sample of the fake food has been sent to laboratories to be examined. It wasn’t clear where the bags that amounted to 2.5 tons had been shipped from, but since similar rice made from plastic pellets was seized in China last year, officials suspect that’s where they came from. The country’s surging food prices and a ban on imported rice, in an effort to boost local production, could be contributing factors. A bag of 50 kilos of rice now sells for around $63, which is more than twice as much as the price in December of last year. Rice is the most common food staple in Nigeria.

Nigeria has confiscated 102 bags of “plastic rice” smuggled into the country https://t.co/gDvxy27sGW

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) December 21, 2016

The rice bags were marked “Best Tomato Rice,” and had no expiration date or manufacturing date printed on them. They were discovered in a store after a tip about a criminal plot to sell the fake rice to specific people in the city. One person has been arrested. According to Haruna Mamudu, the man made a helpful statement about the plot and said that he got the plastic rice from someone who wanted him to help distribute it. “Before now, I thought it was a rumour that the plastic rice is all over the country but with this seizure, I have been totally convinced that such rice exists,” Mamudu said.

Plastic rice is something of a media phenomenon, though it has many times been proven to be just a fake news story. Many stories have claimed that manufacturers mix real rice with plastic fake rice, or make “rice” out of potatoes and then add an industrial resin. According to Snopes these stories are unsubstantiated and false. But with these latest news from Nigeria, it seems like the urban legend may have given rise to a real story. BBC reporter Martin Patience was there and smelled the rice himself.

Whoever made this fake rice did an exceptionally good job–on first impression it would have fooled me. When I ran the grains through my fingers nothing felt out of the ordinary. But when I smelt a handful of the ‘rice’ there was a faint chemical odor. Customs officials say when they cooked up the rice it was too sticky–and it was then abundantly clear this was no ordinary batch.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Real Urban Legend? Plastic Rice Seized in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is at an all-time low worldwide, according to an annual report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). As of December 1, 2016, there are 259 journalists imprisoned internationally, with Turkey accounting for nearly a third of the global total–making 2016 the worst year for journalists since the watchdog group began in 1990.

In its annual census, CPJ named Turkey as the most hostile nation against free press, with at least 81 imprisoned journalists facing anti-state charges–the highest number in any one country at any one time. Ranked 151^st out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index, unprecedented levels of suppression and intimidation tactics are troubling signs of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s growing authoritarianism.

According to the CPJ, the arrests have accelerated due to an ongoing crackdown on media in Turkey following a failed coup d’état in July. By government decree, Erdoğan has bypassed Turkey’s judicial system to lawfully prosecute independent media companies for even remotely criticizing the establishment. These mandates have been justified by his administration as security measures against Kurdish insurgents or sympathizers of Fethullah Gülen, the self-exiled religious cleric living in rural Pennsylvania who is accused of masterminding the unsuccessful junta this past summer.

Reporters Without Borders is another organization keeping an eye on Erdoğan’s political developments. In November, the group condemned the arrests of ten employees at the Cumhuriyet opposition newspaper. Government forces raided the publication on November 5 for its perceived connections to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Gülen movement–both of which are outlawed in Turkey. The opposition newspaper was accused of “undermining national unity” and spreading propaganda for these alleged terrorist organizations.

Another anti-terrorism investigation involved the pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem, whose print version has a circulation of roughly 7,500. Police stormed the paper’s offices and arrested 24 people after ruling that the paper acted as the “de facto news outlet” for Kurdish rebels. TurkSat, Turkey’s sole communications satellite operator, also removed more than a dozen independent TV and radio stations from its lineup due to allegations of “separatism and subversion.”

“The Turkish government’s decision to silence still more media outlets shows its growing intolerance of open political debate and dissent of any kind,” said Robert Herman, CPJ’s vice president of international programs. “The government this time targeted stations broadcasting in Kurdish and showed its disregard for the principles of democracy.”

This past year CPJ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova testified to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee against Turkey’s media purge. Ognianova told the committee that Turkish authorities have detained more than 100 journalists, closed more than 100 media outlets, censored approximately 30 online news sources, and retracted more than 600 press credentials, since the failed coup attempt on July 15. Passports have also been reported as confiscated, including those belonging to family members of prominent critics of Erdoğan’s establishment. Such hostility is motivating many to go into exile or flee the country.

After Turkey, the countries with next highest numbers of jailed journalists are China and Egypt. China has frequently been named the world’s worst jailer of journalists in previous years, making the top spot 18 times to be exact. A total of 38 journalists were jailed in the country this year, due in large part to a crackdown on coverage of human rights abuses. As for Egypt, 25 were detained for reporting from prohibited areas in the country.

CPJ monitors nations around the world, paying close attention to journalists in government custody. Those held by non-state actors are not included in the list. Arrest statistics are incorporated into the report after the CPJ has verified that individuals were jailed for charges relating to their work.

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 Turkey Jailed Record Number of Journalists in 2016, CPJ Says appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday, RantCrush readers. Did you happen to catch this weekend’s episode of SNL? If you haven’t seen it yet, you should check it out–particularly the “Love Actually”-themed Hillary Clinton sketch. Enjoy! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Happy Electoral College Vote Day!

Today the 538 members of the Electoral College will meet in the state capitals to cast their official votes for president. After a dramatic election year with one of the largest margins between the electoral college and the popular vote to date, there has been plenty of talk about electors changing their votes.

Chris Suprun, a Texas elector, said that he will not vote for Trump even though his state did. Another elector has said he simply won’t make a decision. And other electors have asked for more information–like a briefing on Russia’s role in the election. Activists and celebrities have been campaigning and signing petitions to try to get anyone but Donald Trump in the White House. But at this point, it seems implausible that anyone else will be inaugurated on January 20.

via GIPHY

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 19, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, the Pentagon demanded the return of a U.S. underwater drone that a Chinese Navy ship grabbed from the South China Sea on Thursday. The American ship USNS Bowditch had deployed the drone to do research. Staff onboard the American survey ship had noticed that the Chinese ship had been following them for days by the time they fished the $150,000 drone out of the water. The U.S. staff then tried to call the Chinese via radio, but got no answer.

The incident occurred about 40 miles off the coast of the Philippines. It is unknown why China would simply steal the American research drone from the water. It was used to collect oceanographic data, and map the sea floor, water salinity, and temperature. As the purpose was biological research, the crew is made up of civilian mariners and scientists. It didn’t contain any sensitive information and was part of an unclassified program, said Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. He added:

The UUV [unmanned underwater vehicle] was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea. It’s a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water–that it was US property.

China seized U.S. Navy Ocean Glider Unmanned Underwater Vehicle ~50nm Subic Bay https://t.co/UxbYQmJ0jY

— M. Taylor Fravel (@fravel) December 16, 2016

On Friday the Pentagon issued a formal protest to China, demanding the return of the drone. Officials said that they were trying to determine whether this was a spontaneous decision by the Chinese seamen that spotted the drone, or a deliberate strategy from senior Chinese leaders. This is likely to further complicate the relationship between the U.S. and China. There are also concerns that the seizure could be related to Donald Trump’s phone call with Taiwan earlier this month.

In the beginning of December, Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, which marked a reversal of the customary U.S. stance on Taiwan. The island wants to be independent from China, while China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province. So normally, the U.S. sells weapons and other items to Taiwan, but doesn’t do much more. That phone call didn’t exactly please Chinese leaders. Then on Thursday, an American think tank declared that China has been building weapons like anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems on its man-made islands, despite earlier claims that the islands are exclusively for civilian use. As Trump takes office, it will be interesting to see how the American-Chinese relationship changes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pentagon to China: Please Return Our Underwater Drone appeared first on Law Street.

His unmistakeable bald-headed silhouette, arm outstretched and palming a basketball, adorns a Chinese sports company’s products and its nearly 6,000 storefronts. His transliterated name in Mandarin is Qiaodan (pronounced “chee-ow dahn”), which doubles as the company name, Qiaodan Sports Company. But on Thursday, China’s highest court ruled that Michael Jordan, whose name is recognized and monetized from Brooklyn to Beijing, owns the legal rights to the Chinese equivalent of his name.

Jordan initially filed the trademark lawsuit in 2012. As recently as last July China’s Supreme People’s Court ruled in favor of Qiaodan; lower courts ruled the same. But the highest court reversed those decisions on Thursday, giving Jordan a potentially precedent-setting victory. “Nothing is more important than protecting your own name, and today’s decision shows the importance of that principle,” Jordan said in a statement. Qiaodan officials, in a statement through their Weibo account, said they respected the ruling.

Trademark lawsuits in China, a country rife with cheaply made ripoffs, usually favor the first party to file the trademark. This ruling is unusual and, some legal analysts say, can set a new standard for Chinese companies that push the limits of trademark infringement and questionable branding practices. It is also not the first time a major U.S. brand has fought companies in Chinese courts. In May, Apple lost a lawsuit involving a Chinese company that sold leather products stamped with the iPhone trademark.

Michael Jordan beat Qiaodan in China’s Supreme People’s Court. He really is the GOAT: https://t.co/bohQBWrIIv pic.twitter.com/SA0BP726iO

— SoleCollector.com (@SoleCollector) December 8, 2016

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement: “The Court has called an intentional foul and sent a clear message of deterrence to those who file trademarks in bad faith.” The statement continued, saying that the court’s decision is “about creating a legitimate marketplace where consumers can trust the products they buy.”

A family-owned business based in the southern Fujian province, Qiaodan first registered the “Qiaodan” trademark over a decade ago. Jordan sued in 2012. “It is deeply disappointing to see a company build a business off my Chinese name without my permission, use the number 23 and even attempt to use the names of my children,” he said in a statement at the time.

Jordan’s Chinese name will return to China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce. And while the Chinese sportswear company will be forced to re-brand, the court did not grant Jordan full ownership of his Chinese name. The court said the pinyin, or romanized version of the name “Qiaodan” is a fairly common name that is not exclusively linked to the basketball legend.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Jordan Wins Four-Year-Old Trademark Lawsuit in China appeared first on Law Street.

The controversial phone call last week between President-elect Donald Trump and the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, was no inexperienced blunder. In fact, it was the conclusion of a six-month effort from Taiwanese officials to inch closer to Trump and his staff, an effort that received an assist from an unlikely figure in U.S. politics: Bob Dole.

According to documents filed with the Justice Department before the call took place, Alston & Bird, the Washington D.C. law firm Dole lobbies for, had been coordinating communications between Taiwan and the Trump team since May. Working as the U.S. representative for Taiwan’s unofficial embassy, Dole worked behind the scenes, nudging Taiwan closer and closer to Trump and his circle.

Dole, the Republican opponent to Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election, helped secure a Taiwanese delegation to attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.

An entire paragraph dedicated to Taiwan was also included in the Republican Party’s platform this year that said: “We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law.” This friendly language was also the result of an assist from Dole.

“They’re very optimistic,” Dole said of the Taiwanese in an interview with The New York Times. “They see a new president, a Republican, and they’d like to develop a closer relationship.”

Republicans have long pushed for warmer U.S.-Taiwan relations, which, since the 1979 One China policy, have been diplomatically stagnant. The U.S. does sell Taiwan military equipment, however, and promotes its democratic ideals.

Last week, Trump broke with nearly four decades of protocol by holding a phone conversation with Taiwan’s president–Chinese officials called the move “petty.” China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, and the U.S. recognized China’s claim in 1979, severing formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Dole, who is 93 years old, has lobbied on behalf of Taiwan for nearly 20 years. Between May to October of this year, Dole made $140,000 for his efforts, according to the disclosure documents filed by Alston & Bird.

“It’s fair to say that we had some influence,” Dole said, referring to the Trump-Tsai call. “When you represent a client and they make requests, you’re supposed to respond.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bob Dole is the Unofficial Liaison Behind Trump’s Call with Taiwan appeared first on Law Street.

In a reversal of 37 years of protocol, President-elect Donald Trump engaged in a telephone conversation on Friday with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen. The Trump team painted the 10-minute call as nothing more nefarious than a simple congratulatory gesture from one leader to another.

“He took the call, accepted her congratulations and good wishes and it was precisely that,” Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Sunday on ABC. China said the call was “petty,” but nothing too damaging. But was the call–which some advisors have said was months in the making–a foreshadowing of the coming shift in the U.S. relationship with China and Taiwan under the Trump Administration?

The President of Taiwan CALLED ME today to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency. Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2016

The decision to engage with Taiwan’s president was hardly spontaneous, but was a calculated and planned move, advisors to Trump and people familiar with the plans told The Washington Post. A spokesman for the Taiwan government told Reuters, “of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact.”

Since 1979, under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. has maintained an economic relationship with Taiwan (mostly selling it arms), but not a diplomatic one, honoring the so-called “One China” policy that recognized the tiny island as a part of China. China considers Taiwan to be a breakaway province.

Trump, who for months has called China a “currency manipulator,” has signaled he will be taking a tougher stance on the country. Trump challenged the “One China” policy by taking a call with Taiwan, and by referring to Tsai as “the President of Taiwan.” China refers to the president of Taiwan as “the Taiwan regional leader.” Earlier this year, China severed diplomatic relations with Tsai, who was elected in January, because of her pro-independence bent.

Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2016

An op-ed published Saturday in China’s state-run publication China Daily said the call was “a striking move but it does not bear the same importance as it seems to be.” It said that for Tsai, the phone call will “bring nothing substantial but illusionary pride.” But for the U.S., the move could signal a tougher stance on China, and an opening to Taiwan. Republicans have long expressed the need for a stronger U.S.-Taiwan relationship, coinciding with a need to be tougher on China, a key U.S. trading partner that Trump has threatened to clamp down on.

But for the time being at least, the U.S.-China relationship remains strong, and Trump’s team sought to reassure both governments of that in the days after the feather-ruffling phone call. “All [Trump] did was receive a phone call,” Trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway said on Sunday. “Everybody should just calm down. He’s aware of what our nation’s policy is.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Conversation with Taiwan Damage the U.S.-China Relationship? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No Dakota Pipeline…For Now

There’s been a lot of bad news lately, but yesterday the people won a small victory over big corporations when the U.S. Army Corps announced that it would not grant the easement for the Dakota Pipeline to be built near the Standing Rock reservation. Protesters and Native Americans have blocked the construction of the oil pipeline for months and endured clashes with the police that have left many injured.

The army said in a statement: “Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do.” It will look at alternative routes for where the pipeline can go instead.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is only about a month away from moving into the White House, is a big supporter of the pipeline, so this certainly doesn’t mean the fight is over. But for now, many people are celebrating.

We will forever remember Dec. 4th,2016 as a day of victory, but as we celebrate today, tomorrow we continue to work towards a better future. pic.twitter.com/uP2a2z1ua4

— Urban Native Era (@UrbanNativeEra) December 5, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest attempt to cripple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed new restrictions on its coal export industry. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the new sanctions, which were unanimously approved by the 15-member council on Wednesday, “the toughest and most comprehensive” yet.

The sanctions are a direct rebuke to Pyongyang’s largest and most recent nuclear test that occurred in early September. They will aim to trim $700 million from the insulated country’s coal revenues, which UN member-states hope will lead to diplomatic discussions. The sanctions limit North Korea to exporting up to 7.5 million metric tons of coal in 2017, or to bringing in $400 million in revenue, whichever figure is reached first.

“So long as the DPRK makes the choice it has made, which is to pursue the path of violations instead of the path of dialogue, we will continue to work to increase the pressure and defend ourselves and allies from this threat,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, referring to the country’s official title, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

China, perhaps even more so than North Korea, will be responsible for ensuring the new sanctions are enforced. As the foremost customer of North Korean coal, and its chief financier and source of aid, China cannot lean on the vague language of previous sanctions to skirt around the new limits. The last round of sanctions, imposed in March, also aimed to curb the country’s coal exports, but with an exception: exports could surpass the imposed limits if they supported “livelihood purposes.”

China used that language as a license to continue importing North Korean coal in copious amounts. In fact, after the sanctions took effect in April, China imported a record amount of coal from its nuclear neighbor. The new sanctions clarified the “livelihood” exception as being reserved only for North Korean citizens.

North Korea responded to the sanctions through its state-controlled Korean Central News Agency. “Obama and his lackeys are sadly mistaken if they calculate that they can force the DPRK to abandon its line of nuclear weaponization and undermine its status as a nuclear power through base sanctions to pressurize it,” the statement said, adding that the sanctions came from the instructions of the U.S. The statement had an ominous conclusion, saying the U.S. will “be held wholly accountable in case the situation on the Korean peninsula and in the region is pushed to an uncontrollable phase.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Hits North Korea with “Toughest” Sanctions Yet Over September Nuclear Test appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, but now the company is secretly developing a censorship tool that would help it gain access to the Chinese market again. The tool would allow another company–likely a Chinese partner–to block certain posts from appearing in people’s newsfeeds in different geographic areas, according to some Facebook employees who asked to remain anonymous. They said that Facebook would not suppress content itself, but the software would be available for a third party company. If the resulting software makes the Chinese government more comfortable with Facebook’s services, this may allow Facebook to get back into the Chinese market.

However, the employees pointed out that this is still in the research stage and may never be offered to Chinese authorities at all. But the information raises questions about Facebook’s ethics. It would give the company 1.4 billion potential new users if they gained access to the Chinese market. But it could also be a compromise of democratic values and making “the world more open,” as the company has named as one of its mottos. Several employees that worked on the censorship project have quit their jobs, according to the New York Times. Since the American election, the phenomenon of fake news has also tarnished the company’s image, and many asked what role the social media site played in the election outcome. Now the question is, if the company is cool with censoring real news in China, why not just block fake news at home?

It’s fascinating people think Facebook will ONLY block “real news” in China and ONLY block “fake news” in US https://t.co/oVPn1iiVrW

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 23, 2016

So, blatantly fake news is too hard a problem for Facebook, but letting a third-party Chinese company disappear real news in China is okay?

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) November 22, 2016

The problem is probably that it’s hard to quickly decide what is fake and what is not. Mark Zuckerberg posted a long status update about how 99 percent of what you see on your newsfeed is correct, but depending on what pages you follow or who your friends are, you might see a little more or less. He responded to the criticism by stopping ads from fake news outlets and pointed out that Facebook does not want hoaxes on its site. This is not enough, according to many, but he promised that more would be done when a good strategy is available, saying:

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.

But creating a censorship tool for China contradicts Facebook’s image of being an ethical and socially aware company. Even if Facebook technically just developed the software, it could still enable totalitarian leaders to leave out information and decide what their citizens see and don’t see. Maybe the creator of the main information source for billions of people should take an even greater responsibility to prevent that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook is Developing a Censorship Tool to Get Back into the Chinese Market appeared first on Law Street.

In a curious role reversal, a top Chinese foreign diplomat promised President-elect Donald Trump that no, climate change is not a hoax cooked up by the Chinese, and yes, it is indeed a problem that will affect the entire world. In an hour-long briefing with reporters after a climate meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco on Wednesday, deputy foreign minister of China, Liu Zhenmin, discussed the history of climate negotiations as a Republican-backed initiative, and the continued commitment of China to combat rising temperatures, “whatever the circumstances.”

Days before the 2012 election, Trump sent a tweet that targeted the Chinese as being the inventors of climate change:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Even though a vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is greatly accelerated by the actions of mankind, Trump has promised to “cancel” the Paris climate deal that was reached by the U.S. and 194 other countries last December. In another tweet from November 2012, Trump called global warming “nonexistent.”

And although China is the world’s foremost emitter of greenhouse gases–the U.S. ranks second–it is not the inventor of climate change, nor of the very real effects seen in coastal areas around the world. At the climate summit in Marrakesh, Liu reminded Trump that it was Republicans, some of whom continue to dismiss climate change, who first took carbon-cutting negotiations to the international stage.

“If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s,” he said, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Liu added that that was the moment China first acknowledged the very real threat that climate change posed to the world. He also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the importance of global cooperation in fighting the threat during his phone call with Trump on Monday.

Regardless of Trump’s plans, other countries have signaled that they are committed to the Paris deal, with or without the U.S. But as one of the leading emitters of greenhouse gases, and a global leader in technology and influence, the U.S. is a major player in the effort. The deal was ratified recently, however, making the U.S. commitment binding for at least three years.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China to Trump: We Didn’t Invent Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently everyone uses social media these days–even poachers. A string of wildlife traffickers based out of Vietnam have been discovered using Facebook to sell large amounts of ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts. On Monday and Tuesday the results from a yearlong investigation by the Wildlife Justice Commission WJC, will be presented at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

Investigators combed through a small Vietnamese village, Nhi Khe and found illegal goods worth $53.1 million, sold by 51 villagers both online and in person. Sadly, these products come from what are believed to be 907 elephants, 579 rhinos, 225 tigers, and other endangered species such as pangolins, bears, hawksbill turtles, and helmeted hornbills.

WJC tweeted early Monday morning the upsetting insight that people in the village didn’t even know what the animals used to make their products look like.

#WJCVietnam: @ossendryver on visit to VN found people didn’t really know what rhinos or elephants were ‘as animals’ just as products

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

The rise of social media has made it easier to sell products from the safety of your home. These sales happen through auctions in closed Facebook groups, where new visitors need to get approved by an admin before becoming members. Smugglers mainly sell processed products made from ivory or rhino, but there are also whole tusks and horns on the market. Payment is made via WeChat Wallet. They seem to be selling locally in Southeast Asia through Facebook, and use WeChat itself to sell to China.

Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Executive Director at WJC, said in a statement: “Our evidence shows that an amount of rhino horn equivalent to nearly half the rhinos poached annually in South Africa transits this village. Stopping this illegal trade requires urgent action.”

Tune into the #WJCVietnam Hearing by visiting: https://t.co/6QkP25KvfC pic.twitter.com/ymHayrIofW

— Born Free Foundation (@BFFoundation) November 14, 2016

But despite all the evidence, the statement said, in combination with diplomatic efforts, the Vietnamese government has not taken any action to stop the illegal smuggling. The government seems to have taken steps to prevent open trade, but behind closed doors, secret trading is still going on. This inaction is likely due to corruption.

#WJCVietnam: Milliken: we believe corruption is major issue at both ends of #illegaltrade supply chain. VN syndicates at both ends of chain.

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

However, on Monday morning, during the first part of the hearing, environmental reporting agency IISD tweeted that Vietnamese officials had made an arrest in connection to the wildlife traffickers.

#WJCVietnam: Viet Nam has made first arrest based on @WJCommission evidence last weekend. “An important first step.” https://t.co/xffQMd8JJD pic.twitter.com/0Mre9phfn3

— IISDRS (@IISDRS) November 14, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vietnamese Wildlife Traffickers Sell Ivory and Rhino Horn On Facebook appeared first on Law Street.

Like most of America’s longstanding allies, Japan is probably concerned, or at least surprised, about what happened here on Tuesday night. Japan, which the U.S. occupied for a time after World War II, now depends on the U.S. for almost all of its security needs–including deterring a nuclear North Korea and an encroaching China. As world leaders seek the ear of Donald Trump to probe whether his campaign rhetoric will hold once he takes office, Japan bursted out of the gate. In a show of good faith, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held a 20-minute teleconference with Trump on Thursday and arranged to meet with him in New York next Thursday.

According to his deputy chief cabinet secretary, Abe told Trump that “a strong Japan-U.S. alliance is an indispensable presence that supports peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” And though Abe embodies Japan’s version of the “political establishment” Trump railed against during his campaign, the prime minister bit his tongue and chose to pursue the amicable relationship Japan has enjoyed with the U.S. for decades: “America will be made even greater,” Abe told Trump.

President Obama has often signaled a “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region throughout his presidency–seen with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a buildup of troops in the region, and engagement with its market, the largest in the world. Based off of Trump’s statements over the past few months, Obama’s Asia-Pacific vision and agenda could be upended by his successor.

“Of course they should pick up all the expense. Why are we paying for this?” Trump said, referring to the nearly 54,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan. He has blasted the TPP trade deal, which Japan’s lower house of Parliament passed on Thursday. Trump has also toyed with the idea of Japan and South Korea building up their own atomic arsenals, which would scale back the U.S.’s role in defending both countries against China and North Korea.

President Park Geun-hye of South Korea also called Trump on Thursday, and stressed the importance of the U.S.-South Korea alliance in pressuring its erratic northern neighbor. Trump assured her that he “agreed “100 percent,” according to a statement Park released after the phone call. “We are with you all the way, and we will not waver,” Trump said in a statement.

It’s the unknown of Trump, as well as the unprecedented campaign he ran, that spooks Japan and other traditional U.S. allies in the region. Some in Japan worry that even if Trump does not abandon Japan and Asia altogether, he could place the region much lower on his priority list than Obama, creating a void of influence that China could fill. Additionally, building up a nuclear arsenal in Japan might be difficult, if not impossible, because anti-nuclear sentiment runs rampant in pacifist Japan, which technically does not even have a military.

“We should be aware that the U.S. will pay less attention to Asia,” Nikkei Shimbun, a Japanese financial newspaper, wrote in an editorial Thursday. “During the transitional period, China could make a new move in the South or East China Sea. The Japanese government needs to be ready for such a situation.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump as President, What’s Next for Japan and the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

China’s central government issued an interpretation of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution on Monday, effectively blocking two pro-independence legislators from joining the semi-autonomous region’s Legislative Council. Yau Wai-ching, 25, and Baggio Leung, 30, were elected to the rule-making body in September, nearly two years after pro-democracy protests gripped the former British colony.

Coalescing around the Chinese government’s liaison office, thousands of Hong Kong citizens preemptively took to the streets to protest the impending decision on Sunday evening. Like the pro-democracy protests of 2014, many wielded yellow umbrellas, as policemen attempted to combat the horde with pepper spray.

Yau and Leung were involved in a pending court case before Beijing stepped in to issue its own interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s judicial code that was hammered out before it was granted semi-autonomy from the mainland in 1997. Yau and Leung were in court to determine if they could redo their oaths of office because both altered the wording when being sworn into the council. They said “Chee-na,” a derogatory term used by the Japanese in World War II, instead of “China.”

Through the state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing’s National People’s Congress espoused its interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law. The report said:

An oath taker who intentionally reads out words which do not accord with the wording of the oath prescribed by law, or takes the oath in a manner which is not sincere or not solemn, shall be treated as declining to take the oath. The oath so taken is invalid and the oath taker is disqualified forthwith from assuming the public office specified in the Article.

This is the first time Beijing has issued its interpretation of a pending court case in Hong Kong, unprompted, since 1997. The move was legal, however, according to the charter that was negotiated before British handed Hong Kong over to the mainland, which stated an interpretation of the Basic Law by China’s Parliament supersedes that of Hong Kong’s highest court.

Police in Hong Kong fired pepper spray at protesters after Beijing barred 2 recently elected pro-independence lawmakers from taking office. pic.twitter.com/rSCB9LaZS6

— AJ+ (@ajplus) November 7, 2016

“This incident shows us the Basic Law is a handicapped legal document and the so-called mini-constitution can be amended and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party at will,” said 20-year-old Joshua Wong, one of the leaders of the 2014 protests that ultimately vaulted at least six pro-independence candidates, including Yau and Leung, to the 70-member Legislative Council.

Under the “one country, two systems” code, Hong Kong’s Basic Law guarantees the region’s own judicial freedom from the Communist mainland. And although the Legislative Council’s leader is pro-Beijing and the body itself is still largely comprised of lawmakers cozy to the capital, a younger crop of pro-independence leaders, many of whom lack experience but were spurred to run by the 2014 movement, are taking root.

But as a new wave of protestors hit the streets to protest a move they see as a breach of their autonomy (“Hong Kong independence,” some protestors shouted), Beijing might have set a precedent for years to come. Yau and Leung ran successful campaigns under this slogan: “Hong Kong is not China.” To Beijing, that is more than just a catchphrase. It’s a threat to be taken seriously.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thousands Protest as China Blocks Pro-Independence Lawmakers in Hong Kong appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, American media picked up a Chinese news story that had actually been around for two weeks. A young Chinese woman recently found a solution to a problem many of us have. In order to afford a new house she made each of her 20 (yes, 20) boyfriends give her a new iPhone 7. She then sold the phones to a website that recycles used cellphones and got enough money for a down payment on a house. The woman, who is being called Xiaoli by local media, got a total of 120,000 yuan for the phones, which equals $17,700.

A Chinese woman bought a house selling the 20 iPhones her 20 boyfriends gave her. Shameful.
I built my house brick by Nokia brick.

— Gavin Eddings (@GavinEddings) November 1, 2016

The media attention has been so concentrated that the woman allegedly turned down requests for interviews. According to a local blog where the story first broke, Xiaoli comes from a family in Shenzen in the south of the country and was perhaps under pressure to buy her aging parents a house. Her mother is a housewife and her father is a migrant worker, and it is customary in China that children take care of their parents.

But most people are just stunned that she managed to juggle 20 boyfriends:

I’d get 19 more bfs to pay for grad school. LOL “20 boyfriends and 20 iPhones: How one Chinese woman bought a house” https://t.co/NxKDTpsAN6

— mpsm (@mahreeann) November 1, 2016

However, on Monday evening Buzzfeed made an attempt to debunk the story, which is questionable since it first appeared on a blog that is often used as an online gossip forum. The blogger who first posted the story claimed to have heard it from colleagues, but he posted screenshots of text messages that showed that he was the one spreading the rumor. There was also no personal information or photos of any “colleagues” or the woman in question. One theory is that the blogger works for the used phone company that he claimed bought the phones and tried a publicity stunt.

True or not, it would have been a pretty innovative way to get a new house.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did A Woman Really Swap 20 iPhones from 20 Boyfriends For a House? appeared first on Law Street.

More and more people are now mixing heroin and other street drugs with an extremely potent drug normally used for tranquilizing elephants. The drug, carfentanil, is reportedly 10,000 times stronger than morphine and 100 times stronger than fentanyl. At least 19 deaths have been linked to this lethal cocktail in the Detroit area only since July, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. What’s even worse is that the drug has no antidote. District Judge Linda B. Davis told the Detroit Free Press to Detroit Free Press:

This is really scary. We know there have been some instances in Port Huron and New Haven where this has been suspected […] It makes it more deadly than heroin already is… This is really deadly. It is devastating communities.

Carfentanil was first created in 1974 for veterinary use and has not been approved for human use. As it is sometimes sold in pill form, users face great risk of accidental overdose. And the effects start only minutes after taking it–disorientation, coughing, sedation, respiratory distress, or cardiac arrest and death. “This stuff is so deadly, you could die before you can get high,” said Lloyd Jackson, spokesman for the Wayne County medical examiner’s office.

The Associated Press found that it is particularly easy to buy carfentanil online from producers in China, even though the U.S. government is urging the country to blacklist the drug. Over there, it is legal and out in the open, though its qualities have been compared to nerve gas. A Chinese worker at a lab that makes carfentanil told the AP that she thinks it should be controlled in China, but that there are so many labs and so much of the product, that she doesn’t know how the government could ever control it.

Apart from tranquilizing animals, it has also been studied for use as a chemical weapon by the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and a few other countries. The drug’s potency can be demonstrated by the time when Chechen rebels held over 800 people hostage at a theater in Moscow in 2002. Russian forces used a related drug, fentanyl, to get the rebels to surrender by spraying it into the theater. It worked–but the effects also killed 120 of the hostages.

“Countries that we are concerned about were interested in using it for offensive purposes. We are also concerned that groups like ISIS could order it commercially,” said Andrew Weber, former assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, to the AP.

According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of fentanyl seized by authorities has increased from 8.1 pounds in 2014 to 295 pounds only from July 2016 until today. But DEA officials have said that they have experienced an unexpectedly high level of cooperation rate from Chinese officials in their efforts to stop the production and smuggling of carfentanil, noting that both countries are looking at it very closely.

“Shining sunlight on this black market activity should encourage Chinese authorities to shut it down,” Weber told the AP.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 19 Dead In Michigan From Mixing Drugs With Elephant Tranquilizer appeared first on Law Street.

China just launched the world’s largest single-dish radio telescope, which will search for gravitational waves, radio emissions from stars, and extraterrestrial life. The telescope, located in Guizhou province, started operations on Sunday. It took five years to construct and is a demonstration of China’s intention to show off its scientific power and gain international prestige.

The telescope cost $180 million to complete and has a diameter of 1,640 feet, or 500 meters. It surpasses the second biggest telescope in the world, Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is 1,000 feet in diameter. It’s also twice as sensitive and five to ten times faster. It’s called The Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope,or FAST, and might even find some intelligent alien life.

“The ultimate goal of FAST is to discover the laws of the development of the universe,” said researcher Qian Lei of the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to state broadcaster CCTV. “In theory, if there is civilization in outer space, the radio signal it sends will be similar to the signal we can receive when a pulsar (spinning neutron star) is approaching us.”

Worlds largest radio telescope starts operating in China https://t.co/5j7Iv9tgsU pic.twitter.com/xZgiT7KKPl

— Zesty China News (@zesty_china) September 26, 2016

But the search for aliens has required the relocation of more than 9,000 villagers in the area, in one of the poorest provinces in China. The area is ideal for a telescope, being surrounded by huge hills that protect it from noise and wind. The telescope needs a three-mile radius of complete radio silence to work properly. The state has said that the displaced people will be compensated with money or new houses, but the decision was not welcomed by some villagers, many of whom have lived in the area for several generations.

“I’ve lived here all my life. My ancestors arrived here in the Qing dynasty over 200 years ago,” said local carpenter Huang Zhangrong to the New York Times. He said he didn’t want to leave and that he heard others saying the housing they were relocated to was poorly built. “We don’t want to leave, but the government says it’s for the good of the country.”

Jokes about China and aliens popped up fast on Twitter.

guess China doesn’t know aliens from outer space always speak English and land in US corn fields #wastedinvestment https://t.co/Ct4J0ZLNN9

— Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) September 26, 2016

It is clear that China has its focus set on international fame and Nobel Prizes. Even though scientific investments rarely pay off fast, any accomplishments can bring international prestige.

“Astronomy is an ultimate expression of ‘pure’ science that has little immediate practical benefits. It is a luxury that only the most advanced economies enjoy,” said Luis C. Ho, the director of Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Peking University to the Times.

While historically competing with the West, China has in recent years become an economic super power. Now they are aiming to be a scientific and astronomical power as well. And considering their history of prominent astrology and astronomy, that might very well happen. As part of this attempt, China’s space program wants to send an astronaut to the moon by 2025 and to land an unmanned vehicle on Mars by 2020. They want to build the biggest particle accelerator in the world, and opened their second space station in September.

The Chinese state broadcaster recently reported that the telescope had picked up radio signals during a test from a pulsar that was 1,351 light years away from earth. But so far, no intelligent life form has made contact.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Begins Search for Aliens and Fame With World’s Largest Radio Telescope appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of doping scandals rocking the Russian Olympic and Paralympic Team in the lead-up to the Rio Games, Russian athletes have been painted as the villains of the summer for breaking basic tenets of sportsmanship. However, there has been virtually no outcry over another common violation in Olympic competitions this year: lying about athlete’s ages.

At the Beijing Games in 2008, the Chinese women’s gymnastics teams made waves after accusations that they were younger than 16 years old, the threshold for competing in gymnastics events. Online records revealed that He Kexin was too young to compete but Chinese officials stood by the birthdate on her passport, which made her eligible (although it is relatively easy to obtain a doctored passport). There was “strong circumstantial evidence” that members of the Chinese team were underage but the International Gymnastics Federation cleared the team of any wrongdoing. In 2010, bronze medalist Dong Fangxiao lost her medal from the 2000 Sydney Games after it was revealed that she had been only 14 at the time.  Yang Yun, who competed with Dong Fangxiao, admitted in a television interview that they were only 14 during the Games. Beyond the Chinese team, North Korean gymnasts allegedly have misrepresented their ages in the past. This year’s Chinese gymnastics squad has stayed away from age related scandals as team manager Ye Zhennan reported all of his athletes are of age. However, with their track record of fabricating documents and misrepresenting ages, some observers in the gymnastics world still have their doubts.

It is difficult to gauge an athlete’s age just by looking at them, and we should by all means give the Chinese gymnastics team the benefit of the doubt, but it is fascinating to see how quick the public is to crucify Russian athletes for violating Olympic rules in 2016 whereas the Chinese athletes accused of being underage in the past received relatively little attention this year.

Letting younger athletes compete is not always a guaranteed positive–athletes with more physical training and experience on the Olympic stage can perform better under the immense pressure placed on them during the Games. However, in certain sports, it is the youngest competitors who are in the best shape–consider the number of teenagers from multiple countries who have medaled in swimming in Rio and, of course, the Final Five in gymnastics, who are all incredibly young (at least compared to Olympians in other sports). Younger athletes usually have fewer injuries and have greater stamina. What if Nastia Liukin had been able to compete in Athens? Age restrictions kept her out of those Games, even though she was already becoming dominant in the gymnastics world.

Athletes lying about their ages is not limited to the Chinese national team nor to the sport of gymnastics, but in a sport that rewards youth and, in terms of aerodynamics, small bodies, younger athletes have a clear advantage. Famous gymnastics coach Belya Karoli has argued that the age limit should be done away with, as it robs athletes in peak shape of their chance to compete and encourages cheating. Before the age limit was enacted in 1997, multiple American gymnasts set impressive records while only 14 years of age, which is often considered the height of a gymnastic career. While there are gymnasts who compete into their twenties and beyond, most will retire after competing at only one or two Olympic Games. Athletes who lie about their age can get to three or even four Olympics before they lose sight of making the podium.

The age limit exists to protect young athletes from abuse and the physical and mental pressures of competing with the world’s eyes upon them at such a young age. However, if these athletes are forced to fabricate documents and lie for months or years on end to coaches, officials and their peers, the stress of competition can only be compounded. Is it better to miss an Olympics and have the moral high ground or to compete and win, knowing that you will live in constant fear of being stripped of your medal? At the moment, the age limit is not protecting young athletes, it is merely setting them up for an entirely different rash of problems.

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 Forgotten Controversy? Age and the Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry heads to Laos on Monday for an annual meeting with Southeast Asian nations, China doubled down on its territorial claims in the South China Sea. A July 12 Hague tribunal declared that claim invalid, though China has since reiterated its claim, refusing to recognize the non-binding ruling. “Territorial integrity and maritime rights and interests will be defended,” Chang Wanquan, China’s defense minister said on Sunday, on the eve of the Laos meeting, which China will be a part of.

Kerry’s focus at Monday’s meeting–with the Association of South East Asian Nations, or ASEAN–will be “to find diplomatic ways to peacefully interact in the South China Sea,” said a senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the talks. China claims a vast portion of the sea, an important trade route with nearly $5 trillion worth of goods traveling through it each year.

But China’s territorial claims–which include waters with untapped oil reserves lurking beneath, as well as small parcels of land too small to inhabit–are moot, according to the tribunal, the highest authority on matters of international law. Its rulings are non-binding, however, and China has remained steadfast in its claim to its “territorial integrity.” China’s claims are based on old maps that show a “nine dash line,” which includes large tracts of the South China Sea, areas which the Philippines–which brought the case against China to the tribunal in 2013–now claims.

Monday is of particular significance to China, as it marks the 89th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. The PLA has been in charge of the aggressive steps China has made in the South China Sea to bolster its territorial legitimacy, including engaging in island-building and increased its naval presence, which has at times resulted in stand-offs with American boats. Most of ASEAN’s members–which include North Korea, Vietnam, and Russia–have supported the Hague tribunal’s decision, with one major exception: Russia. The Kremlin has backed China’s refusal to accept the tribunal’s finding that its claims are illegitimate, and the two recently announced they will be conducting joint military exercises in the disputed waters in September.

Before he left for Laos, Kerry said that he is not taking sides in the South China Sea dispute. But the “rule of law must be upheld.” Another intriguing element to the talks is the presence of North Korean diplomats. North Korea recently called the U.S.’s direct sanctioning of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un–mostly due to human rights abuses–a “declaration of war.” According to the U.S. official with knowledge of Kerry’s goals in Laos, he, along with other Western representatives, will tell the North’s foreign minister that “the world is not prepared to accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China Doubles Down on South China Sea Claim on Eve of Diplomatic Talks appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday morning, the top international court unanimously decided China holds no legitimate claim over the South China Sea. The verdict–doled out by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague–cannot actually be enforced (no PCA rulings can), but is an important symbolic blow to China. It solidifies and gives meaningful support to the international community’s contention that China’s historical claim concerning the South China Sea is unfounded and illegitimate.

The arbitration request concerned two of the six nations that claim territory in the South China Sea, an important trade route that moves $5 trillion worth of goods annually, specifically the Philippines and China. In July 2013, the Philippines submitted an arbitration request to the international court, headquartered in the Netherlands. They requested a ruling on China’s claims to the sea, as well as the legality of China’s aggressive infringements upon the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, mostly used for fishing and petroleum exploration.

The court’s ruling concerns the waters within China’s claimed territory, denoted by the red line. [Image courtesy of naturalflow via Flickr]

The five-member panel’s main ruling stated: “to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea].” They also found China in violation of the Philippines’ 200-mile zone. The violations include:

• China allows its fishermen to operate within the zone while interfering with Filipino fishermen as well as with Filipino oil rigs. China’s aggressive patrolling of the waters within the 200-mile zone has resulted in a massive loss of revenue for Filipino fishermen.
• At a detriment to the environment as well as to its relationship with the United States, China is building artificial islands in the South China Sea. China believes its territorial claims of a chain of tiny islands–the Spratlys–will gain legitimacy if it dredges enough sand to create an inhabitable island, complete with landing strips and a basketball court.

The court clarified that while China has no rights regarding the waters of the South China Sea, it could not rule on its claims of the rocks, reefs, shoals, and islands within those waters. Tuesday’s ruling predictably resulted in praise from the Philippines and the other Pacific nations–Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Japan–that oppose China’s bullying and lay claim to territory in the sea. China rebuked the court’s decision, saying in a statement, “China neither accepts nor recognizes it.” The statement continued, “China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards.”

Japan’s foreign minister applauded the ruling, and the Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay said, “The Philippines strongly affirms its respect for this milestone decision as an important contribution to ongoing efforts in addressing disputes in the South China Sea.”

The most destructive consequence that could result from Tuesday’s decision? Naval skirmishes and perhaps a full-blown war between China and the United States. After all, the 1951 Mutual Defense Pact ensures U.S. military support of the Philippines. And if China doubles down on its claim, already testy waters can turn turbulent. This is an issue to keep your eyes on in the years to come.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post International Court Rules Against China’s South China Sea Claims appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an annual tradition that always draws big crowds of protestors–the dog meat festival in Yulin, in southern China. On Friday, animal rights activists from around the world, joined by celebrities like Carrie Fisher, handed over a petition with 11 million signatures to the Chinese Embassy in London, in an attempt to stop the festival from taking place. The habit of eating dog meat is nowadays widely criticized in China, with activists saying pet dogs are stolen from their owners, treated with cruelty, and that the phenomenon is an “embarrassment to China.”

This backlash may be  due to the Westernized and increasingly young population of China–previously having pets was seen as too elitist, particularly under Mao Zedong’s rule. Today, having dogs as pets is more and more popular, and dying your dog’s fur to make it look like a panda is a huge trend.

so this is a panda dog…and I didn't know they were real…and I'm buying one… pic.twitter.com/xOFr61DD9P

— jules (@juliawrightt__) May 29, 2016

What seems morally impossible for many Westerners is actually a cultural-historical tradition dating back thousands of years for the Chinese. About 30 million dogs are slaughtered for their meat every year in Asia, and activists say more than a third of that number is in China alone. In the southern parts where the summers get scorching hot, dog meat is believed to help you keep cool. And as many other animals are said to help your health–tiger for potency, shark fin soup for showing off wealth, bird nests for better health in general–different dog parts are said to be good for different ailments.

No matter how traditional, many old-fashioned delicacies are illegal in China. In 2014 a Chinese businessman was sentenced to 13 years in jail for hiring poachers to kill tigers, so that he could drink their blood and eat their penises, which he believed would make him more potent. Three tigers died and were eaten before the police found out after another man filmed one of the killings with his phone.

Here's an idea. Why don't we stop eating meat altogether?
Yulin Dog Meat Festival 101: All You Need to Take Action https://t.co/4mp6TljGJK

— Kimberly Ventre (@KimberlyVentre) June 10, 2016

In the U.S., selling meat from cats and dogs is illegal–but personal consumption is actually legal in 44 states. The big problem is the treatment of the animals. A representative for the animal advocacy group Born Free USA told Consumer Affairs:

According to the tradition, if you scare the dog before it dies it makes the meat more tender. Dogs are either hung, electrocuted, or beaten to death while cats are boiled alive. The inhumane treatment of animals for the sake of a cultural tradition can no longer be justified in civilized society.

The dog meat festival in Yulin is scheduled to start on June 21, but activists hope it will not be a tradition for much longer.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Largest Ever Petition Against China’s Annual Dog Meat Festival Launched appeared first on Law Street.

In their seventh meeting and second visit in as many years, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Barack Obama met at the White House on Tuesday, strengthening bonds between the U.S. and India on a number of issues. Most notable was a verbal agreement for India to join the climate change accord that was drawn up in Paris last December. But two outside factors hovered over the meeting and the flurry of activity it produced: China and Donald Trump.

China dominates the Asia-Pacific region both economically and militarily, with both the largest economy and the strongest military. Increasingly, China has shown signs of aggression as it takes steps to secure a chain of disputed island chains in the South China Sea and continues to ensure trade deals are implemented on its terms. In remarks following the meeting, neither Obama nor Modi directly mentioned China, but several moves seemed to be fueled by the potential for further Chinese aggression.

For one, the two all but finalized a deal that would include India in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a international body committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two leaders also announced plans for India to purchase six nuclear reactors from a U.S. based firm by June 2017.

And while his threat to India might not be quite as immediate or forthcoming as China’s, Donald Trump also proved to be a catalytic force in Tuesday’s talks. His fiery rhetoric and divisive tone have alarmed Indian officials. Analysts view New Delhi’s recent warming to Washington as a way to accomplish as much as possible in the event that Trump is Obama’s successor.

“Modi wants to get as much as he can out of Obama’s last months in office,” Ashley J. Tellis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told The New York Times.

India’s backing of the Paris climate change agreement will bolster the likelihood that it will go into effect before Obama leaves office. Once the 55 countries that emit 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas sign the pact, it will become binding. India is the world’s highest carbon polluter behind China and the U.S. When the pact becomes binding, a government cannot withdraw its commitment for at least four years.

“If the Paris agreement achieves ratification before Inauguration Day, it would be impossible for the Trump administration to renegotiate or even drop out during the first presidential term,” Robert N. Stavins, the director of the environmental economics program at Harvard told the New York Times.

In a statement, India said it will look to officially join the agreement by the end of the year. Modi will continue his diplomatic tour of the Capital on Wednesday, when he will address both houses of Congress.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Preparing for a Potential President Trump, India and U.S. Make Agreements appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Bill O’Reilly says Black Lives Matter is ‘Killing America’

Oh, O’Reilly! Trending today is the ever-controversial topic of the Black Lives Matter movement. Talking head and critic Bill O’Reilly had some stirring things to say about the group, stating that they do not accurately portray violent crime among African-Americans and that, “in fact,” it was young black males that committed the most crime in America. He also claims that these crime numbers are on the rise as a result of BLM’s rhetoric. See this rant from The Young Turks in response: 

And check out Law Street Media’s Crime in America coverage for a real look at the statistics.

Communism will never die: Chinese rap promotes Karl Marx for Millennials

So how do you get today’s rowdy youth “down” with Communism? Write a rap song about Karl Marx, obviously. China State Media just dropped a new mix praising the 19th century philosopher. As a citizen of the free world, it seems so freaking surreal and that’s not just because it’s in Chinese. While the use of Western culture and rap music to promote China’s Communist Party is questionable, I must say it’s a kind of catchy tune!

Chinese ad for laundry detergent has ZERO chill

Ok, listen. We can’t all be perfect but, I don’t think this Chinese company understand how skin pigment works! This advert is making waves on social media after a woman in the video is seen using laundry detergent to make a better and ‘cleaner’ boyfriend. I’m SCREAMING!

This racist laundry detergent ad from China will leave you speechless.https://t.co/Y4W5W5Wwoq

— AJ+ (@ajplus) May 27, 2016

Is Sanders grasping at straws?

After splitting delegates pretty evenly with Clinton at the Kentucky primary, Sanders’ camp requested a full recount of the votes. The results confirmed that Clinton was still the winner and Sanders has since accepted the truth.

Hold on. The Sanders-requested Kentucky primary recount is over *one* delegate? https://t.co/eNkM3gnq3Y

— Jen Connic (@jenconnic) May 26, 2016

London Olympics drug retests may disqualify 23 from Rio

The IOC has yet to reveal the identities of the 23 athletes who failed their retrospective drug tests. What we do know is that they hail from six different countries and compete in five different sports. The retests were made using the latest tech, and such in depth testing was not available when they competed. These 23 athletes will be, according to the IOC, banned from the Rio Games. This comes only weeks after 31 athletes were discovered doping in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Angela Gui, the daughter of a Hong Kong publisher who went missing seven months ago is now appealing to the United States for help. On Tuesday, Gui testified before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which is currently investigating China’s efforts to silence people who are critical of the government.

In her testimony, Angela Gui claimed that China has been acting illegally beyond its borders by imprisoning her father without trial or reason. She notes that this is particularly troubling because her father, Gui Minhai, actually has Swedish citizenship, not Chinese. He moved to Sweden to study in the 1980s and during his time there she was born.

Gui Minhai, 51, ran a publishing house in Hong Kong and wrote gossip books critical of China’s political elite. He disappeared from his vacation home in Thailand last November. Angela Gui said she had no idea where he was, but that she received messages from her father telling her to keep quiet about what happened to him.

Then, three months after he went missing, he appeared in tears on Chinese state television, saying he had turned himself in for a drunk driving incident that occurred years earlier, and that Sweden should stop looking for him. He also said that his roots would always be in China.

None of this made sense to Angela Gui. In the hearing on Tuesday, she said:

In his so-called confession my father says he traveled to China voluntarily, but if this is true, then why is there no record of him having left Thailand?…Only a state agency, acting coercively and against both international and China’s own law could achieve such a disappearance.

The Swedish government’s own investigation hasn’t produced any results, so she urged the United States to pressure China “to make sure that Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal operations on foreign soil.”

See her full speech below:

In full: Daughter of ‘abducted’ bookseller Gui Minhai testifies at US hearing https://t.co/ATLH2xNvcjhttps://t.co/FWjgTc11sU

— Hong Kong Free Press (@HongKongFP) May 25, 2016

Gui Minhai is not the only bookseller to suspiciously go missing like this. Since last October, as many as four of his colleagues have been through the same ordeal–all of them later appeared on Chinese state television admitting to various crimes and claiming to have turned themselves in.

One of them, Lee Bo, was allegedly taken from Hong Kong by police from the Chinese mainland, a move that would constitute a breach of the treaty between Hong Kong and China. In his confession video, Lee Bo even renounced his British citizenship and asked people to stop searching for him, just like Gui Minhai. Republican congressman Chris Smith, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said on Tuesday:

The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence are going global…The heavy hand of the Chinese government has expanded beyond its borders to intimidate and stifle critical discussion of the Chinese government’s human rights record and repressive policies.

The Swedish embassy in Beijing has repeatedly requested to visit Gui Minhai but has not been allowed to since February 24.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Daughter of Missing Hong Kong Publisher Appeals to Congress For Help appeared first on Law Street.

In the same land where a majority of its products are manufactured, China, Apple is in a dust-up with a manufacturer that is using perhaps its most well-known trademark: “iPhone.” Some leather goods–handbags, wallets, and phone cases–are sold in China with the word “iPhone” stitched into them, manufactured and sold by a small leather company, Xintong Tiandi Technology. And according to a Chinese court ruling this morning, that is perfectly legal.

Xintong emerged victorious in a case Apple initially brought against it in 2012, claiming its wares were a breach of their “iPhone” trademark.

The U.S.-based tech company lost the case, which was first brought to China’s trademark commission before being taken to court, and then lost the appeal this morning.

Apple issued the following statement on the ruling:

Apple is disappointed the Beijing Higher People’s Court chose to allow Xintong to use the iPhone mark for leather goods when we have prevailed in several other cases against Xintong.

Apple also noted that the company intends to continue fighting the case, and will request a retrial with China’s Supreme Court at some point in the future.

The legal blow comes during a fairly turbulent time for Apple in China, where the company recently experienced a 26 percent drop in sales during the first quarter of 2016.

The court ruled in favor of Xintong because its trademark for “iPhone” was filed in 2007, the same year the Apple iPhone was first produced, and well before the gadgets were sold in Chinese markets in 2009. According to the court, Apple failed to prove the iPhone brand was “familiar to the public” in China prior to when Xintong’s filed for its trademark.

The Chinese leather goods company was elated by the court’s decision:

The ‘iphone’ brand can blossom widely outside Apple. We will take the ‘iphone’ marque to its pinnacle, and together bring more benefit to the community of ‘iphone’ consumers!

According to a U.N. report, 70 percent of the world’s counterfeited goods come from China, though the Xintong case is an instance involving a disputed trademark on original goods, not a cut and paste, low-quality version of goods marketed under a well-known brand name.

And while the leather goods might be emblazoned with the name of the popular smartphone, at least they aren’t sold in a fake Apple Store.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules Leather ‘iPhone’ Goods in China are Legal appeared first on Law Street.

Human life has become incredibly dependent on electronic technology. The rate of citizens in the developed world who own cell phones, laptops, and other devices have gone sharply up since 2000 and the electronics industry is currently valued at $2.4 trillion worldwide, second in value only to the oil industry. While the proliferation of electronics in our lives have provided new sources of entertainment, increased information access, and made communication easier, the industry also takes an incredible toll on the planet.

Electronics must be built from resources that are generally found underground, which requires high-intensity mining operations. During production, mechanical devices are treated with a variety of toxic chemicals and at the end of their lifetime, electronics are often shipped to developing countries where they become dangerous sources of hazardous waste. However, much of this happens out of sight of the consumer, making the environmental costs of the electronic industry largely invisible to many parts of the world.

Image courtesy of baselactionnetwork via Flickr

An Overview of the Market

Currently, China is the fastest growing player in the electronics industry, because of a combination of its incredibly low labor manufacturing costs and its lack of domestic environmental regulations. Many Asian exporters, Japan and Hong Kong in particular, have steadily shifted large sections of their electronics markets to China as they find themselves unable to compete with China’s low manufacturing costs (labor costs are about 10 percent lower in China than in Hong Kong and overall production cost savings can range between 35 percent to 75 percent depending on the product). Over the years, China has also instituted several supply embargoes on countries that don’t actively participate in trade with Chinese electronic products. The electronics industry continues to grow  stronger and stronger in China as the country makes it a more central part of its economy.

Furthermore, the production of electronics is reliant upon 17 rare earth metals (REMs) and access to these metals strongly impacts a country’s ability to grow within the industry. China currently controls between 90 and 95 percent  of the planet’s rare earth metals, giving it a huge advantage within the market. Some may misinterpret China’s control over the industry to mean that 90 percent of rare earth metals are found in Chinese land. However, only about one-third of the world’s REMs, most notably dysprosium and neodymium, can actually be mined in mainland China, although the level of mining in China is still incredibly high. What is actually true is that China is responsible for the production of 95 percent of the rare earth metals worldwide; a large portion of Chinese mining and processing happens in the developing world, most notably in Central Africa, which has a number of REMs that can’t be found anywhere else.

Before we delve into the mining process, it should also be noted that while China controls a huge section of the rare earth industry, other countries do have large reserves on their mainlands. This prevents China from having a complete monopoly on the industry and from shouldering all the responsibility when it comes to global pollution. Australia, for instance, controls the vast majority of tantalum, which is crucial for almost every single electronic device.

The Environmental Impacts of Mining

Without rare earth minerals, electronics cannot be produced. However, REMs are buried underground and require high-intensity mining operations for extraction. Mining inevitably creates a huge burden on the local environment, both in terms of groundwater and air pollution. The mineral extraction process generates an incredible amount of waste–80 tons of waste is produced from just one ounce of gold–and much of this waste, including toxic metals, cyanide, and various acids, ends up in the earth and the groundwater of the surrounding area. This can completely contaminate the aquifers where mining takes place, both causing large-scale biodiversity loss and devastating effects on local communities that lose their source of drinking water. The same processes release large amounts of dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere and cause staggeringly high rates of respiratory illness in miners.

Air Pollution from mining isn’t just localized to the immediate area; gold mining, for instance, is a leading source of airborne mercury in the United States after coal-fired power plants. These problems are further compounded by the fact that most mining happens in developing countries where environmental regulations are minimal and poor communities are unlikely to receive government protection.

Rare earth mineral mining is also uniquely hazardous to the environment because it has a more complex extraction process than common minerals do. REMs must be physically removed from the earth, then crushed and milled into dust form. They then undergo a flotation stage to separate the material bastnaesite from the rubble mixture. The isolated mineral bastnaesite is then treated with acids, oxides, and a variety of other solvents to corrode away the common minerals. What is left is the rare earth minerals in their crude form, which must be further purified and then combined into alloys to reach commercial standards.

This 10-day process can be contrasted to gold, which only requires a one-step separation process, to illustrate how complex the process of extraction and production is for rare earth minerals. Due to this added complexity and the nature of the acids used in the refinement, there is a much higher potential for chemical pollution to surrounding areas with REMs as compared to other mineral extractions.

The Social Impacts of Mining

The effects of the mining industry on the environment are significant, but the social influence of the industry has also been highly disruptive. While the majority of Rare Earth Mineral production happens in China, Africa has the largest or second largest reserves of several crucial REMs and other common metals, including bauxite, cobalt, industrial diamonds, manganese, phosphate rock, soda ash, vermiculite, zirconium and several platinum metal groups.

South Africa and Zimbabwe together make up the majority of the world’s platinum metal group deposits and South Africa possesses every single rare earth metal except Bauxite and crude oil, which makes it work well as a trading partner with the Bauxite rich nation of China. However, African countries domestically control a very small share of the profits of these reserves, and the entire continent on average only receives about 15 percent of global exploration, expenditure, and mining investment. The bulk of the industry’s profits goes to foreign mining companies, which have played a role on the continent in some way, shape, or form since the 1800s, although their share has steadily decreased somewhat in the past 20 years. Furthermore, government corruption in many of the mineral-rich African nations has funneled large percentages of the funds from the mining industry away from domestic development, depriving many areas of the supposed benefits of this trade relationship.

In the worst case scenario, the mining industry has helped to fuel conflict in some of the least stable countries in Central Africa. The most serious case of this is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where copper, cobalt, and tantalum reserves are controlled and leased to China by a variety of different militia groups. The funds from these mining operations are used by both the government and the rebel forces to finance the weapons and supplies used in the D.R.C.’s ongoing Civil War, which has taken over 5 million lives. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation strongly dissuaded many mining companies from dealing in “conflict minerals” and financing the warfare, rare earth trade continues to move in and out of the area, especially with China.

Disposal and its Consequences

After extraction, rare earth metals are manufactured into complete products and must be moved over extensive supply chains and across national borders to reach consumers (this has its own burden of CO2 emissions, as does any product involved in international trade). On the other side of extraction is disposal, when the technology is finally thrown away. This happens faster than would be necessary because of product obsolescence, which often involves designing products that break within a few years so a new one must be purchased, and perceived obsolescence, which is a marketing device used to make consumers believe they need newer, better products.

The average life cycle of a cell phone, for instance, is only 18 months. Both product obsolescence and perceived obsolescence are used to fuel the electronics business by ensuring that consumers buy new products regularly, but they cause large shares of electronics to be thrown away every year that could be designed and marketed to have much longer lifetimes.

While all waste comes with an environmental burden, electronic waste, or e-waste, is particularly dangerous to the environment because of its unique components. Rare earth metals themselves can be to the environment, but electronics are also produced with a number of chemicals that are considered extremely hazardous, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium and polybrominated flame retardants. More than 20 million tons of e-waste are generated each year, with 3.4 million tons coming from the United States alone. Many electronics are difficult to recycle by nature of their design and the chemicals that compose them, which means that more than 60 percent of electronic products have to be disposed of by traditional methods.

E-waste that isn’t recycled and stays in the country where it was purchased, often ending up in landfills where chemicals can leach into local groundwater. Alternatively, e-waste may be burned in incinerators, despite the fact that this releases dioxin, which is one of the most toxic known substances in the world. E-waste that is recycled, however, isn’t generally recycled but rather shipped to developing countries, which will often allow the import of old electronics. Some degree of this is actually recycled and repaired, but huge quantities become pure waste, accumulating in piles that are even less contained than landfills in the developed world. This leads to hazardous chemicals leaching out rapidly and polluting the ground and waterways of the areas they’re dumped in.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal was held in 1989 and entered into force in 1992. The primary purpose of the convention to address the mass dumping of waste from the developed to the developing world. The convention declared that any waste that could be categorized as flammable, explosive, poisonous, toxic, ecotoxic, corrosive of infectious must be disposed of as close as possible to where it was used and in the most environmentally friendly manner. In 1995, an amendment was added that banned the shipment of e-waste and other hazardous waste to the developing world for final disposal. However, the amendment did not ban the same shipment as long as the developing country was in agreement and the purpose of the shipment was recycling and not just disposal. Of course, in reality this leaves room for difference of interpretation and many developing countries willingly accept e-waste; what happens after it is dumped is generally difficult for the Basel Convention to track or regulate with any certainty.

Proponents of exporting e-waste to the developing world argue that it’s a beneficial arrangement in that it gives poorer nations access to repairable technology and metal materials. The recycling industry abroad also provides jobs and income for residents, who often live in the poorest parts of the Africa and Asia and depend on the industry for their livelihoods. Foreign exports also provide access to markets for recycled materials that simply don’t exist in developed countries, arguably ensuring that as little e-waste as possible is actually wasted.

However, it’s also true that the recycling processes abroad are incredibly unsafe for the humans who conduct them, which is why developed countries rarely allow such processes to take place domestically.  The disposal methods are often crude and dangerous and can involve burning circuit boards to isolate the lead material, burning the plastic off wires in order to access copper, and dissolving heavy metals in acids over fresh water. These operations often take place in residential areas and are performed with little to no safety equipment.

Image courtesy of baselactionnetwork via Flickr

Conclusion

The electronics industry has a significant impact on the environment at several important steps in its life cycle. Resource extraction through mining places a considerable burden on groundwater and the atmosphere, especially because most areas where REM mining takes place have very little environmental regulatory oversight. Furthermore, the mining industry can have negative social impacts on unstable countries where government corruption and internal conflict is high. The problem is compounded by the relevance of the mining industry to the economies of many African countries, which both need the revenue and have the ambition of furthering their national resource control to become key players in the electronics industry themselves.

At the end of the life of an electronic device, its disposal poses yet another danger to the environment because of the number of dangerous chemicals that go into each product. Historically, the bulk of the burden of e-waste is felt in the developing world where the waste is dumped. Dangerous chemicals enter the surrounding environment and the workers charged with disposal expose themselves to terrible health risks. While the Basel Convention has had an important influence on fighting international dumping, it’s still practiced widely and e-waste is still a huge problem globally.

Unfortunately, both the problems of extraction and disposal are largely outside of the view of the consumer, giving the issue little salience among most participants in the electronics industry. As the second most valuable industry on earth, the electronics market is certainly not going to slow down anytime in the near future, until perhaps REMs become a truly scarce resource. Since the environmental burdens of electronics are necessary to increase industry profits and the vast majority of the consumer base does not know or care about these burdens, it’s difficult to say whether or not effective solutions to these will eventually be produced.

Resources

African Compass International: Rare Earth Elements 101

Australian Atlas of Mineral Resources, Mines & Processing Centres: Tantalum

The Economist: Planet of the Phones

Electronics Take Back: Responsible Recycling vs. Global Dumping

Electronics Take Back: Where’s the Harm – From Material Extraction?

Eugene Becker, USEF: Mining and Exploitation of Rare Earth Elements in Africa as an Engagement Strategy in US Africa Command

Forbes: China’s Rare Earth Monopoly Needn’t put a Electronics Stranglehold on America

Forbes: What 60 Minutes got Wrong about Rare Earths and China

Geology News and Information: REE – Rare Earth Metals and their Uses

IISD: A Brief Introduction to the Basel Convention

I Fix It: The Problem With E-Waste

The National Geographic: Conflict Minerals

Pew Research Center: Mobile Fact Sheet

Pew Research Center: Device Ownership Over Time

Rare Element Resources: Rare Earth Elements

Statista: Leading Countries in the Electronics Industry in 2012, Based on Market Size (in Billion Euros)

World Health Organization: Electronic Waste

World’s Top Exports: World’s Top Export Products

WTEC: China’s Electronics Industry

World’s Richest Countries: Top Electronics Producers

Yahoo Finance: Consumer Electronics to Reach $289 billion by 2014

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 The Invisible Burden of Electronics appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama touched down in Cuba last week, making him the first sitting president to visit the nation in eighty-eight years. As the President and the First Family toured the historic center of Havana, they likely witnessed the stunning old city filled with the vintage cars and delicious cuisine that make Cuba unique. As a result of the embargo, Cuba sometimes seems like a land forgotten by time. However, the Cuba that the Obamas are witnessing this week  is very different than the Cuba the average tourist may experience in the next ten years.  As more opportunities for investment and travel open up in Cuba, foreign investors are making moves–especially within the hospitality sector. Consider that Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson is accompanying President Obama on his visit to Cuba–Marriott may be interested in investing on the island. Read on to see which companies are investing in Cuba and why.

Hotels and Hospitality

Starwood Hotels, the company which owns Westin, Sheraton, and W Hotels (just to name a few), made headlines by announcing that it will open three hotels in Cuba.  At the moment, all Cuban hotels are state-owned but Starwood has the financial and organizational power to build hotels that meet the state’s standards. The location of the third hotel has not been made public but the company has stated that the Hotel Inglaterra, which is owned by a Cuban state tourism company, will become one of Starwood’s Luxury Collection hotels and the Quinta Avenida, which is run by a Cuban military-run tourism group, will become a Four Points by Sheraton hotel.

The potential Starwood-Marriott merger that is currently on the table could have a major impact on how these new hotels will be built and run.  On the heels of the Starwood commitment, AirBnB has announced it will open listings on the island by April 2. AirBnB has in fact been planning for the opening of the country for some time now–last year, the company claimed the right to represent all private residences in Cuba. AirBnB’s chief executive Brian Chesky referred to Cuba as the fastest-growing country that AirBnB has ever launched in. Physical accommodation is not the only segment of the tourism sector that is expanding into Cuba: online booking website Priceline, Western Union, and Carnival cruises have all thrown their hats into the ring (Carnival will begin sailing cruises to the island in May). Multiple U.S. airlines have filed for permission to fly commercial flights into Cuba. At the moment, American citizens cannot travel to Cuba on a tourist visa but visas falling under the following twelve categories have been opened:

Family visits, official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations, journalism, professional research, educational activities, religious activities, public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibition, support for the Cuban people, humanitarian project, activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes, exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials and certain export transactions that may be considered for authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.

Travelers must provide itineraries that justify their visa, but they no longer have to apply for a formal travel license from the government. Ease of travel is drawing a steadily increasing number of Americans to the island. According to  Jose Luis Perello Cabrera, an economist at the University of Havana, there was a 36 percent increase in the number of Americans visiting Cuba between January and May of 2015 alone.

American investors for the most part are flocking to the hospitality industry but there are a handful of cases of more specific investments. Consider Alabama-based Cleber LLC, a tractor company which was the first company to receive joint approval from the Cuban government and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cleber LLC is looking to produce tractors in the newly built port of Mariel just outside of Havana, claiming that these tractors will deliver both a financial profit and an ethical good–improving the quality of life of Cuban farmers. Tractors are just one element of machinery that Cuban farms and factories are clamoring for and as the market continues to open, an increasing number of small businesses like Cleber LLC will be given the opportunity to sell their specialized products on the island.

Chinese Investment in Cuba

American companies are not the only investors chomping at the bit to launch projects in Cuba. Venezuela has historically been Cuba’s largest trade partner but in recent years, China has been vying for that position. Cuba has long been reliant on Venezuela for oil but the regime has now turned to China for its technology and infrastructure needs.

American companies such as AT&T have projects in Cuba waiting in their pipelines but Cuban authorities have resisted American telecommunications investment. Instead, they have turned to Chinese operators such as Huawei Technology Co. Ltd., which was tasked with installing fiber-optic connections in Old Havana. Professor William M. LeoGrande of American University has said that “partly that’s a result of the fact that historically we’ve tried to use telecommunications as an avenue to undermine their government, and so consequently they really don’t trust our hardware.”  Silicon Valley tech companies are getting left behind as Huawei installs dozens of Wi-Fi hot spots around the island. Huawei has also partnered with the Cuban telecom company Etecsa to distribute smartphones, further anchoring its brand with the Cuban public.

The economic exchange between the countries has also led to Cuban efforts to break into Asian trade: Cuba’s Havana Club rum has launched major marketing campaigns targeting the Chinese market, hoping that it will be a gateway to Asia as a whole. In 2015, airlines began operating direct flights between Beijing and Havana as both Chinese investment and tourism in Cuba soared. Although Chinese investors have not paid as much attention to the hospitality sector as American companies, China’s Suntine International-Economic Trading Company has partnered with Cuba’s Cubanacan hotel group to launch a new “Hemingway Hotel”–a luxury hotel with a price tag of at least $150 million. If the Hemingway Hotel project succeeds, then Chinese corporations may commit to more hospitality projects–putting them in direct competition with companies like Starwood and AirBnB.

Conclusion

Although foreign investment appears to open up new opportunities for the Cuban people, it has been argued that foreign companies will only further entrench the power of Raul Castro rather than aiding the general Cuban populace. American (and other foreign) companies hiring Cuban workers will not necessarily be allowed to hire employees directly. Instead, they may only be permitted to hire people through state agencies, effectively blacklisting anybody the regime has deemed unacceptable. Foreign investors will pour their money into the regime itself rather than into the individual bank accounts of Cubans who they hire at their enterprises. Cuba is a nation with a rich cultural heritage that travelers have been drawn to for centuries but many Americans are unfamiliar with the island’s government and its approach towards controlling the population. As diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba expand, American investors are trickling into the country, hoping to prepare it for a potential flood of tourists in the coming years.

While Americans seem to have gained the upper hand regarding early investment in hospitality services, Chinese and Venezuelan companies have been positioning themselves to win the contracts on Cuba’s largest infrastructure projects. Tech investment could be a battleground, as Cisco has already committed to a training institute and Google is interested in working on Cuban connectivity but Chinese investment in Cuba’s internet has already put them at a significant advantage. The swell of foreign investment in Cuba may not provide the stability and equality that optimists hope for, but it should not be dismissed outright. Allowing open commerce and investment in Cuba will allow the nation to engage in the global economy in a way that it has never before–but it is, at least at the moment, unclear who will truly benefit from this expansion.

Resources

VOX: Airbnb and American Hotels Aren’t Wasting Any Time Ppening up in Cuba

USA Today: Starwood: 1st U.S. Company to Run Cuba Hotels in Decades

New York Times: American Firm, Starwood, Signs Deal to Manage Hotels in Cuba

CNBC: Marriott, Starwood Team up to Take on Airbnb in New Merger

New York Magazine: Discovering Cuba, One Airbnb at a Time

Financial Times: No Flood of Investment Despite US-Cuba Thaw

ATTN: 12 Ways You Can Legally Visit Cuba

NPR: U.S.-Cuba Ties Are Restored, But Most American Tourists Will Have To Wait

AP News: Stunning 36 Percent Rise in US Visits to Cuba since January

Worker’s World: U.S. Investment in Cuba: How a Little Red Tractor Jumped to Front of the Line

American Enterprise Institute: Why US Investment Won’t Bring Change to Cuba

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Competes With China for Influence in Cuba

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 New Cuba: Who is Investing in the Island? appeared first on Law Street.

There is not a lot that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on in their current presidential campaigns, but one thing the two do seem to share is a general disdain for free trade. The notion of free trade has joined the lexicon of despised things in the United States right next to bank bailouts and tax breaks for the rich. The clearest evidence of this is all the candidates’ desperate efforts to move as far away as quickly as possible from free trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But is this much ado about nothing? Is free trade really gutting the economy and costing millions of jobs as suggested? More to the point, what does free trade mean? Read on to learn more about what free trade is and to find out if it is really as bad for Americans as some argue.

What is Free Trade?

Free trade does not mean that goods are given to other countries for free. It’s the idea that, for the sake of economic efficiency, tariffs, quotas, and trade barriers should be lowered or removed altogether, which economists argue will make goods cheaper for consumers. The process is aimed at improving efficiency by focusing on what is known as a country’s comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the idea that a country should produce and export goods that it can make better, faster, and cheaper than other countries. By removing barriers to trade, two countries are left to compete with each other on their natural footing and whichever country can produce a good most efficiently has a comparative advantage for that good.

Comparative advantage is essential to free trade and is generally why economists like the concept of trade in general. Without barriers to trade, countries begin to specialize in products that they have a comparative advantage to produce, which ensures that all goods are made as efficiently as possible and lowering prices for everyone. The video below clarifies further what free trade is:

Globalization and Free Trade

Globalization and free trade are often seen as synonymous, but the two are not quite the same thing. According to the World Bank, “‘Globalization’ refers to the growing interdependence of countries resulting from the increasing integration of trade, finance, people, and ideas in one global marketplace.” Put simply, it’s the increasing inter-connectedness of every country and person on the planet.

Free trade, on the other hand, is a major driver in making globalization happen. By eliminating things such as tariffs and quotas, countries are encouraging exchange and, as a result, more people are coming into contact with each other and new connections are being made, further integrating the global system. Free trade, then, is just one part of the larger globalization puzzle.

History of Free Trade

Globally

While the constant battle over free trade seems to be an American issue, this is certainly not the case. While earlier theorists may have touched on its concepts, it was Adam Smith who first articulated the concept of free trade in his book “The Wealth of Nations” back in 1776. David Ricardo later introduced the concept of comparative advantage in 1812. The idea of free trade was rapidly adopted by economists after that as the preferred method of economic interaction. It was also embraced by the British Empire who, as the world’s dominant power for over a century, used its power to spread free trade internationally. Today, there are several free trade blocs across the world most notably the European Union as well as Canada, Mexico, and the United States, all of which are part of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Domestically

Free trade, while not an America invention, does have a long history in the United States. However, for much of that history, the inclination was to resist it. In fact, from the inception of the United States, economic leaders such as Alexander Hamilton advocated for protective tariffs to help the nascent nation’s industry grow, instead of promoting free trade. This movement continued with the number of goods and the size of tariffs fluctuating over time.

Beginning in the early 20th century, a series of events played a major role in altering this narrative. In 1913 the United States government adopted the federal income tax, which became the country’s new largest source of income, supplanting the money made from trade tariffs. With the new guaranteed revenue stream, the government could change tariff rates without fear of forgoing necessary income.

The second major event was the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. This tariff was unique because it united industries like agriculture and manufacturing around one policy. It was also unique in the sheer amount of opposition that it faced. The debate following the tariff was whether it directly caused the Great Depression or just intensified it. While common wisdom now points to the latter, the tariff reduced trade and produced reactive tariffs from other nations during the worst period of economic contraction in U.S. history.

The tariff quickly became unpopular and was a major issue during the 1932 presidential campaign when Franklin Roosevelt ran on a platform opposing it. Once elected, Roosevelt made good on his promise, virtually eliminating the effects of the tariff by 1934 through a number of laws such as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Roosevelt and his advisors had their eyes on a post-war future in which free trade would be the dominant philosophy at last.

Following WWII, the United States finally adopted its free trade stance. The United States was under pressure to support free trade because many other nations were desperate following the war and wanted greater access to U.S. markets. This move was codified by the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1948. This organization later transformed into its current iteration, the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. While the United States did not embrace free trade for much of its history, it was already benefitting from the concept. This is because the United States was such a large market itself that trade between states was a lot like free trade enjoyed by countries in places like Europe.

Trade Agreements

NAFTA

NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States that took effect in 1994. Unlike other free trade agreements, this did more than eliminate tariffs and quotas, it effectively synced the policies of the three nations. It was also notable because of the economic differences between the three countries. NAFTA faced a lot of criticism because it sought to create uniform trade laws among the three countries involved. As a result, countries ended up changing their laws to meet the agreement’s requirements even if the same policies had been rejected at a local level in the past.

Namely, while treaties are supposed to require a two-thirds majority to pass in the Senate, according to the Treaty Clause, NAFTA received only a simple majority–more than 50 votes–and was still able to be signed into law. The question at hand was whether NAFTA was a treaty or an international agreement, which would not require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. As a result, NAFTA it was challenged in court but the case was eventually dismissed. The constitutionality of NAFTA was also challenged for its binational trading panels, which review the enforcement of U.S. trade laws and could even override such enforcement.

TPP

The TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership is another free trade agreement like NAFTA but on a much larger scale. In this case, the deal includes 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, notably excluding China. This deal again has many of the traditional criticisms and promises. Unlike NAFTA, however, the TPP has not yet been approved by Congress and may face significant opposition given the current backlash toward free trade.

Read more on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its potential impact on intellectual property rights.

The accompanying video looks at free trade and free trade agreements following the switch in focus to free trade following WWII:

Criticisms of Free Trade

While free trade has been lauded in the past by economists, politicians, the media, and corporations, it has also drawn a lot of criticism. Most of these criticisms center specifically on its effects–namely that while free trade promises to be the rising tide that raises all boats, opponents claim that it actually does the opposite. First, by reducing tariffs and other protective measures a country is not only eliminating its own trade barriers but is doing the same thing for another country. If the two countries were operating on equal footing this would not be a problem, however, that is generally not the case.

In the case of a developed nation, like the United States, it has the economies of scale to put less efficient, smaller operations out of business. This is what happened in Mexico as large American agricultural companies started competing with small Mexican farmers, forcing them from their livelihoods and leading, in part, to their migration to the United States. Conversely, in countries where workers’ rights and environmental regulations are less developed these too can be exploited. In these countries, companies can lower the cost of production and undercut advanced nations with stronger regulations and higher standards.

In this sense then, the notion of comparative advantage is turned on its head. Instead of rewarding the best producer it can reward the cheapest or the least concise. This problem alone would be bad enough, but the critique continues. During this process of racing to the bottom, free trade has eliminated jobs in wealthier countries that pay more and created them in less advanced nations that pay less. Unfortunately, these newly employed workers are not wealthy enough to buy more goods and the now unemployed workers in the developed country are also buying less. According to critics, instead of creating a mutually beneficial society, free trade has brought about reductions in trade.

A major issue is that comparative advantage is supposed to move laborers from unproductive endeavors to more useful ones. But instead of seeing their efforts refocused in a more prosperous industry, workers in developed countries typically have to find jobs in different sectors of the economy. In countries like the United States, many factory workers have lost their jobs due to international competition. But instead of getting a different factory job they tend to move to the services industry, which typically involves lower wages.

There is some empirical support for these criticisms as well, with workers in the United States seeing a loss of manufacturing jobs since their height in the 1970s, rising trade deficits despite free trade, and low or negative wage growth. The question then is why would anyone support a concept that hurts the American worker while rewarding countries with loose regulations and low wages? The answer and the primary culprits in the criticism of free trade are the people who run multi-national corporations. According to the critics of free trade, the process naturally benefits these people as it allows companies to cut costs by paying its workers less while facing fewer regulations. The following video details some of the effects of free trade:

Despite all of its criticism and shortcomings, free trade is not all bad. The concept of competitive advantage increases the efficiency in the global economy. Aside from that, free trade offers a number of other potential benefits including reduced inflation, economic growth, greater innovation, increased competition, and greater fairness. Proponents of free trade also argue that turning to protectionism now won’t really solve the problem and may even be impossible. Finally, although manufacturing jobs have left the United States, many of those who gain jobs in other countries have been lifted out of extreme poverty.

Conclusion

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have grappled with whether protectionism or free trade is in their best interest. While free trade means more markets it also means greater competition, especially from places where things such as workers’ rights and environmental concerns are less prevalent. And it means doing away with protections that may very well have helped the nation develop and become a dominant world power.

However, trade policies, like anything else, move in waves. For the majority of the nation’s history, this wave has crested with protectionism on top. In fact, it took the greatest depression and largest war in the history to finally create a global system that favored free trade. While the Bretton Woods agreement and other deals such as NAFTA or TPP have continued, free trade policies have never been universally accepted. In an election where it seems like voters and candidates can hardly agree on anything across party lines, the current backlash against free trade may bring people together for at least a brief moment.

Resources

WBUR: Free Trade Fact-Check: NAFT Becomes Campaign Issue

Common Dreams: What’s The Problem With ‘Free Trade’

Foundation for Economic Education: Free Trade History and Perception

World Bank: Globalization and International Trade

CATO Institute: The Truth about Trade in History

The Fiscal Times: Free Trade vs. Protectionism: Why History Matters

The Economist: The Battle of Smoot-Hawley

BBC News: A century of free trade

Public Citizen: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

BBC News: TPP: What is it and why does it matter?

Reference for Business: Free Trade Agreements and Trading Blocs

Law Street Media: What’s Going on With The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Law Street Media: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Why is the IP Rights Chapter Receiving So Much Criticism?

Los Angeles Times: Court Rejects Challenge to Constitutionality of NAFTA

PR Newswire: Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Reinforces Doubts About Constitutionality of NAFTA Chapter 19 Panel System

Mercatus Center: The Benefits of Free Trade: Addressing Key Myths

“

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 Costs (and Benefits) of Free Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Activists have crusaded for decades for better treatment of animals around the world, but there are certain watershed moments in popular culture that have sparked widespread debate over how we treat animals in the twenty-first century. In 2009, the European Union banned cosmetic testing on animals and the sale or import of seal products. In 2013, the film “Blackfish” achieved massive popularity and opened up a conversation about human treatment of killer whales on an unprecedented national scale. Last year, the death of Cecil the Lion divided popular opinion not only on the subject of hunting for sport but how we value animal lives versus human lives.

The next great animal rights discussion may be inspired not by a violent event but by one that activists have been warning the public about for years: the treatment of animals in the world’s zoos, animal parks, and aquariums. In this globalized age, animals are often traded between zoos for mating purposes or because the original zoo simply does not have the resources to care for a given animal. With this shuffle of ownership, activists worry that there are no guarantees that an animal will be treated humanely throughout its life. Read on for a look at some of the criticisms at zoos across the world:

Ocean Parks in China

There are 39 ocean theme parks operating in China right now, the largest of which is Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, famous for its beluga whales and polar bears. Most of the animals displayed in these parks were captured in ways that the China Cetacean Alliance have argued are stressful and frightening for them. Whereas the goal of many zoos and aquariums is to preserve endangered species, a recent report from the China Cetacean Alliance states that:

Due to the lack of a legal definition of ‘animal welfare’ in Chinese laws and regulations, and the absence of specific animal welfare concepts within the laws and regulations relevant to the ocean theme park industry, cetaceans in captivity in China are without proper protection from conditions that can cause suffering.China’s participation in the live capture of free-ranging cetaceans from the waters of both Russia and Japan, and the subsequent import of these individuals, is having a negative impact on the conservation status of some targeted cetacean populations and on the international image of the country for its ability to protect wild animals.

Whereas zoos and wildlife preserves do not require animals to perform tricks or be exhibited multiple times per day, theme parks rely on animals to put on a show throughout the operating hours of the day. Animals displayed in these parks are considered valuable because they can perform a program, not because they are an endangered species.

This view of animals as a commodity has allegedly led to problems–for example, a beluga calf recently died in captivity in a Chinese water park apparently because there was not sufficient space in its tank for it to be nursed by its mother. Although Seaworld’s killer whales featured in “Blackfish” became more aggressive when confined to small pools, there is little risk that the belugas on display will exhibit the same violent tendencies. However, beluga whales are listed as “near threatened,” which means that they do need to be protected both in the wild and in captivity.

There is relatively little oversight of marine mammals in captivity in China, which means that there is no pressure on animal trainers in these theme parks to treat animals humanely. There are challenges with raising any animal in captivity because they are occupying a significantly smaller space than they would in the wild, but the risk for the animal increases dramatically when there are no regulators who can fine or suspend zoos or theme parks who fail to give their animals sufficient enclosure space and exercise.

War-torn Zoos in the Gaza Strip

There are six active zoos in the Gaza Strip. Murphy’s Law (anything that can go wrong, will go wrong) appears to be in full effect in these struggling zoos. The presence of Hamas in Gaza, and the ensuing Israeli and Egyptian blockade, means massive shortages on food and supplies for both humans and animals.

The organization Four Paws launched a crowdfunding campaign to purchase supplies for Gaza’s zoos but as of its trip to Gaza recently, it has only been able to deliver enough feed to keep animals fed for four more weeks. Medical supplies are also in short supply so that if animals don’t die of hunger, they often succumb to disease. The frequent bombing and firefights throughout the Gaza Strip often prevent zookeepers from reaching their animals. In an interview in January, one zookeeper described how neither he nor his team could reach the zoo during a fifty day conflict between Israel and Hamas last year. By the time they finally got back to the zoo, one of the African tigers had starved to death. Furthermore, Gaza’s frequent power cuts make it difficult to run the generators necessary to keep animals warm.

At the Khan Younis Zoo, animals starved to death but were then stuffed and returned to their cages in a desperate attempt to keep the zoo solvent. Unfortunately, the zookeepers have neither the funds nor the transport to move their animals to other zoos in safer environments. Four Paws managed to evacuate three lions from the al-Bisan zoo which had been damaged by major shelling, temporarily resettling the lions in Jordan, but that is the exception to the general trend of animals dying in Gaza.

Elephants in the United States

Although animal rights activism is better organized and vocal in the United States than in other nations, the battle is far from over. This winter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the transfer of 18 elephants from big game parks in Swaziland to American zoos. The transfer is the result of historic drought conditions that are threatening the health of these elephants in their native environment. These elephants are at risk of starving or being trapped in brushfires in the extreme drought (an especially dangerous prospect for young elephants). Rangers in the big game parks are struggling to care for their animals under these extremely taxing conditions. A transfer to the United States will give these elephants access to water, more temperate climates, and the attention of prominent veterinarians.

However, conservationists are disturbed by the movement of these animals to unfamiliar environments that are significantly smaller than the terrain they are used to in the expansive game reserves. Additionally, the shock of being  moved to such a different location may disrupt animal relationships or cause them to become more aggressive. There is no guarantee that these elephants will deal well with either the trip to the United States or their resettlement in American zoos.

The elephants will be sent to zoos in Kansas, Nebraska and Texas, which has prompted rounds of questioning regarding whether these states have the appropriate facilities to host multiple elephants during a harsh winter. While zookeepers have stated they are trying to keep elephants together in their usual social groupings, there is little doubt that the journey across the world will have an impact on each elephant. Animal rights activists are worried not only about the physical health of these animals after they arrive in the U.S. but their mental health, as elephants are social creatures that operate best when included in a herd. Even though all the American zoos are well-funded and have solid track records with animal care, the shock of adjusting to such a different space could be physically and psychologically traumatic for the elephants. The group Friends of Wildlife have already filed a lawsuit hoping to block this transfer of elephants but their claim may not gain traction in time as the elephants are already being prepared for transport.

Conclusion

Zoos are an important space for the conservation of animals and the education of the general public but they are not always as safe as we would like them to be. In Chinese theme parks, where whales and polar bears are kept in spaces that are significantly smaller than their natural environments, there is no requirement to report on animal’s living conditions to a formal advisory board. In Gaza’s zoos, animals die on a daily basis, waiting for the food and medicine that they could easily receive if they were in a different zoo–but there is no pressure from the international community to evacuate them or send them the supplies they need to survive. Animals are comparatively fortunate in the United States but the arrival of a large group of elephants from Swaziland this month may prove disastrous if zookeepers cannot care for them adequately while drought ravages Swaziland. Any one of these three stories could be the one that attracts international attention and sparks a wide-scale commitment to protecting animals living in captivity in this next era of promoting animal rights.

Resources

The Washington Post: China’s Booming Ocean Parks Mean Misery for Bears, Belugas and More

China Cetacean Alliance: Ocean Theme Parks: A Look Inside China’s Growing Captive Cetacean Industry

WWF: Beluga

US News and World Report: Gaza Zoo Animals are Suffering

Huffington Post: Gaza’s Khan Younis Zoo Sees More Animals Starve To Death As Four Paws Delivers Urgent Supplies

Four Paws: Save the Animal’s of Gaza’s Zoos

Four Paws: Cry for Help from Gaza: FOUR PAWS Takes Care of Animals at Bombed-out Zoo

CNN: Swaziland to Relocate 18 Elephants to U.S. Zoos

CBS News: Animal Rights Group Blocks Zoos’ Elephant Import

Christian Science Monitor: Why Swaziland is Putting 18 Elephants on a Boeing 747

Al Jazeera: Animals Suffer in Gaza’s Cash-strapped Zoos

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 Inside the Cage: Controversial Zoos Might be the Next Animal Rights Crusade appeared first on Law Street.

Beijing currently resembles a scene that could be from an apocalyptic horror movie: sidewalks deserted, citizens wearing masks, and an impenetrable layer of gray smoke flowing through street corners. Beijing recently announced its first “red alert” for smog, which led to the closure of schools and construction sites and a restriction on the number of cars on the road.

Since Beijing issued its red alert, Shanghai has issued a “yellow alert” and has taken to curbing factory work and suspending outdoor activities at schools. Elderly, young, and sick citizens are asked to stay indoors while the smog alert is in effect–but smog can take days or weeks to clear, leaving these residents essentially trapped in their homes. China’s smog problem has been growing for years but it is reaching a critical level wherein smog actually interferes with the daily behaviors of Chinese citizens. Read on for a look at how the smog problem developed and what the red alert signifies for the future.

The Meaning of the Red Alert

Although the Chinese government never instituted the red alert before this year, Beijing has had higher levels of pollution in the past. Beijing has reached the next-highest level, orange alert, several times but always stopped there. It has been speculated that the government decided to issue the red alert as a nod to public sentiment regarding the smog problem. According to the South China Morning Post,

A red alert marked official acknowledgment of the public perception that previous bouts of bad air had been played down. Some state media tried to put a positive spin on the development, with China Daily editorialising that ‘with the first such red alert, the capital has set a good example in this respect.’ But others took a darker view. China.com.cn, a news portal run by the State Council Information Office, said smog had damaged the government’s image, and Xinhua contrasted photographs of the city on pollution-free days and the depths of the alert.

Smog interferes with the image of a modern, progressive China. Pollution impacts not only the environment and the healthcare of the Chinese population, it also leads to a decline in economic growth. Smog limits the number of days workers can leave their homes and causes health problems for those who do work in urban centers. Toxic air means that life expectancy is an estimated five years shorter for a person living in Northern China than a person living in Southern China.  In addition, China’s brain drain–a phenomenon where educated professionals emigrate to other nations rather than working in their country of origin–has been largely linked to pollution. Educated young workers want to start families in countries where the air is better. Chinese youth have an altogether different concept of outdoors than their parents do. In an interview with the New York Times, a cafe manager named Kan Tingting said that

What bothers me the most is that my child may have a very negative view of nature. She loves nature much less than she would in a normal environment. I don’t want her to grow up thinking nature is ugly.

In a country where “smog days” are akin to snow days in the United States, many children are growing up thinking of smog as a part of their daily life rather than an environmental hazard.

 Smog in the Cities

China’s air pollution comes largely from the use of coal in its major industrial cities. China’s economic boom has generated massive economic growth, but that led to a parallel spike in airborne pollutants. Coal pollution is compounded with car emissions to create a toxic atmosphere, only exacerbated by dust storms and construction dust that floats in the air of most urban centers. Beijing recognized the sources of its pollution and has striven to use coal substitutes and limit the use of cars, but those solutions have yet to create lasting change in the smog levels.

Yang Weimin, Deputy Chair of the Central Leading Group on Finance and Economic Affairs, stated earlier this week that China will need to build ten new mega-cities to offset the pollution and traffic pressures of Beijing. Mainland China has six mega-cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and Chongqing) and the Chinese government has recognized the need for shifting growth to other areas of the country. However, building these cities is a twofold challenge. First, it will be difficult to convince people to relocate to new cities without stable job prospects so the government will need to convince major companies to set up headquarters in this new set of mega-cities, but at the same time, they will need to retain the job sector in the existing cities. Second, building new cities requires a great deal of construction, which creates hazardous dust and only contributes to negative air quality in the short term.

Cleaning Up Before 2022

China will host the Winter Olympic Games in 2022 and officials have already stated that they plan to welcome athletes from around the world to a city with healthy air. The Beijing Olympics of 2008 were an unforgettable marvel that China hopes to match with the Winter Games, but air pollution has made athletes and coaches worry about the safety of competing there. When China made its bid for the 2008 Games, it promised to cut down on pollution in Beijing, and was largely successful in meeting its goal–during the Olympics, Beijing air quality was the best it had been in a decade. Beijing is clearly capable of reducing smog in the short-term, but the return of smog in the wake of the 2008 Games has left many pessimistic about the probability of long-term smog reduction. Although organizers of the Olympics have stated that they are treating the smog as a serious threat and plan to mitigate before athletes arrive, they have not outlined a precise plan for what they will do to reduce smog.

Profiting off of China’s Plight

This week, a Canadian company made headlines for charging up to $28 for bottles of “clean air” on the Chinese market. Vitality Air, which bottles air from Banff and Lake Louise, has seen a massive spike in sales in China over the past two months. Vitality Air began almost as a joke–co-founder Moses Lam listed a Ziploc bag of air on Ebay to see how much he could get from it, and then ran with the idea of “selling air”. Vitality Air prides itself on being hand-bottled and is supposed to be used to fight hangovers, lethargy and now, pollution.  Bottled air may seem to be a ridiculous concept but according to the Times of India:

Vitality Air is not the only business cashing in on China’s pollution problem – a restaurant in in Zhangjiagang city recently started charging patrons for fresh air, after owners bought air filtration machines for the establishment and added a surcharge to people’s bills for the operation costs.

Selling air like it is any other commodity may be a fad sparked by the introduction of the red alert, but it raises interesting questions about the future of commodities in China. What products are Chinese citizens willing to buy in order to feel safe, and does that make them a target for companies that seek to profit off of their distress? Will foreign countries take advantage of China’s environmental weaknesses to sell them unexpected products or will they commit valuable technology to solving the pollution problem?

 Conclusion

As the world celebrates the major climate agreement made in Paris this week, managing pollution and reducing smog seems like a more manageable task. Yet in China, the damage may be irreversible and a new generation may grow up without access to clean air. It is tempting to accept China’s air pollution as a problem too monolithic to tackle but considering the impressive reduction in smog that the country enacted before the Olympics of 2008, mitigating smog is possible. It will require political action and firm commitments to reach the government’s goal of reducing smog by 2022. China’s leading officials need to seek immediate, effective changes before the red alert becomes a commonplace event in Beijing.

Resources

CNN: Smog in China Closes Schools and Construction Sites, Cuts Traffic in Beijing

The Guardian: Smog Envelops Beijing: Before and After Pictures as City Goes on Red Alert

New York Times: Smog So Thick, Beijing Comes to a Standstill

South China Morning Post: China Needs to Build 10 More Megacities to Ease Pollution and Traffic Pressure on Beijing, Top Planner Says

South China Morning Post: Winds of Change: After Years of Denial, China’s Politicians Have Finally Woken up to Nation’s Concerns Over Hazardous Air Pollution

USA Today: Punchlines: China’s Smog Days Beat Snow Days

ABC News: Hazardous Smog Blankets Shanghai, China Pledges to Clean up by 2022 Winter Olympics

Times of India: Canadian Company Sells Bottled Fresh Mountain Air in China as Smog Levels Worsen

CNN: Canadian Start-up Sells Bottled Air to China, Says Sales Booming

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 Red Alert in Beijing: Smog’s Debilitating Impacts appeared first on Law Street.

On November 20, China Labor Watch released a report on labor conditions at five toy manufacturing companies in China. The nonprofit sent undercover representatives to a variety of factories. The toy companies investigated in the report are suppliers to both Hasbro and Mattel, two of the largest and most successful toy distributors in the world. While Mattel’s alleged labor violations should take center stage, the story has been crowded out by Mattel’s advertising campaign in preparation for the holiday sales season. Read on for a look at the recent competing stories on Mattel and the concerns over labor conditions at the company.

History of Mattel’s Alleged Violations

Mattel, based in California but with a variety of third-party contractors in China, is the world’s biggest toy company. Mattel is responsible for the design, production and marketing of toys sold to both consumers and larger vendors (such as Toys ‘R’ Us or Target). Besides its incredibly famous Barbie, Mattel is the parent company of Fisher-Price, Hot Wheels, Matchbox, and American Girl. China Labor Watch, a nonprofit which strives to increase transparency and advocate for workers’ rights, has accused Mattel of underpaying and overworking Chinese workers. China Labor Watch’s first formal report on Mattel was published in 2012, yet the nonprofit claims to have seen little change in labor conditions in the intervening years. After embedding numerous representatives in the factories and conducting hundreds of interviews, the nonprofit stated that:

Workers making Mattel toys are forced to stand for 10 to 13 hours, exceeding the nine-hour working-day limit stated in Chinese law. In some factories, fire escapes are blocked and emergency exits are locked, posing fire-safety concerns.

According to an interviewee protected by a pseudonym, workers in Mattel partner factories work up to 13 hours a day in unsafe conditions with no fire escapes. After hours, these workers share overcrowded dorms with no access to proper sanitation. Managers were accused of being abusive and forcing workers to build toys even when they were sick or struggling to reach their quotas. Those who protested risked losing their jobs. After China Labor Watch’s investigation, the French nonprofit Peuples Solidaires established an anti-Mattel petition protesting the labor conditions in the Chinese factories, but it had only minimal success.

Mattel claimed to be taking steps to improve working conditions and address the issues raised by the nonprofit, but the accusations continued to crop up during 2014 and 2015. Despite this constant stream of violations, Mattel has reportedly continued to operate with the same vendors in the same labor conditions.

China Labor Watch’s report could have encouraged a wave of protest against Mattel but instead, two other stories are dominating the media this month: Barbie’s first ad featuring a young boy and the company’s falling share prices as the holiday season approaches. While China Labor Watch’s report appears to have only been covered in depth by Fortune, dozens of web sites and TV shows covered the new Mattel ad and the company’s holiday earnings.

Commercial Attention

Earlier this month, Barbie ran its first ad for the new limited edition Moschino doll, featuring a boy playing with the doll. Mattel received praise for the ad campaign, which was hailed as a move for gender equality. Companies such as Disney have already made similar moves to encourage gender parity with their toys, removing “girls” and “boys” labels from their merchandise. However, major toy commercials have long aimed to incorporate both boys and girls, so Mattel’s doll advertisements are somewhat late to the movement.

Though Mattel was hailed as the architect of the campaign, in reality, it was Jeremy Scott, creative director of Moschino who masterminded the campaign–Scott modeled the young boy in the commercial after his own childhood self. The ad has been described by both Scott and Mattel as a “fauxmercial”–a creative statement not actually designed to be official marketing for the doll. The advertisement, real or not, has drummed up significant sales for the doll–it has already sold out of stores and can now be found Ebay and other resale sites for a massive mark-up. The advertisement went viral online but has not been moved to television.

Mattel’s Black Friday Conundrum

Barbie may be one of the most famous toys in America, but Mattel has been struggling with sales over the past several years. According to Forbes,

Sales of the fashion doll have slumped for the past four years, down 16 per cent in 2014 and showing no signs of improvement. Even American Girl, Mattel’s once-hot line of pricey historical collectibles, has disappointed in recent years. Sales were down 2 per cent in the third quarter of 2015. Starting next year, Barbie will be faced with new competition from rival Hasbro, which won Mattel’s long-held license to sell the hugely popular Disney Princesses line of movie tie-ins, including Frozen heroine Elsa.

As the holiday shopping season opens up, toy companies are counting on the months of November and December to make or break their sales portfolios. Mattel needs an incredibly successful holiday sales season to make up for the lack of growth in past quarters, but at the moment, short interest on Mattel is sitting at an all-time high. In order to impress investors, Mattel must make a major profit during Black Friday super sales but competition from Hasbro may make that difficult. Not only has Hasbro licensed Disney Princess toys, it has also cornered the market on Star Wars merchandise on the eve of the release of the new Star Wars film. The after-effects of Black Friday and holiday season may ultimately decide the fate of both toy companies, but at this moment, Hasbro’s success is virtually locked in.

However, Hasbro was also named in the China Labor Watch report for labor violations in the manufacturing of several of its toys (including the Star Wars line). According to a statement from Hasbro spokeswoman Julie Duffy,

We are aware of the China Labor Watch report and take their allegations very seriously. We require all Hasbro products to be manufactured in accordance with rigorous ethical standards, and that all third party facilities ensure employees have a healthy and safe working environment. Hasbro combines industry best practices, strategic partnerships, and strict auditing standards to respect the safety, well-being, and dignity of workers, and works continuously to ensure compliance with all third party facilities

Mattel also released a statement in the wake of the China Labor Watch report,

We are aware of the China Labor Watch report and take their allegations very seriously. We require all Hasbro products to be manufactured in accordance with rigorous ethical standards, and that all third party facilities ensure employees have a healthy and safe working environment

But all eyes are on both Mattel and Hasbro regarding their sales, so the alleged labor violations appear to have taken a back seat.

Lack of Attention on the Labor Violations

According to the report, Mattel’s third party companies have been consistently violating labor laws for several years. Over the past few weeks, Mattel has been associated with the Moschino ad and the battle over Black Friday sales but the labor violations discussed in China Labor Watch’s report have gone virtually unnoticed. Mattel’s frequent violations of Chinese labor laws could be inspiring outrage, but they are not well publicized enough to be making waves in the public discourse. Hasbro is guilty of the same infractions but it has kept its name largely out of the headlines this month.

Unfortunately, Mattel’s financial suffering only makes it increasingly likely that it will utilize Chinese labor in the future. With production costs soaring and little profit, the company will likely remain reliant on the cheap labor provided in China. Though there has been more scrutiny placed on Chinese labor oversight in recent years, the labor conditions are still, on the whole, deplorable. There may even be an increase in labor law violations as the company adopts a “nothing to lose” attitude to selling its toys at any cost.

There is some hope, however. In July of 2015, workers at the Jingyu Toy Products company in Shenzhen, China went on strike to protest minimal wages and long hours spent building Hasbro and Mattel toys. When the factory was relocated, 100 workers went on strike, asking for severance pay and retirement insurance. The strike was isolated, and did not inspire similar action across China, but it is important to consider how protest and public scrutiny can impact these companies.

Conclusion

Children across the world will spend their holiday unwrapping dolls, toy cars and building blocks that were manufactured in the harshest conditions. Companies that work with third party vendors must be held accountable for the actions of their third party vendors abroad. Mattel received positive coverage during the release of the fauxmercial for the Moschino Barbie that let the company circumnavigate a public discussion of labor violations. But in the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see if we open the dialogue on labor laws rather than just focus on sales during the holiday season.

Resources

Primary

China Labor Watch: The Other Side of Fairy Tales: An Investigation of labor conditions at five Chinese toy factories

Additional

Forbes: With Boy In Barbie Ad, Mattel And Moschino Aim To Bust Gender Stereotypes

Bloomberg: Bearish Bets on Mattel Surge Ahead of Black Friday

The Observers: The Barbie  Blues: Workers Describe Awful Conditions at Mattel Suppliers

IB Times: Labor Law Violations At Chinese Supplier To Hasbro, Mattel, Takara Tomy: Report

Dana C. Nicholas: China’s Labor Enforcement Crisis: International Intervention and Corporate Social Responsiblity

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 A Tale of Two Barbies: Did Mattel’s Labor Law Violations Fly Under the Radar? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been about a month since the Obama administration publicly announced that the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were completed, and just last week the full text of the agreement was released to the public. It will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, including 12 counties and roughly 40 percent of the global economy.

The umbrella agreement writes universal rules and standards for trade markets around the Pacific. Although all the countries involved still need to ratify the agreement, the release is an important step in that direction. In the United States, President Obama is now in the midst of securing Congressional consent, despite heavy criticism. This will likely be an uphill battle that comes down to one basic question: will the TPP benefit the U.S. economy and global markets? While the text of the 30-chapter deal was only recently made public, trade groups and labor unions are already entrenched in their support or opposition for the deal, which will become even more contentious in the coming months.

An Overview of the TPP

Who is involved?

In total, there are 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, namely the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. Indonesia may also join in the future.

Why does the United States support the TPP?

According to the White House, the TPP will establish American leadership and influence in the Pacific. President Obama strongly supports the deal because he believes that it will strengthen the U.S. economy and national security. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the deal is meant further U.S. interests and create an equal playing field for everyone “by requiring other countries to play by fair wage, safe workplace, and strong environmental rules that we help set.” The TPP will also cut over 18,000 taxes that countries have on American goods and services, which may help American companies gain additional access to global markets.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is intended to make the United States highly competitive in the Pacific while prioritizing American interests and values. According to the White House, the TPP does this by eliminating preferential treatment of state-owned enterprises over American businesses, protecting trade secrets, ensuring open internet access, and creating fair markets between the United States and foreign countries.

What’s Covered by the TPP?

In short, almost everything. The pact will affect 12 countries and over 40 percent of the world’s economy and a massive amount of goods and services. For example, tariffs will be removed on textiles and clothing and potentially eliminated for carmakers. Tariffs on American cars are as high as 70 percent in Vietnam, making their removal a major win for the U.S. auto industry. Currently, American poultry is taxed up to 40 percent in some countries and soybeans are taxed as highly as 35 percent. Other foods that may be affected include dairy, sugar, wine, rice, and seafood. Major food-exporting countries like New Zealand and Australia stand to benefit from the removal of these barriers.

Removing tariffs is not the only potential consequence of the TPP; there are also notable, but controversial, patent protection provisions. The TPP would allow pharmaceutical companies eight years of protection on new biotech drugs. Doing so ensures that pharmaceutical companies can profit from new groundbreaking drugs, but may also keep prices high as competitors have to wait longer to make generic versions. The TPP intends to removal global internet barriers as well. For example, Google will be able to sell products in foreign markets that are currently restricted. The intended reduction of global roaming charges could cause an increase in competition among Telecom heavyweights. For more information on the intellectual property implications of the TPP check out Sam Whitsell’s issues brief explainer.

The TPP also creates new labor standards for all countries involved. Each country must adhere to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The TPP protects unions, prohibits child labor and forced labor, and standardizes minimum wage and work hours, along with a variety of other protections. The agreement also strengthens international environmental standards with new resource protections. The White House argues that these provisions will “level the playing field” between the United States and the other countries and President Obama has also called it the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

Where is China?

It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, right? One could reasonably think that China’s massive economy would be involved–China is the largest exporter and second largest importer in the world. But China has, so far, not played a role in the negotiations and has no plans to join the agreement.

In fact, the White House argues that, “with the TPP, we can rewrite the rules of trade to benefit America’s middle class. Because if we don’t, competitors who don’t share our values, like China, will step in to fill that void.” The TPP specifically attempts to work around what some perceive to be obstructionism from China. Despite being part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China has made free trade agreements more challenging to develop. The TPP ultimately allows for Chinese inclusion, but isn’t designed to “Chinese specifications” and cannot be vetoed by China. The agreement seeks to spread Western values to many of China’s important trading partners.

Some believe sidelining China is a mistake, even if the United States is trying to limit China’s control. Felipe Caro and Christopher Tang, business professors at UCLA, argue that the idea that China can be locked out of the agreement is naive, as China is the world’s leading trading nation. China has loaned money to and indebted a variety of countries, in an effort to spread its influence abroad. As of the end of 2014, China gave Bangladesh $3.8 billion and Pakistan $17.8 billion, which illustrates the power and influence that China has in many developing nations. Furthermore, China is aiming to create the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, an international bank that according to Caro and Tang “would help finance infrastructure projects across the Asia Pacific.” They further note that the bank has the support of “47 regional and 20 non­regional members, including TPP nations, such as Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam.”

China also has pre-established trade agreements with a number of TPP members. This could severely hinder the efficiency of the TPP in practice. China has a lot of leverage at its disposal and leaving China out of the negotiations may have unforeseen consequences.

TPP Lingo

While Congress has not yet decided on the Trans-Partnership itself, there have been a number of votes on related issues. Before we get into those, let’s go over some of the acronyms that get thrown around in discussions of the TPP.

The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP): A separate trade deal that the United States is negotiating with the European Union. According to the U.S. Trade Representative:

T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.

This agreement is related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in that it will also utilize the Trade Promotion Authority that was recently passed by Congress–which brings us to our next definition.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): This simply means that Congress cannot amend or filibuster the TPP or TTIP. Congress must vote on each trade deal exactly as it is–yes or no. Trade Promotion Authority is what many refer to as the “fast track” method. It authorizes the president to formalize trade agreements with countries abroad, limiting Congress to simply voting to approve an agreement. In terms of Congressional oversite, TPA will give members of Congress access to read the negotiating text, receive briefings on negotiations, have time to review the deal, and outline objectives for the U.S. Trade Representative.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA): Initially created in the Trade Act of 1974, it offers compensation to workers and companies hurt by trade agreements, along with job search and training assistance. According to GovTrack, the current TAA would give states more control over job assistance and reduce healthcare costs to workers affected by the TPP. Historically, trade assistance has always been associated with Trade Promotion Authority because it appeases Democrats, who worry about the effect of trade agreements on blue collar workers. Although TAA initially failed in Congress after it was separated from TPA, it was eventually included in the Trade Preferences Extension Act, which passed several days later.

Criticism of the TPP

There are many TPP supporters who believe that the agreement will stimulate economic growth in all countries involved. President Obama wrote in a press release that “if we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can help more American workers compete and win.” However, there are many loud critics of the partnership in the United States.

A major fear is that American jobs will be shipped overseas to developing countries. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the TPP’s predecessor, remains controversial in the United States. Although some claim NAFTA boosted small to medium sized American businesses, others argued that the agreement resulted in the loss of thousands of domestic jobs to foreign countries. Free trade agreements inspire competition between international labor forces, which can cause jobs to move to where businesses can save money. For example, with increased integration under the TPP, the American labor force could be forced to compete with workers in Vietnam where the hourly wage is $2.75 and labor laws are less strict.

Others also argue that the politics of other nations involved are equally delicate. For example, Australia has a major problem with the TPP’s potential consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, as it will extend the length of patents for drug companies. Critics claim that these extensions will result in decreased competition, leading to inflated prices for name brand drugs. Poorer countries could have even less access to life-saving medicines due to the influence of intellectual property protections on drug prices.

It is also interesting to note that Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, a former supporter of the TPP as Secretary of State, recently came out against the deal after having supported it in the earlier stages of negotiations. When asked about her stance on the deal in the Democratic debate, Clinton responded:

It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not.

She expanded on her position in an interview with PBS.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans alike have doubts on this agreement, despite its aggressive backing from the White House.

Conclusion

Although the text of the deal was only released recently, the fight behind it has become particularly heated over the past several months. As politicians, trade and labor groups, and the public continue to review the text it is likely that it will become even more controversial in the coming weeks. Congress will soon have to vote on the deal, which could have wide-ranging implications for the United States and other members of the protocol.

Resources

Primary

Medium: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Boosts Made in America Exports, Supports Higher-Paying American Jobs, and Protects American Workers

The White House: Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The White House: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Additional

BBC: TPP Trade Deal: Who are the Winners and Losers?

CNN Money: Why Everyone Hates Obama’s Signature Trade Deal

Fortune: Leaving China out of the TPP is a Terrible Mistake

The Atlantic: Why Americans Are Turning Against Free Trade

BBC: TPP: What is it and Why Does it matter?

Gov Track: How Congress Voted on Trade?

Politifact: What Hillary Clinton Really Said About TPP and the ‘Gold Standard’

USTR: Strategic Importance of the TPP

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 What’s Going on With the Trans-Pacific Partnership? 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.

In light of concerns about state-sponsored hackers going after American technology, Facebook will now warn users it believes are falling victim to these types of attacks.

The warning will take the form of a notification that pops up on Facebook. It doesn’t warn individuals that their Facebook accounts are being hacked, but rather that their computers, smartphones, tablets, or other devices have malware on them that indicate that hackers may be trying to access their accounts.

According to Facebook, the notification will prompt a user to “Please Secure Your Accounts Now” and contain the following message:

We believe your Facebook account and your other online accounts may be the target of attacks from state-sponsored actors. Turning on Login Approvals will help keep others from logging into your Facebook account. Whenever your account is accessed from a new device or browser, we’ll send a security code to your phone so that only you can log in. We recommend you also take steps to secure the accounts you use on other services.

Facebook also recommends that if possible, people who get these notifications should consider replacing or rebuilding their systems, because this type of breach is probably too strong to be wiped out by everyday anti-virus software. Facebook has also made it clear that it won’t be sending out these notifications willy-nilly, but only if there’s strong evidence that a breach is coming from a foreign government hack.

Obviously not all hacks come from state-sponsored entities, but Facebook is clear on why it is focusing on warning its users specifically about these kinds of attacks. Alex Stamos, the Chief Security Officer at Facebook, explained in the announcement about the policy change:

While we have always taken steps to secure accounts that we believe to have been compromised, we decided to show this additional warning if we have a strong suspicion that an attack could be government-sponsored. We do this because these types of attacks tend to be more advanced and dangerous than others, and we strongly encourage affected people to take the actions necessary to secure all of their online accounts.

War waged via technological means is certainly a legitimate concern–there have been either allegations or outright evidence that unfriendly actors such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and ISIL have attempted to hack American accounts.

There are some criticisms of the new alert–Tech Crunch pointed out that the phrase “state-sponsored actors” may not be in everyone’s vernacular, and could be confusing. Additionally, Maddy Crowell of Christian Science Monitor points out that we don’t know exactly how Facebook is getting the information to conclude that someone has been the victim of a state-sponsored attack. While that’s not necessarily a criticism, it is a viable inquiry about Facebook’s privacy features. 

So, essentially, you don’t want to see this notification pop up on your Facebook–it means that your information is under attack, most likely due to malware that has infected your computer. Facebook is doing right by its users by letting them know–it may be an indication of the kind of security we’ll see moving forward as cyberwar remains a serious concern.

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 Facebook to Warn Users of Potential State-Sponsored Hackers 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.

On Monday August 24, the main Chinese stock market, the Shanghai composite, fell 8.5 percent in one day. This massive drop set off losses worldwide, beginning in nearby Asian markets including Japan. However, the worry and lack of confidence quickly spread to Europe and to the United States. In the west, this led to massive sell-offs of stocks and the value of the American market dropping 10 percent below its record high, which was achieved only a few months earlier at the beginning of summer. While this was initially blamed on the volatility of the Chinese market and its slowing economic growth, the loss also revealed more issues in the other global markets. Read on to learn about the history of an up and down global stock market, the reasons for the recent crash, and what is expected in the future.

History of Volatility in the Global Stock Exchange

The recent stock market losses, while severe and brisk, are by no means the first and certainly not the worst that have occurred in history. Since ideas such as interconnected economies and even nations are relatively new concepts, to find the first major market crash one would only have to look back less than 400 years. This crash occurred in the Netherlands in 1637. Based on speculation, tulip prices in the country soared, leading many citizens to invest. But the prices eventually peaked and then plunged back to earth, causing many investors to lose everything.

Several more speculative bubbles grew and then burst over the ensuing years in economic powerhouses like Britain and France. The phenomenon would reach a head however, with the stock market crash in 1929 which ultimately led to the Great Depression. This stock market crash, like the ones before it, was the result primarily of speculation, which had been fueled by massive economic growth within the American economy during the 1920s.

However, when the economy began to stagnate, investors initiated a mass sell-off which caused the market to plummet. This was followed by a run on banks so severe that thousands were forced to close. The effects of this collapse spread beyond the borders of the United States to Europe, due to both places’ reliance on the gold standard. The Great Depression would play a major role in the lead up to WWII and it was not until after the war that the global economy recovered.

Despite the devastation of the 1929 collapse, major market meltdowns would continue to take place. In 1987 the U.S. market lost over a fifth of its value in just one day, a day known as Black Monday. The oldest bank in England, Barings Bank, was forced to close due to speculation. Meanwhile in Japan, following a thirty year growth spurt, the market collapsed beginning in 1989 and has left the country in a prolonged state of malaise ever since.

The two most recent crashes both originated in the United States. The first was at the turn of the millennium–the dot-com bubble. The bubble had built upon the belief that the internet was ushering in a new type of economy, which was not subject to the same issues as the past. This led to a number of unwise investments in companies mired in debt or with no value. The crash began in 2000 and continued into 2002. The bursting of this particular bubble cost the NASDAQ 80 percent of its value and led to a recession.

The most recent crash began in 2008.  From its pre-recession peak until the market bottomed out 18 months later in 2009, the Dow lost more than 50 percent of its value. This collapse was triggered by sub-prime mortgages, but spread to other industries such as automotives and was prolonged due to other connected issues globally, including the debt crisis in Europe. The economy was only saved and confidence only tentatively restored through massive bailouts.  The video below explains the 2008 crisis and the root of many of the stock market crashes:

Reasons for the Recent Crash

Like other crashes before it, the current crash is the result of a number of factors which have combined to cause speculation and panic on a global scale.

China

At the center of the most recent stock market crash is China. China had already been dealing with a declining market since at least June of this year. On June 12 the Chinese government stepped in to fill the void left by a bubble, which had been created by Chinese citizens investing money they did not have. While the government tried a variety of stop-gap measures, these appear to have had little effect. Compounding this problem more was China’s slowing growth. In fact, many of those who invested did so based on the prolonged growth of China’s economy for the last 20 years.

Additionally, confidence in China from the outside also appears to be faltering. This comes as a result of several recent events. The most glaring is the government’s inability to handle this current stock crisis. Even after intervening and devaluing the currency in an effort to make borrowing money cheaper, the market has continued to fall. Other events as well, such as the fiasco with a chemical plant explosion and China’s dubiously reported economic figures have caused foreign investors to lose confidence.

Commodities

Another area directly impacted by China’s recent crash is the commodities market. Commodities are things such as oil, gold, and copper. Many emerging markets, such as Brazil and Turkey, relied on selling commodities in order to build up their economies. However, with China losing vast tracts of wealth daily in its stock market, it can no longer buy as many commodities as in the past. This has resulted in less demand, which means reduced commodity prices and subsequent losses in the emerging markets reliant on them.

United States

Another area feeling a market correction, a loss of 10 or more percent, was the United States. Along with the news about China’s falling market, was the fear of the interest rate hikes in September, which would make borrowing money more expensive. While the United States is not the economic engine it once was, nor the borrower of last resort, it is still the world’s largest economy and any sudden crash in experiences would reverberate worldwide with even greater force than China.

Other Countries

Aside from the United States and emerging markets like Brazil, other places around the world also felt the crunch from China’s continued market crash. This included places like Europe, whose combined market had its worst losses since at least 2011. This also includes countries closer to home near China, such as Japan and Australia, each of whom saw sharp losses in the immediate wake of China’s loss. The accompanying video provides a thorough overlook of the recent Chinese Stock Market crash:

After the Drop

So with all the recent fluctuations in the stock exchange it bears asking, what is next for the world’s markets? The answer is seemingly more of the same. In the U.S. the Dow plummeted 588 points first on Monday, then another 204 points Tuesday. However, on Wednesday and Thursday the market rallied, gaining over 1,000 points in two days. The rally means that, for the week, the market is actually up. In fact the surge on Wednesday and Thursday marks the largest gain in any two-day period in the history of the American stock market.

Around the world, other markets were also experiencing a rebound on Thursday. In Europe and Japan, the stock market rose following dramatic losses earlier in the week. Even in China, the market rose more than five percent, ending a week of losses. In fact, even with all the recent losses, China’s market is still up 43 percent from a year ago.

However, even with markets quickly rebounding, China’s stock market crash cannot just be dismissed. The recent collapse has certainly shaken faith globally, for those who viewed China as the number one growth engine for the future. Furthermore, if this is unfortunately true, there is really no one to take China’s place. Emerging markets, such as Brazil, are overly dependent on commodities, Japan is still stuck in stagnation and Europe, as China’s largest trading partner, is too interconnected, especially as it still recovers from the 2008 crisis.

This leaves the U.S. as the world’s steadying force. While U.S. markets rebounded on the back of news that the GDP grew 3.7 percent in the second quarter, up from the original estimate of 2.3, and that jobless claims continued to fall, that status remains shaky.

Certainly, everything is not perfect in the American economy either. Following the recent market correction and due to the tumultuous world economy, the Federal Reserve has said it will probably not raise interest rates after all. This means that money can still be borrowed cheaply, however it also reveals the fear of weakness in the U.S. and global economies. This weakness is especially troubling because unlike before, when interest rates could be slashed, that option is no longer available. The following video looks at the future of the economy:

Conclusion

There is a saying that goes, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The history of the global stock market can offer many examples that attest to the validity of this sentiment. Throughout its history, the market has repeatedly surged and crashed, like waves against a beach. The recent case of China is just one more example of this situation. Luckily in this case though, the losses seem temporary and appear to offer no long-term threat to the global economy.

Nevertheless, the danger remains. This is due to the persistent existence of rampant speculation which falsely builds up the value of any market. When a market is then faced with stagnation or a correction, investors panic and begin selling off their shares or running on banks for cash. This cycle has repeated itself time and time again and shows no sign of stopping despite the numerous examples of markets failures and warning signs. This most recent crash again offers the opportunity to learn and stop repeating the same mistakes which have plagued people and nations as long as markets have existed.

Resources

Vox: The Global Stock Market Crash, Explained

The Economist: The Causes and Consequences of China’s Market Crash

Reuters: Markets Rebound from China Slump, Strong U.S. Data Helps

The Bubble Bubble: Historic Stock Market Crashes, Bubbles & Financial Crises

History: The Great Depression

About News: Stock Market Crash of 2008

International Business Times: China Stock Market Crash Explained in 90 Sseconds

The Wall Street Journal: China to Flood Economy with Cash as Global Markets Lose Faith

USA Today: Stock Leaps

The Guardian: China’s “Black Monday” Sends Markets Reeling Across the Globe

CNN Money: Dow sets a 2-day Record, Finishes up 369 Points

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 Riding the Wave: The Tumultuous Global Stock Market 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.

Recent shifts in the Chinese stock market make America’s subprime mortgage fiasco look run-of-the-mill. From January 2014 to June of this year the market rose 150 percent, but since mid-June, the Shanghai Composite Index has lost more than 30 percent of its value. In fact, the recent slide was only slowed through direct intervention from the Chinese government. Following the Chinese market plunge, a number of opinions regarding what the crash means have been expressed. The debate ranges from fears of a full-scale, 1920s-era depression mixed with a housing bubble, to a simple market correction. Read on to learn about China’s market, what it actually means, as well as what impacts it has had on China and the world economy.

The Chinese Stock Market

History

The Chinese stock market, known as the Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE), was founded in 1990. The market is overseen by the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission, which is essentially a Chinese version of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. After its start, the SSE has risen above competing exchanges to become the dominant market in China. Its purpose, so far, has been to raise capital for companies, particularly those in the infrastructure and tech fields. The SSE’s current goal is to transform Shanghai into a leading financial center on par with New York and London.

Volatility

While the SSE’s recent crash has garnered headlines, it followed a huge upswing, meaning that despite the recent plunge in stock prices, the market is actually up this year. To accurately discuss the volatility of the market it must be divided into two parts: a rise and fall.

First was the rise. Since the beginning of 2014 to June 2015 the market’s value rose by 150 percent. In the first five-and-a-half months of this year alone, the value rose by nearly 50 percent. The rise in China led to the increased importance of its financial industry, at the expense of traditional manufacturing powerhouses. This was all part of the government’s plan, which hoped to transition to a more financially driven economy, as growth rates slowed and eventually fell below the 10 percent glory days. However, China’s plan for its stock market has a taken a significant hit.

The rise, of course, is followed by a fall, and that fall has been dramatic. In a single two-week span, the value of the market fell by 25 percent. To put it another way, in just two days the market lost 11 percent of its value, which in the United States would translate to a 2,000 point drop in the DOW. These recent losses can be attributed to investors who were in highly leveraged positions, meaning they accumulated much more debt than the equity that they held, leading them to sell when margin calls began. A margin call happens when a broker demands that an investor, who used margin to pay for his investment, put up more money or collateral to cover a potential loss. In other words, people were buying shares on the SSE in an effort to get rich quick. However, when the market began collapsing, many were forced to sell in order to cover margin calls, which led to plummeting stock prices and marketwide panic.  The following video explains the fall:

A Deeper Meaning?

Government Response

So what does the recent crash mean for China? The Chinese government did not wait to find out. Following the collapse, the government reduced regulations on margin buying, halted new IPOs, and encouraged several other efforts aimed at increasing stock sales. Additionally, it stopped trading on most stocks and put a moratorium on selling in place for six months for all large investors. Finally, it threatened individuals and groups known as short sellers–parties that make money when a stock price declines.

The results of all these efforts have been less than encouraging. Following the temporary ban on selling, the market began falling even further. This is a result of the market being reopened to a natural state where investors can sell when an investment looks bad, as much of the Shanghai market looks right now.

Should we be worried about the collapse?

In the best case scenario, the collapse was all just the result of panicked investors with little experience; they saw the value of their investments grow rapidly and were anxious to cash out before anything bad happened. On the other hand, it is possible that the market was experiencing a bubble. A bubble occurs when something is overvalued because of continuous investing and not actual results, or because of the influx of a new product that projects future growth–think housing or tech in the United States.

Unfortunately, if the latter is true things could get worse before they get better. Because the Chinese government prevented the bubble from completely bursting, it could essentially be lingering there, waiting to burst when the regulations ease up. Even if this is not the case, the perception of a bubble could lower stock prices and companies’ desire to invest. Corporations who invested, including foreign ones, are also barred from selling right now and this episode may make them less likely to invest in China going forward.

Currently, the final outcome is still unclear and opinions remain divided. Some companies, such as Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse, see China as a systemic bubble that can or will burst when the government removes its support. On the other hand, Goldman Sachs sees the recent plunge as a market correction, needed to reduce over-valued stock prices and push out the wrong type of investors.  The video below details the crash and the government’s reaction:

The Impact

Because China has the number two economy in the world, a stock market crash is likely to have an effect that will reverberate around the world. So, what exactly does the stock market crash mean?

China

It may be too soon to understand how the recent plunge will affect China’s economy in the long run. While the market lost nearly $3.5 trillion since mid-June, its value remains positive this year due to a massive upswing early on. It is also difficult to tell whether the recent volatility will continue or if the market will start to settle down.

What the crash shows most clearly, though, is the oversized role of the government in economics and the unclear nature of its actions. The government’s response, which involved a significant amount of intervention from regulators, may discourage future investment. That response and the apparent lack of regulatory coordination indicate that the Chinese government have many worrying that it will run into further challenges as it attempts to balance stability with a more market-driven system.

Worldwide

The international impact of the Chinese market collapse has been less noticeable than the effect on China itself. Since China remains relatively isolated from the global financial system, the effect of the losses has had little impact on other markets. In fact, the stock market crash in China had considerably less influence on the world economy than tiny Greece–simply because Greece was more plugged in.

The real significance, if anything, will come in the future. If China’s economy takes a nose dive it could mean less investment coming from the country as well as fewer opportunities to invest in its markets. Additionally, efforts to further incorporate China into the world system may be scuttled. The video below discusses the ramifications of the Chinese stock market crash:

Conclusion

Seeing the Chinese stock market lose 25 to 30 percent of its value in about a month is very unsettling, especially with the recent Greek crisis and the lingering memory of the United States’ 2008 meltdown. But it is important to note that despite all the panic, the Shanghai index remains positive this year.

The real impact of the crash focuses primarily on China itself. For the average investor,  the collapse could have wiped out a lifetime worth of income, and may be the first sign of a lingering bubble in the market. For China’s general population, the crash revealed, much like in developed nations, the growing gap between haves and have-nots. For the have-nots, the fiasco may also slow promised social reforms, which could further exacerbate the wealth gap.

Ultimately for China, the crash presents yet another crossroad. The stock market was supposed to be the avenue for future growth when the country’s manufacturing sector fizzles, as it did in the earlier Western model. But the crash raises doubt. If China ever truly wants to be a global economic actor or at least a regional one, it will have to learn to manage volatility without excessive intervention and control from the government.

Resources

Primary

Shanghai Stock Exchange: Brief Introduction

Additional

Business Insider: Goldman Sach’s on China’s Stock Market collapse

Fortune: China’s Wild Stock Market Ride in One Chart

Bloomberg View: China’s Tamed Stock Market Might Bite its Economy

The New York Times: Cooling of China’s Stock Market Dents Major Driver of Economic Growth

Business Insider: Here’s a Simple Explanation of Why Chinese Stock Markets are in Free Fall Right Now

Slate: China’s Stock Market is Falling Again

Business Insider: China Pays a Price to Avert Stock Market Crash

The Washington Times: No Worries about Impact of China Stock Market Crash on U.S. Economy Yet

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 A Crack in the Great Wall: Chinese Stock Market Takes a Tumble appeared first on Law Street.

America is dealing with a hacking crisis. It seems that every other day we are bombarded with the latest hacking stories from both the private and public sectors. We are told to be cautious with all of our online activity and to remember all uploaded material remains in cyberspace forever. Almost all of us personally know someone who has dealt with identity theft and all the hassles that ensue. Some of the biggest companies in the world with the means to access the most anti-hacking software available aren’t immune to the problem. Even the national government recently made headlines concerning Chinese cyber attacks. So what can be done? In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama addressed cybercrime. The Obama administration proposed new legislation and amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will these proposals better protect Americans from hackers?

Case Study: Ashley Madison

Just last week, a new team of hackers were at it again. People are already discreet about dating websites and apps. A level of anonymity is essential for a high volume of users. This is even truer when a dating website revolves around married men and women cheating. Ashley Madison’s slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.” Some may chalk it up to karma, but the invasion of privacy for these members is real.

The hackers call themselves “The Impact Team.” According to Brian Krebs, the blogger who initially reported the hack, they threatened to release stolen information unless the website shut down entirely. Apparently, the team gathered users’ nude photos, sexual fantasies, names, and credit card information. It also claims to have addresses from credit card transactions.

Members of the website can post basic information and use limited features without charge. The company rakes in money when members exchange messages, photographs, and gifts. The website even offers a feature to “collect gifts” for women to send and men to pay for later. The website also has a $19 deactivation fee. This happens to be one of the major qualms of the hacker team, who claim that information is never truly deleted from the website. The hackers’ manifesto published by Krebs stated, “Full Delete netted $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie…Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”

Ashley Madison boasts over 37 million members, making it the second largest dating website in the world, second to Match.com. Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, values itself at $1 billion and was looking to go public on the London market this year. Ashley Madison has done away with the deactivation fee, but has yet to comment on whether or not it will shut down.

Although the majority of people aren’t online dating in order to have an affair, the hack embodies everything scary about online interactions. Personal information and discreet activities on websites or social media applications can be made public in the blink of an eye. Just this past March, 3.5 million AdultFriendFinder users were hacked. The hackers exposed email addresses, usernames and passwords, birthdays, zip codes, and sexual preferences. Overall, the trend doesn’t look good.

Hacking Statistics

Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report

Verizon conducts an annual Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). The latest report shows that 96 percent of online security incidents fall into nine patterns: “miscellaneous errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person; crimeware (various malware aimed at gaining control of systems); insider/privilege misuse; physical theft/loss; web app attacks; denial-of-service attacks; cyberespionage; point-of-sale intrusions; and payment card skimmers.” The 2015 report investigates more than 2,100 data breaches and roughly 80,000 reported security incidents. Over 70 organizations around the world help contribute to the report.

The 2015 DBIA reports a $400 million loss from approximately 700 million compromised records in 61 countries. The report shows that in 70 percent of the cases where the hacker’s motivation is known, there is a secondary victim. This is exemplified in the Ashley Madison case. Although the hackers are targeting the owners of the company, the users are violated as well. And in 60 percent of cases, hackers are able to infiltrate a company in a matter of minutes. The time of discovery falls significantly below that level.

The method of tricking people into divulging their information, like credit card numbers, is still around but is a much less effective method. Now, phishing campaigns are a primary source of attacks. A hacker usually phishes by sending an email with malware, usually included as an attachment. Today 23 percent of recipients open these types of email and 11 percent open the attachments. For over two years, more than two-thirds of cyber-espionage included phishing.

In more uplifting news, malware on cellphones doesn’t even account for 1 percent of the problem. Mobile devices are not the preferred medium for data breaches. Only about 0.03 percent of cell phones contained malicious materials.

U.S. Companies Hacked

According to a study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the financial loss by cybercrime doubled from 2013 to 2014. Retailers lost approximately $8.6 billion in 2014 due to cyber crime. Furthermore, successful cyber attacks resulted in a $20.8 million loss in financial services, $14.5 million loss in the technology sector, and $12.7 million loss in the communications industries.

Last year was plagued by cyber attacks. In January, Target announced 70 million customers had contact information compromised, while 40 million customers had credit and debit card information compromised. In the same month, Neiman Marcus announced that 350,000 customers had credit card information stolen, resulting in fraudulent charges on 9,000 customers’ credits cards. In April, an AT&T worker hacked the system for two weeks and accessed personal information including social security numbers. In May, EBay asked all its customers to switch their passwords after a cyber attack accessed over 233 million EBay customers’ personal information. In August, over 60 UPS stores around the country were hacked, compromising financial data. The list continues…

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In order to combat these cyber attacks, Congress passed the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The act made accessing a protected computer a federal crime. Although it was initially established to protect government organizations and a few financial institutions, over the course of time, it eventually broadened. It was first amended in 1994 to allow private citizens to file civil suits against cyber attacks that resulted in loss or damages. It was again broadened in 1996 to encompass any computer used in interstate commerce. After 9/11, the Patriot Act amended the CFAA to permit the search and seizure of records from any Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Later in 2008, the CFAA was again amended to allow companies to file suits when the loss and/or damages did not surpass $5,000.

The CFAA has been subject to its fair share of criticism. Many believe the act to be too broad in scope. Opponents argue that computer policies are often “vague, confusing and arbitrary,” and breaking these policies shouldn’t be a federal violation. Institutions, like the Center for Democracy & Technology, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union all have advocate against the CFFA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. In a 2012 case, United States vs. Nosal, the court ruled that “a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.” The court argued that the law was not enacted to federally punish smaller crimes. However, a strong dissent left the issue controversial, if not unresolved. The definition of “exceeds authorized access” left ample room for a Supreme Court review. The crime only becomes a felony if it is executed for profit, the gained information is worth over $5,000, and/or the act is committed to further a state or federal crime.

The White House’s New Proposals

The Cyber Security Legislative Proposals aim to enhance cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, modernize law enforcement authorities to combat cyber crime with the appropriate tools and training, and streamline national data breach reporting requirements. Last December President Obama announced,

In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

A main target of the proposal is a number of amendments to the already-controversial CFAA. First, the proposal would increase the penalty for “circumventing technical access barriers,” i.e. hacking into a computer by sidestepping security or guessing another’s password. Violators under the current law risk a misdemeanor to a three-year felony. The proposal advocates punishment to start as a three-year felony and maximize as a ten-year felony.

Second, for contract-based crimes, the proposal would officially end the aforementioned circuit split. It states that breaking written policies would be a federal crime and officially defines “exceeds authorized access.” A person would exceed authorized access if he or she accesses information “for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner.” Technically, this would include using a work computer for personal activities like Facebook; however, the government would limit criminal liability by requiring the violation fall under one of three conditions: the breach happened on a government computer, the breach results in over $5,000 worth of information, or “if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime.” These changes, along with a variety of others, make up the administration’s proposal.

Conclusion

Whether these proposals will pass through Congress remains to be seen. Broadening the scope of hacking to allow more crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction has traditionally lacked support from the body. The proposals are controversial, with a lot of personal information and accessibility at stake. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the public if these proposals are enacted. Cyber crime is an ongoing problem that affects all citizens, regardless of demographics, and only seems to be exploding. If this isn’t the answer, then what is?

Resources

Primary

White House: Updated Administration Proposal

Additional

Verizon: The 2015 DBIR

CNN Money: Hackers threaten to release names from adultery website

The Heritage Foundation: Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014

Jolt Digest: United States vs. Nosal

Tech Target: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

The Washington Post: Obama’s proposed changes to the computer hacking statute

The White House: Securing Cyberspace

Verizon: Verizon 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report Finds Cyberthreats Are Increasing in Sophistication

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 Combatting Cyber Attacks: Will Congress Adopt Obama’s Plans? appeared first on Law Street.

So far, 2015 has been the year of law firm mergers. According to Altman Weil MergerLine, the first six months of 2015 saw the most half-year mergers ever, with 48. One of these mergers was the biggest ever, as global law firm Dentons merged with China’s largest law firm Dacheng to form the largest law firm in the world by attorney head count, with more than 6,500 lawyers in 50 countries.

Even so, law is one of the few industries in which the market is not monopolized by a few top firms. Last year, the 200 highest-grossing law firms in the world earned $115.2 billion, according to data collected by ALM Legal Intelligence, but the global law market is roughly a $600 billion industry. By comparison, the Big Four audit firms Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG audit 99 percent of the companies in the FTSE 100, and 96 percent of the companies in the FTSE 250 Index. As of December 2014, the top four wireless telecommunications carriers in the U.S. controlled approximately 70 percent of the market based on service revenues. The top 25 health insurance companies account for nearly two-thirds of market share.

Restrictive conflict of interest laws, coupled with the notion that law is a national, not international practice, have prevented the legal market from consolidating to the extreme degree of other industries. Furthermore, law firms do not benefit from economies of scale the way firms in other industries do. In fact, bigger firms spend more, not less, on overhead on a per lawyer basis, according to Altman Weil. Law firm strategist Alan Hodgart said that consolidation is happening around types of legal work, rather than across the industry as a whole. For example, only a select few firms can handle the largest M&A deals, but that group cannot get much smaller because eight firms are needed for every major transaction, he said.

When it comes to law firm mergers, bigger is not always better. Altman Weil outlines two questions every law firm should ask itself before considering a merger: first, will the economics of the combined firm be substantially better than the economics of each firm currently? Second, will the firm’s financial indicators improve?

Of the 200 top law firms Altman Weil surveyed in 2005, almost two thirds had merged within the previous two years, and 90 percent of firms indicated that their experience with the merger was “very successful,” or “successful.” So then, law firm mergers are a proven business technique to improve revenues. The challenge is in finding the right fit.

Dentons and Dacheng are still working out the kinks of their merger. Six months after the announcement, Dentons and Dacheng have yet to roll out a joint-name or a combined website. Some of the problems are straightforward: things like translating and standardizing over 4,000 Chinese lawyers’ biographies. Other problems are deeper, stemming from the incorporation of two vastly different legal cultures, which could prove harder than combining teams of engineers, scientists, or doctors. Then there are the radically different rules governing protection of client information and regulations in various industries. It will be interesting to see how the merger turns out, and whether it will positively or negatively affect the recent trend of law firm mergers.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firm Mergers: Good Idea or a Fruitless Endeavor? appeared first on Law Street.

Many countries have been victims of cyber attacks but may not realize it until long after the security breach occurred. In the recently revealed hack on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), it took authorities four months to even realize that the hack occurred. While it may still be too early to understand the exact scale of this attack, all evidence suggests that it is likely one of the largest security breaches in United States history. With news of recent security breaches finally reaching the public, many people are wondering if the government can adequately protect itself from future attacks.

“The United States of America is under attack,” warned Rep. Elijah Cummings at a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing earlier this month. Katherine Archueta, the director of OPM, faced harsh criticism at the hearing for failing to upgrade databases despite known security issues. An OPM audit carried out last November–shortly before the breach–concluded that several databases still did not meet federal security standards, a problem that was initially identified back in 2007. Authorities had knowledge of a “significant deficiency” in OPM security governance prior to the hack, yet failed to fix security problems that have existed for nearly seven years.

According to the New York Times, federal databases have not been updated with the latest protocols and defense systems that create more barriers for hackers to break through. In the case of the OPM breach, hackers were not subject to multi-factor authentication–meaning they were not required to use an access code to verify their identification. The OPM Inspector General was also unsure if the hacked social security numbers were encrypted. When asked why hackers were not subject to multi-factor authentication, Donna Seymour of OPM told the Times the following:

Installing such gear in the government’s ‘antiquated environment’ was difficult and very time consuming, and that her agency had to perform ‘triage’ to determine how to close the worst vulnerabilities.

The U.S. has been a victim of hacking before, but the recent OPM hack was different because the hackers accessed the Federal Employee Database, which allowed them to retrieve federal employee information dating all the way back to 1985. Recently, officials believe that (SF) 86 questionnaires, which all individuals applying for national security positions must fill out, may have also been compromised in yet another hack. Access to such forms could provide hackers with extremely intimate information about individuals with security clearance, and in the wrong hands could lead to blackmail.

Cybersecurity Experts believe China wanted this information to build a network of current and former government employee information to conduct future attacks. This shows the U.S. government’s inability to protect 14 million people’s personal information and keep Americans safe from cyber attacks. The hackers involved are believed to be a Chinese group, the same one responsible for hacking Anthem Insurance earlier this year.

Not only is the United States ill-equipped to prevent these attacks, it often does a poor job of responding to them after the fact. In response to the recent hack, OPM has notified four million current and former federal employees who may have had their personal information stolen and offered 18 months of free credit monitoring and $1 million in identity theft protection. But is that enough if identities are already compromised? Many federal employees do not believe so and took to commenting on OPM’s Facebook page to express their anger. Federal employees are demanding higher security standards and better responses from the agency because so many people’s personal information is at stake.

This is not the first time that the government failed to learn from past attacks. Back in April, officials revealed a cyber attack that penetrated the White House computers, reportedly tracing its origins to Russia. According to the White House, attackers managed to penetrate the unclassified system of White House computers giving them important details about the president’s schedule. Investigators believe the Russians used a tactic called “spear phishing,” where hackers pretend to be a friend or coworker and ask for account information. Authorities believe the OPM hackers used similar methods.

While officials believe the hack was not on behalf of the Chinese government, the government seems to be doing little to crack down on hackers within its borders. The United States indicted five senior Chinese officials last year for stealing trade secrets from computers of American companies and passing them on to Chinese competitors. In retaliation for the indictments, China said it suspended a working group on cyber-related matters, further preventing collaboration between the two countries.

With cybercrimes becoming more prevalent, strengthening government security by updating U.S. systems with the latest defense technology must be done to prevent future attacks. Government officials have knowledge of significant security weaknesses, yet little has been done to secure important systems. It is likely these attacks will continue in the future, and unless the United States is able to bring security measures in line with established standards, the government’s ability to protect itself will continue to falter.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can the Government Protect Itself from Cyber Attacks? appeared first on Law Street.

Flakka, or gravel as it is also known thanks to its composition of small crystals, is a new drug sweeping across the nation. The epidemic originated in South Florida in 2014 and now has been linked to many deaths, arrests, and overdoses throughout the country. The synthetic drug is first produced in China and sometimes Pakistan, before being shipped to the United States. From here, it is sold on the streets for a very low price as compared to other popular drugs with similar reactions, such as cocaine and bath salts, the latter of which infamously caused chaos a few years ago.

Deadly delusions: The drug flakka is growing in popularity http://t.co/HMbbZ7GS5M @DEANEWS pic.twitter.com/5lBVSaY5wo

— WORLD News Group (@WORLD_mag) June 10, 2015

What exactly is flakka? It is usually made from Alpha-PVP, which is a synthetic type of cathinone, a stimulant that is made from the Khat plant. This plant grows in the Middle East and Somalia, and its leaves are often chewed to achieve a slight high. The chemical cathinone can be so strong that it sometimes delivers harsher effects than crystal meth. Flakka is already very dangerous to take alone, but if a user were to take more than a single dose or to combine it with other drugs, then there could be disastrous results. It was also reported that this drug can be extra harmful because it doesn’t always arrive pure, and so it sometimes is laced with other deadly drugs, which would only intensify the effects on the user.

The use of flakka in the United States is strongest in South Florida, where it is believed to have first emerged. South Florida is sometimes known as a haven for drug users given how easy it is to access substances in this area since so many are imported there. Cases involving this powerful drug have also been reported in many other states, such as Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee. Flakka has reportedly led to 27 deaths in the past eight months alone in Broward County, Florida. There also three or four hospitalizations a day in this county because of the drug.

The name is derived from the Spanish term “la flaca,” which is slang for a beautiful, slender woman. Authorities believe that the drug is shipped by boat to South America and then it is brought to Florida through the Caribbean. Given Florida’s extensive coastline, authorities are having extreme difficulty trying to pinpoint where exactly the drug enters the country. Many law enforcement agencies have joined the search for flakka traffickers, dealers, and users.

Flakka can be taken in many different ways, including snorting, ingesting, smoking, injecting, or vaping it using electronic cigarettes. Experts say that the the slightest difference in the amount taken can lead to drastic results. Flakka can induce a wide variety of symptoms on its users, some of which can cause death or severe damage to the body, such as hyperthemia, which is why people often take off their clothes when they are high on the drug. It can also induce paranoia, making users think that they are being chased, or giving them the illusion that they have super strength. Doctors have also stated that it can cause irreparable brain damage or stroke-like symptoms. Some users have even suffered kidney failure and will likely have to be on dialysis for the rest of their lives.

This drug has been linked to a wide variety of odd arrests and brutal incidents throughout the country. NBC Miami has reported many different arrests related to flakka, such as one mom who made headlines for abandoning her one-year-old daughter after smoking it. Multiple instances of people running around naked claiming they were being chased have been reported, or there was the case of one man who tried to have sex with a tree after taking the drug. One man tried to break into a police department because he thought that the mob was after him, while another man was impaled by a fence when he tried to climb over it to get to the police precinct because he thought he was being chased.

This drug has proven to be incredibly dangerous and has taken the country by storm, as it has led to countless overdoses, a plethora of injuries, many bizarre crimes, and numerous deaths. It is cheap to buy compared to other narcotics, although it is so potent that it can induce an extreme level of insanity in its users shortly after being consumed. Educating the public on just how detrimental an effect this drug can have is the top priority of police and drug prevention agencies alike. Police in Florida have even begun dispensing flakka-detection kits to officers, sending drug-detection dogs to mail offices, and also training officers on how to look for signs of mania.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Introducing Flakka: The New Cocaine appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, United States officials revealed that they believe Chinese hackers were responsible for the May cyber attacks on U.S. federal agencies. The attacks compromised the personal information of more than four million current and former government workers. China responded by dismissing such accusations as “groundless” and “irresponsible,” stopping just short of ensuring that China does not condone cyber attacks. “We are very firm on this,” said China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei. This is just the latest incident in a back-and-forth saga between the U.S. and China when it comes to cyber crimes.

Lei’s statement may not have been completely truthful. In May 2014, Lei released a similar response to the Justice Department’s indictment of five Chinese hackers for cyber crimes against five U.S. companies and a labor union in the steel, solar, and nuclear-power industries. According to the Guardian, “China’s foreign ministry called the allegations preposterous and accused the U.S. of double standards.” But the accused in the 2014 case were members of China’s People’s Liberation Army. In other words, their attacks do represent China engaging the United States. It is evident that the U.S. must take a firm stand against China’s aggression. Nevertheless, there are numerous challenges and implications to consider on that front.

For one, China’s assertion that the U.S. resentment of Chinese attacks represents a double standard is justified. Edward Snowden’s release of NSA files unveiled a surveillance program that spanned numerous countries, including China. In March of last year, Snowden leaked another document exposing the NSA’s penetration into the networks of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies in search of evidence that the company was involved in espionage operations for Beijing. This complicates how far the U.S. can go to condemn China’s actions in the cyber sphere.

The potential costs of engaging China in cyber warfare are massive. Cyber attacks can threaten the control systems of dams, water-treatment plants, and power grids, compromise sensitive information stored on government networks, and access video surveillance cameras. Electronic door locks, elevators, and even life-sustaining medical devices are vulnerable to cyber attacks. While the U.S. rarely has to worry about war in its territory, in the cyber realm, physical boundaries are irrelevant. The statistics regarding the cost of cyber crimes are staggering. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the annual cost of cybercrime and economic espionage to the world economy at $375-575 billion. Telecommunications giant IBM claims that there were 1.5 million monitored cyber attacks in the United States in 2013 alone. In a “60 Minutes” interview, FBI Director James Comey said, “There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who’ve been hacked by the Chinese, and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked by the Chinese.”

Political action is fraught with challenges, too. China, with its massive population and rapidly developing economy, lends itself to lucrative opportunities for American corporations. Consequently, the Chinese and U.S. economies are closely intertwined. According to the CIA World Factbook, China ships 17 percent of its exports to the U.S. and is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bills, bonds, and notes. So, the government response to Chinese cyber attacks cannot deter China from doing business with American corporations. Germany’s cancellation of its longstanding contract with Verizon following Snowden’s NSA leaks serves as a cautionary tale, and the fact that most major Chinese corporations are government owned only further complicates the issue.

So, the U.S. government is left with few options. One thing it can do is encourage the development of cyber technology. The government should support programs such as the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge, a competition aimed towards creating an automated cyber defense system, and incentivize the best cyber experts to work with the government by providing resources and appropriate compensation.

More importantly, the government needs to send the message that attacks on American networks will not be tolerated. This could mean under-the-table threats of retaliation to avoid negative media attention. Fear of retaliation should deter Chinese attacks, and if attacks persist, the government can deny visas to Chinese citizens, limit military ties, or implement economic sanctions. It is important to keep the campaign low-key and ensure that economic sanctions do not incite an aggressive Chinese response.

Examples of the United States asserting itself following a breach of security are littered throughout history; the U.S. defeat of Japan following Pearl Harbor and the assassination of Osama bin Laden following 9/11 demonstrated that we are not afraid to track down and engage our enemies. It is time to assert our status as the world’s leading superpower once again.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Needs to Take a Firm Stand Against China on Cyber Attacks appeared first on Law Street.

There are a lot of different viewpoints on the role of the United States in the global arena. Is the country still as influential as it once was? Are other countries catching up? And what about globalization and the multilateral approach to global governing? Read on to learn about the history of the United States’ status as a superpower.

How did the United States become a superpower?

The United States’ pilgrimage toward becoming the world’s superpower started at the dawn of the 19th century. After the 1898 Treaty of Paris, it became a colonial power with overseas territories, including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and the Island of Guam. At that point in time, the United States could already be viewed as a great power or emerging superpower. After the two World Wars, France, Germany, Japan, and Great Britain were in decline due to immense economic hardships and military losses. At the same time, the United States and the Soviet Union were rising to power, but creating a dangerous rivalry for global dominance.

After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the world’s sole superpower. The world moved from bipolarity to unimultipolarity, meaning that one nation began to project its influence to other nations. During the next several decades, the United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, the global War on Terror was started, the Middle East broke into chaos, and Latin America was defined by multiple American interventions. All in all, many significant events have happened, but how did they influence America’s international standing?

Is the United States a superpower now?

If the United States is still a superpower and not in decline, it should maintain military, political, economic, cultural, and scientific superiority as to exercise global dominance.

In fact, the United States has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. As of 2012, American military expenditures accounted for 4.35 percent of its GDP, and 37 percent of global military spending. Even though the U.S. military spending decreased by six percent in 2012, American military expenditures still outnumber those of China and Russia. The U.S. spends approximately $600 billion a year on its military, more than many countries combined. It has military bases all over the word, numbering at least 1,000, while other nations generally have few military installations outside their territories. In addition, the American drone air fleet is able to reach almost anywhere without deploying ground troops or aircraft carriers.

Economic development has slowed and debt has risen, but the American economy is one of the most advanced in the world. According to the CIA Factbook, “the U.S. has the most technologically powerful economy in the world.” Even though its GDP is third to China and the European Union, America maintains its economic dominance when comparing Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Its GDP per capita is significantly higher than those of China and Russia, accounting for $54,800 in 2014. But, there are also some problems, including:

Stagnation of wages for lower-income families, inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, and sizable current account and budget deficits.

In addition, the United States has the second largest foreign debt, and its account balance is $385 billion in the red. Its unemployment rate is also rather high at 6.2 percent in 2014, which is more than China and  Russia.

On the bright side, the United States has the most impressive world trade profile. Only China and the European Union export more than the U.S., while no other country imports more. But most importantly, the U.S. stock market is still the base of global finance, and the U.S. dollar is the global currency. More than 80 percent of worldwide transactions and 87 percent of foreign market transactions are conducted in the U.S. dollar.

America also has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Ivy League Universities, and can be considered the cultural, educational, and technological hub. More people immigrate to the United States than to any other country, contributing to the economy and innovation.

According to Michael Beckley, Assistant Professor at Tufts University and a former research fellow at the International Security Program at Harvard University, the United States is not in decline, but quite the opposite–it’s thriving. In this view, globalization is attracting economic activity, reinforcing American power in the global arena.

Robert Kagan, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the United States, argues a slightly different viewpoint. He believes that the United States has never had its way in foreign affairs to start with. According to Kagan, the decline of the United States’ influence is a myth and an illusion:

Much of today’s impressions about declining American influence are based on a nostalgic fallacy: that there was once a time when the United States could shape the whole world to suit its desires.

Is the United States’ world influence declining?

It’s commonly believed that the United States is experiencing the decline of its global power. Christopher Layne, Distinguished Professor of International Affairs and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, argues that global power is shifting from West to East, leading to an American decline in influence and loss of global dominance.

Those who support the notion that America’s superpower status is fading often argue the following:

• Due to its policies in the Middle East and Latin America, America lost its soft power influence over other countries. The war in Iraq is widely considered a failure that exhausted the U.S. military and broke the bank, increasing the country’s debt and leading to even greater proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East.
• Starting from the period of decolonization, America portrayed itself as a protector of human rights and democratic values. Nevertheless, after 9/11, the United States widely used torture against suspected terrorists, who were confined in Guantanamo Bay and other “black sites.” Basically, the United States condemns other countries for violating human rights but abuses those principles itself. America didn’t sign various important international treaties. For example, while the majority of countries can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court (ICC) if their leaders commit certain international crimes, the United States cannot, suggesting double standards and tendency toward unilateral decision-making.
• At home, the state of permanent impasse in Congress is making it extremely difficult to make any progress in making decisions or reforming outdated and often counterproductive laws. In addition, racial inequality and poverty are on the rise, and infrastructure is deteriorating without proper investments.
• The U.S. economy still hasn’t fully recovered from the 2008 financial collapse, while other countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Turkey are becoming stronger in terms of their economies and militaries.

Some even compare the United States with the British Empire, referring to its collapse a century ago. But, at the very least, this viewpoint suggests that America has lost the favor of many countries. Meanwhile, China has reached the status of a great power, and globalization has become omnipresent.

Stephen Walt, Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, argues that “the real issue is whether developments at home and overseas are making it harder for the United States to exercise the kind of dominant influence that it did for much of the latter half of the 20th century.”

According to this view, the United States is not declining and is still one of the most powerful countries in the world, but its capacity to lead global order has been diminished due to the array of domestic and foreign policy failures. As the Cold War ended, international relations also changed, making it more difficult for the United States to exercise its influence in the world.

Further, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, argues in his book “Superpower: Three choices for America’s Role in the World” that the United States is still a global superpower. Watch the video below with Ian Bremmer to learn more about possible scenarios.

How will the future world order look?

As world affairs become more hectic and complex, with multiple players reaching regional influence and certain countries, such as China, steadily gaining more power in the global arena, the world is turning toward multipolarity. According to Global Trends 2030, compiled by the National Intelligence Council, the United States will lose its superpower status by 2030. Global networks and coalitions will run the show, and no single country will have superpower status. Interestingly, Asia is predicted to experience greater democratization, and the region itself is expected to become more influential in global affairs.

And what about China?

During the last several decades, many countries have improved their global standings due to economic growth and strategic foreign policy moves. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The balance of global economic power is shifting from the United States and Europe to a number of fast-growing and large developing countries.” Among those countries are China, India, and Brazil. Russia and the European Union are also influential in the global arena.

China is often invoked as the most likely competitor of the United States in terms of superpower status. A Pew Research Center public opinion survey found that an increasing number of Americans view China as the next global superpower. However, China is still seen as “not yet influential.” While China’s economy grows, its military is still lacking. Many Chinese are still impoverished, it has serious water and soil-pollution problems, and its Communist Party is highly stratified and rigid. China’s geopolitical position is another issue. Most of its neighbors are allies of the United States and strong global powers, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia. North Korea and Taiwan are also risk factors.

Conclusion

The United States is still enjoying its superpower status, but times are changing. Other countries are rising and America’s power may be waning. In order to preserve its global leadership, the United States should nurture global relationships and behave according to international law and its democratic principles and values. As the world is moving toward multipolarity, America should also make more friends, not enemies. It should be setting an example of global leadership and stay true to its principles without abusing its power.

Resources

Forbes: Why the U.S. Remains the World’s Unchallenged Superpower

RealClearWorld: Why China is Still No Super Power

USA Today: Intel Report Sees U.S. Losing Superpower Status by 2030

Time: These Are the Five Reasons Why the U.S. Remains the World’s Only Superpower

Washington Post: A Changing World Order?

BBC News: U.S. Superpower Status is Shaken

On Point: The Declining Superpower?

American Conservative: America’s Declining Superpower Philanthropy

Foreign Affairs: Whether or Not the U.S. is Declining is the Wrong Question

New Republic: Not Fade Away

Pew Research Center: China Seen Overtaking U.S. as Global Superpower

Congressional Research Service: Rising Economic Powers and the Global Economy: Trends and Issues for Congress

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the United States a Superpower in Decline? appeared first on Law Street.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

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 Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States found itself facing criticism from the international community in regards to concerns about its human rights record this week. The criticisms were levied during the U.S.’s second universal periodic review in front of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. Listed among the concerns that other nations presented about the U.S.’s human rights record included the American failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and the prevalence of sexual violence against Native American women. But one of the biggest focal points of the criticism was the culture of police violence and militarization, particularly against young black men, in the United States.

This is no surprise–during the recent flurry of media activity over the protests in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the Baltimore police, I came across a Washington Post article that posited “How Western media would cover Baltimore if it happened somewhere else.” While the writer of that piece, Karen Attiah, certainly wasn’t the only one I saw pose that question, I found her take particularly compelling, as she wrote it from the point of view of another nation’s media outlet. Take this passage for example:

Black Americans, a minority ethnic group, are killed by state security forces at a rate higher than the white majority population. Young, black American males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than white American males.

Sounds pretty bad when it’s phrased like that, doesn’t it?

The point is that if we, as Americans, saw coverage of the racial discrimination and police conduct in this country the way that we see coverage of human rights abuses in other nations, we would be appalled and outraged. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that we received some criticism at the United Nations review.

At the same time, it also didn’t surprise me that the response that many Americans had to the criticism has been less than graceful. The main complaints appear to be twofold–some are upset that we even allowed ourselves to be reviewed by the UNHRC, calling it “farcical.” In a very similar vein, there are complaints that during the United States’ presentation in front of the council, the Obama administration even admitted to having to work on some of the aforementioned issues. There was also anger over which nations criticized us, countries including Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia. Critics of the review have been very quick to point out that those nations have very long histories of horrible human rights abuses themselves.

That’s completely true. Human rights abuses in Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, and Russia, among many other nations, are apparent, horrendous, and deserve high levels of criticism and attention. But I don’t quite get how that fact invalidates concerns about human rights abuses in the United States. Two wrongs don’t make a right–just because another nation is committing a wrong, our wrong isn’t suddenly rendered right.

Moreover, what happened to being a good example? How can we demand that other nations be accountable for their human rights abuses when we can’t even talk about ours in an open forum with humility and respect? It’s not easy to admit that there’s a problem in this country when it comes to racism and police violence. But criticizing other countries for pointing it out certainly won’t do anything to fix it. Instead, we need to work together as a nation to combat these systemic problems, and become the very role model we purport to be.

—

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 United Nations Criticizes U.S. Over These Human Rights Issues appeared first on Law Street.

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

Origin of the Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

The Taiwan Strait Crises and Major Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Status of the Conflict

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

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

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

Society and Culture in Taiwan 

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

Prospects for Future

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

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

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

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

Additional

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

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

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

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

Brookings Institution: Thoughts on the Taiwan Relations Act 

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

Jasmine Shelton

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

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

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite China’s strong and consistent economic growth, there have been two areas that are clearly understood to be American-dominated spheres–military and finance. While America still holds a large lead over other countries in terms of military power–at least based on money spent–that other sphere of power may be waning. Although China has long been dismissed as lacking in infrastructure and innovation, that belief is likely about to change. With the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is throwing itself into the financial arena. Read on to learn about China’s latest push for superpower status that has the potential to change the global financial system that has been in place since WWII, and casts into question the future of who controls the world’s purse strings.

History of the Current System

The history of the modern financial system began in 1944. While WWII still raged, representatives from the Allied powers met to decide the future of the global financial system. The result of this was the Bretton Woods Agreement, named after the town in New Hampshire where the meeting was held.

Bretton Woods Agreement

This agreement essentially pegged global currencies to the U.S. dollar. Countries were required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S., buying up dollars if their currency was too low and printing more money if their currency’s value was too high. It was a basic concept of supply and demand, but with physical currency.

This, in effect, made the United States the preeminent global economic world power. It also relied on the relationship between U.S. dollars and gold, because the dollar itself was tied to a gold standard. However, the Bretton Woods system came crashing down in 1971 when the U.S. experienced something known as stagflation–when a country simultaneously sees a recession and inflation–and was forced to abandon the gold standard. In an unforeseen result, the rising demand for the dollar had made it more valuable even though its value was pegged to a certain amount of gold. The resulting disparity led to shortage and the need to scrap the existing system. Despite the end of the Bretton Woods system, two of its guarantor agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, survived and continue to this day.

The IMF

The IMF was created as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Its original purpose was to help countries adjust their balance of payments with regard to the dollar, which was the reserve currency. Once the gold standard was abandoned, the IMF offered members a variety of floating currency options, excluding pegging the value of currency to gold. Additionally, the 1970s saw the beginning of the Structural Adjustment Facilities, which are loans out of a trust fund offered by the IMF to countries. The IMF was instrumental in guiding a number of countries, particularly developing ones, through a series of crises including the oil shocks in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

World Bank

The World Bank was originally known as the International Bank for Reconstruction when it was created as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Initially, the bank was created to help with reconstruction in Europe, with its first loan going to France in 1947. However, over time and following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it has changed its focus to fighting poverty. The World Bank’s footprint has also expanded from a single office in Washington, D.C., to offices all over the world, and it is now made up of five different development institutions. Like the IMF, it has also tackled issues as they have arisen over the decades, such as social and environmental challenges.

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

Although the IMF and World Bank have survived for more than 70 years, they have faced extremely harsh criticism. The IMF has been criticized far and wide. Mostly the criticisms boil down to the conditions upon which the IMF grants loans. Namely, many people believe the IMF intervenes too much in a country’s operations by forcing it to meet arduous standards before it will be given a loan. The problem here is there is no one-size-fits-all way for countries to operate and the parameters the IMF sets are sometimes seen as more detrimental to a country than its existing financial situation. There are also accusations of supporting corrupt regimes and a lack of transparency.

The World Bank faces several of these same criticisms and more. On top of not taking into account individual local situations, the World Bank has also been criticized for enforcing a de facto Washington consensus along with the IMF. In other words, by controlling the money, the World Bank and IMF can force countries to do what Washington wants. Additionally, the World Bank and IMF have been accused of helping large corporations at the expense of poor and developing nations. In particular, the debt associated with the loans, has left many recipients mired in a perpetual state of debt and therefore beholden to the IMF and World Bank structure.

The video below offers a detailed explanation of Bretton Woods, the IMF, World Bank, and the criticisms they face.

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

With the existing state of finance the way it is, it comes as little surprise that China and other nations who do not agree with many American policies would seek to create their own institutions of last resort. This indeed is what China, India, and a number of other smaller countries now intend to do. This has led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment Bank, or AIIB. Although the details of the bank are still murky it will essentially be a clone of the World Bank.

Aside from differing with the U.S. over policy, China and other nations are also upset over representation within the World Bank and IMF. The way the system is currently set up, an American is traditionally in charge at the World Bank and a European at the IMF.

The video below explains what the AIIB is, what it means for the U.S., and how it will impact the existing system.

With Friends Like These

While it is not that shocking that a rising country like China desires its own system and to be free of the constraints placed upon it by the United States and its allies, several other countries that have been quick to sign up for the AIIB have been surprising. These nations included a number of traditional American allies including Germany, France, the U.K., and South Korea. Nevertheless, while it is still unclear what these countries hope to gain from membership, the fact that they would willingly flout American criticisms and join with China is certainly a diplomatic blow.

Progress on the AIIB

Whereas China’s new bank appears as a smack in the face to the U.S., there is still much to be decided. First of all, there was already an Asian Development Bank, so if anything the AIIB seems to be replacing that more than the World Bank or IMF. Additionally and most importantly, the AIIB has not actually been created yet, so all these defections and statements are just plans, not concrete actions. Furthermore, while countries were upset at and critical of the IMF and World Bank as being puppets of U.S. interest, this new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seemingly being designed specifically to make China its unquestioned leader. Thus it bears watching how long countries want to suffer under China’s yoke and if the grass really is much greener.

There are other projects in the works as well. The U.S. has a new trade proposal of its own for the Asian Pacific that would also aid in the development of infrastructure. The following video shows how the IMF and other groups plan to work with the AIIB in the future financial environment.

Conclusion

America’s position as the global hegemon seems increasingly to be challenged in every facet from sports to entertainment to now finance. For roughly 70 years America has been the guarantor of the world’s economy; however, that is beginning to change as revealed by its inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and through tests from other countries such as China. The U.S. therefore, may have to adjust to its new position in a world, where it wields less control and enjoys less prestige. The only lingering question then is not if this degradation of power will occur, but how will the U.S. respond to it?

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

Vox: How a Chinese Infrastructure Bank Turned into a Diplomatic Disaster for the United States

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

Financial Times: Superpowers Circle Each Other in Contest to Control Asia’s 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 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Threat to the Financial System? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

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 Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

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 India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

Following the recent fiasco at Sony, hacking has been catapulted squarely into the spotlight. But hackers are doing more than just delaying movie premieres–they are causing serious damage and have the capability to cause much more. Before we get too scared of these anonymous boogeymen, however, it is important to understand what hacking is and who the hackers are.

What are hackers and what do they do?

So, first of all, what is a hacker? While the answer to that question is very complicated, for clarity’s sake a succinct and clear explanation of a computer hacker and computer hacking is this:

Computer hackers are unauthorized users who break into computer systems in order to steal, change or destroy information, often by installing dangerous malware without your knowledge or consent.

This definition is of course limited, as hacking is not relegated solely to computers and is not always a negative thing. Below is a video that offers a fuller picture.

While not all hacking is negative, much of it is, and it is important to understand specifically what the intentions of many hackers are and how they operate. Hackers often lure their unsuspecting victims with bogus scams sent through emails or websites. Some hackers also prefer the approach of directly attacking a computer if it does not have the requisite protection in place, such as a firewall; however, while hacking may appear as simple as pressing a button in a movie, it is more complicated than that. More specifically, what a hacker does is infect another person’s computer with malicious software or malware. Once the unsuspecting user has activated the malware, either by clicking on a link or opening an email, his computer can then become infected with a virus. If a computer does become infected the hacker essentially has unlimited access to the operating system. This then enables him to have virtual control over the user’s computer and internet activity. Normally the hacker will try to maintain a low enough profile so the user is not alerted; in the meantime he will attempt to obtain sensitive information. Whatever way hackers choose to attack, they often try to steal things like passwords, account numbers, and means of identification such as a social security number.

The purpose behind all of this is nefarious; stealing an individual’s money, abusing their credit, or even turning a profit by selling the acquired information to a third party is often the end goal. Two prime examples of this are the major hack of Target’s credit card system in 2013 and the similar hack of EBay this year. Nonetheless, while hackers seem to have similar motives, the group is in fact quite heterogeneous and can vary from countries to individuals.

State Actors

The first type includes hackers utilized by a country’s government or military. In this way, hackers are used like other weapons such as tanks or missiles. In this regard, perhaps no country employs hackers and hacking more than China. According to a 2013 article from Bloomberg, China accounted for 41 percent of hacking assaults in 2012–four times that of the second place country on the list. While there’s no way to say definitively whether those hacks came from the Chinese government, the idea comes as no surprise to those familiar with the United States’ claims that China has long hacked American corporations in order to steal trade secrets and then passed them along to Chinese companies. For example, there were hacking accusations against China earlier this year by American corporate icons such as U.S. Steel and Alcoa.

However, the United States is far from an unwitting victim of these attacks. In fact the number two country from the same list of top hacking nations was the United States. In 2012, for example, ten percent of hacking attacks originated from within the United States. In addition, the United States military has increased the portion of its budget focused on cyber warfare. In 2015, the U.S. Cyber Command plans to spend $5.1 billion on cyber combat. The video below explains the threat of cyber warfare.

There is already evidence of suspected U.S. cyber warfare at work. Aside from unpublicized U.S. attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan, there’s the more notable example of the Stuxnet virus that infected the Iranian nuclear infrastructure and severely damaged its nuclear program. There is also the recent shutdown of North Korean internet access that many suspect was American retaliation for the suspected North Korean hack of Sony.

Along with the United States and China, other countries where hacking is a major weapon include Taiwan, Turkey, and Russia.

Non-State Actors

Indeed non-state actor hackers may pose an even bigger threat to global systems than government operations. One reason why is while government operations are generally strictly military or defensive in nature, non-state operations run the gamut.

Patriotic Hacking

One example is something known as patriotic hacking. In essence, these groups are self-appointed to represent a particular country and will respond in kind to any perceived slight against the nation they represent. One such group formed in China in response to the accidental bombing of a Chinese embassy in Belgrade by the United States during the war in Kosovo. Similar groups have also formed in many countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States.

An example of a patriotic hacker–or “red hacker” as they are known in China–is Wan Tao. Wan Tao hacked everything from the U.S. government to Japanese political email accounts. While it is believed they he was never explicitly ordered to do so, the hacker’s targeted attacks fell in line with Chinese Governmental actions. As if to emphasize the underlying nationalism in his attacks, Wan Tao even had a name for his group, the China Eagles.

Hacktivists

Another type of non-state hacking group is known as hacktivists, which are people who use both legal and illegal means to achieve some political goal. Perhaps the best example is the group known collectively as Anonymous. Known for dawning the Guy Fawkes mask, Anonymous has been involved in hacking cases related to social issues ranging from the Occupy Wall Street movement to the shooting death of Michael Brown that set off the protests in Ferguson, Missouri. A more expansive definition of hacktivism is provided in the video below.

Other Non-State Actors

There are countless other non-state hacking groups at play today. One example is the massive hack of JP Morgan Chase in October 2014. In this case, the personal information of 83 million bank customers was stolen.  While Chase was quick to deny any information such as account numbers was taken, experts in the field remain more skeptical.  Regardless of what exactly was stolen, the culprits were again believed to be Russian hackers who stole personal information with the intent to sell it or profit off of it through other means such as fraud. There is also the persistent fear of terrorist hackers, although little has yet to come of this.

Putting Up a Firewall

While governments and individuals swarm to the attack there are also efforts to fight back against hackers, and like hackers and hacking these efforts take many forms. At the highest level are government efforts like those of the United States government. Specifically, as touched upon earlier, the United States has created a cyber command capable of launching retaliatory strikes against its enemies through cyber space if the U.S. were attacked. In essence then the United States is creating a deterrent through cyber space much like it already has through both conventional and nuclear means.

There are also altruistic attempts such as the ones being undertaken by organizations like I Am the Cavalry, which allows researchers to share their findings and help improve the security of four major sectors: medical devices, automobiles, home services, and public infrastructure.

In addition, there are more classical capitalist efforts employed by corporations. Several major corporations such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are actively courting hackers, often holding competitions with prizes like lucrative job offers. The goal of this approach is to pick up where traditional IT efforts leave off. Traditional efforts are geared at creating defensive measures so hackers cannot break into a system; however, this new approach utilizes hackers themselves specifically because they have the opposite mindset and are looking for the vulnerabilities to attack. By harnessing hackers’ aggressive skill sets and playing off their competitive mentalities these companies and many more are, in essence, using hackers to prevent hacking.

Conclusion

As the world becomes more digital and connected the threat of hacking will increase. In the future everything from cars to even toasters can and will be vulnerable to hacking and misuse. Furthermore, this threat will not necessarily come from other countries, but also non-state actors and even individuals. The motivations and allegiances of these people and groups vary widely and make the problem infinitely more complex.

Nonetheless, while efforts to prevent hacking can seem hopeless, like trying to keep a ship with a million leaks afloat, all is not lost. Indeed there are already efforts underway to fight back, which vary as much as those of the hackers themselves. As history has shown, no ship is unsinkable. Thus hacking is always likely to be a problem and an increasingly dangerous one; however, it can also offer an avenue for improvement and a channel to voice social concerns. While hacking may be the next great threat, like previous scourges it may also present unique opportunities for change and improvement for society as a whole.

Resources

Primary

Center for A New American Security: Non-State Actors and Cyber Conflict

Additional

Bloomberg: Top Ten Hacking Countries

CNN World: North Korea Denies Sony hack

Forbes: The Top 5 Most Brutal Cyber Attacks of 2014

Time: Here’s What Chinese Hackers Actually Stole From U.S. Companies

Time: China’s Red Hackers

WebRoot: Computer Hackers and Predators

Bloomberg Business Week: Target Missed Alarms

Washington Times: Cyber Command Investment Ensures Hackers Targeting US Face Retribution

The New York Times: North Korea Loses its LInk to the Internet

New York Post : Hackers Steal 83 Million Chase Customers’ Info

Mashable: Hacktivism

International Business Times: What is Anonymous?

CDR Global Inc: Hacking for Good

Guardian: There are real and present dangers around the internet of things

I Am the Cavalry: Homepage

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 Hacking: The New Kind of Warfare appeared first on Law Street.

As the saying goes, what was once old will eventually become new again. It is not surprising then that three years after the United States–the world leader in space exploration–ended its shuttle program and in essence shuttered its space program altogether, the nation is poised to begin anew with the unveiling of its new rocket system. This time around the United States will be joined in space by an ever larger group of nations and space agencies hailing from Russia, India, China, Japan, and various European nations, just to name a few. Space exploration is also undertaken by private groups that hope to emulate national space agencies or carve out their own niches in space tourism. In short then, space exploration appears to be experiencing a renaissance. Nevertheless, in order to boldly go where no man has gone before first it is necessary to understand where we began, where we are, and what’s next on the launch pad.

Space Exploration History in Brief

The space race initially kicked off in 1957 when the Soviet Union became the first nation in the world to successfully launch a satellite, Sputnik, into orbit. The United States followed suit less than two months later with its own satellite, Explorer 1. In 1961 the race went to the next level when cosmonaut Yuri Gurgen became the first person in space. Once again the Americans were in close pursuit sending their first astronaut, Alan Shepard, into space less than one month later. The competition between the two nations continued to intensify culminating in the first lunar landing by the United States in 1969. Watch the video below for more information about the space race.

While the Soviets and eventually the Russians continued to use various models of the Soyuz rockets, beginning in 1981 the United States launched the first shuttle mission, the world’s first reusable spacecraft. Over the course of the next thirty years the United States conducted 135 missions with the space shuttle including everything from transporting parts of the international space station and satellites to conducting experiments. The space shuttle program itself came to an end in 2011. Since the original race between the two countries, space has opened up to a larger number of entries.

In fact most countries have a space program of some sort; however, very few still have anything close to the capabilities of the American or Russian programs. Even today more than fifty years after the first manned space flight only three countries have proven that they possess the ability to put a human into space: the United States, Russia, and China. Furthermore, China only relatively recently acquired the capacity to send humans to space, which it did with its first manned space mission in 2003. In fact even sending an object into space remains an elusive goal, and the list grows only slightly longer–nine–when it includes the number of countries capable of launching objects into orbit. However, there is more to space exploration than manned flight and as recent events suggest space exploration is intensifying.

Where We Stand Now

Government Efforts

When the United States space shuttle program ended in 2011 it seemed to signal the end of an era as more than 40 years after landing a man on the moon the driving force for space exploration was given up in order to focus on more terrestrial concerns, like budgets. Nonetheless, in the past few months the tide has seemed to signal a turn.

On November 12, 2014 scientists from the European Space Agency successfully landed the first ever object on a comet, completing a ten-year mission. Coupled with this success is the scheduled launch of the first Orion Rocket by NASA on December 4. This launch signifies more than just the United States reentering the space race, but also an ambitious plan that one day hopes to culminate in bringing people to near earth asteroids and even Mars. The video below details the Orion space program to come.

Coupled with these efforts is the continued work by other nations, such as Russia, which the United States has relied on heavily for resupplying the International Space Agency since the U.S. terminated its program. Another is China, which recently completed work on a new launch pad and during one week in October had three separate launches. India successfully landed a rover on Mars, becoming the first Asian country to do so. As these and even more examples show space exploration efforts by governments are in full swing, commercial enterprises are also taking an ever increasing interest in space as well.

Commercial Space Race

Along with government efforts, corporations and private individuals have increasingly been competing to stake their own claim to space. The two most successful so far are SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. Both of these companies have already received multi-billion dollar contracts from NASA for cargo flights to the International Space Station. SpaceX is seeking to go even further by establishing a reusable rocket required to travel to and colonize Mars.

Along a slightly lower trajectory Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic are aiming for a different market. Instead of ferrying supplies and establishing colonies, Branson is attempting to turn space flight into the ultimate consumer experience. Branson, along with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, is attempting to develop a ship that for $250,000 per person will take people into low-earth orbit. The video below gives a peek into private space exploration.

Setbacks

While government and private efforts for space exploration ramp up and meet with new success, there is also a significant price to pay. First off this price can be physical, as recent accidents have shown. On October 29 an Orbital Sciences rocket intended to resupply the International Space Station exploded seconds after takeoff above its launch site in Virginia. Not only did this highlight NASA’s current reliance on outsourcing its space flights and on using Russian equipment, it also brought into question the use of private space companies for missions.

This question was only further exacerbated mere days later when Space Ship Two, the craft Branson hoped to use in commercial space flight, crashed in the Mojave Desert killing its pilot. As these two crashes show, setbacks in space travel are common, expensive, and even deadly.

The second major concern with space exploration is also physical; this time, however, that is with regard to a physical budget. In 2013 the United States spent about $40 billion on all space-related activities. This number seems very large compared to the second highest spending country, China, at $11 billion; however, of the 40 billion around only 18 billion was allocated to NASA. Even if the entire allotment had gone to the space agency it is still just a small portion of the overall US budget. The reduced and insufficient funding that NASA has to operate with has forced it to do much of the outsourcing it is criticized for when commercial crashes do occur. Thus while space exploration enjoys a second wind it is continuously in danger of being underfunded and will be riddled with costly setbacks that the public may not have the stomach to suffer.

Conclusion

More than 50 years ago President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University in which he extolled why the United States was going to the moon. As he said so eloquently then:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

These were powerful and prophetic words for a generational change that nearly tore the country apart. But what didn’t kill the United States then only made it–and the rest of the world–stronger too. Now in 2014 we find ourselves in similar conditions, overrun with uncertainty. At moments like these as the president alluded to it is easy to hide and not embrace change. As the recent uptick in space exploration has shown, there are many governments, groups, and even individuals ready to answer the challenge. Through the continued collaboration of these characters perhaps it will be possible to travel to infinity and beyond.

Resources

Primary

CRS Report for Congress: China’s Space Program: An Overview

Additional

Christian Science Monitor: Five Groups Making Private Space Flight A Reality

Windows to the Universe: A History of Manned Space Missions

Chartsbin: Countries Capable of Manned Space Flight

Space Answers: How Many Countries Have Rockets Capable of Reaching Space?

History Place: John F. Kennedy

Guardian: SpaceShip Two Crash Casts Doubt on Space Tourism Project, Says Branson

Guardian: Antares Rocket on ISS Resupply Mission Explodes Seconds After Launch

Diplomat: India’s Impressive Space Program

Space Flight Now: China Launches Third Space Mission in a Week

NBC: Testing NASA: How Space Exploration Will Work in the Orion Era

Discovery News: Philae May Have Grazed a Crater and Tumbled over Comet

English Club: First Satellite Launched Into Space

Space: Explorer 1: The First U.S. Satellite

Astronomy Today: Space Shuttle: The First Reusable Spacecraft

RT: $40 Billion: U.S. Space Budget Still Exceeds Rest of World’s Combined

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 Space: The Final Frontier…Again! appeared first on Law Street.

At the recent Zhuhai Air Show, China unveiled a new stealth fighter jet that one day has the potential to rival the United States’ own F-35. This came just days before President Obama was to travel to China to meet with its leaders as part of the larger APEC summit. While the significance of the timing of this display is debatable, it unquestionably shows China is determined to steadily improve and modernize its military arsenal. The question that remains is why? Is China’s path aimed at some future point at which it will surpass the United States as the world’s pre-eminent world power, both economically and militarily? If the answer to this question is yes–or even if it is no–does this then make China a military threat to the United States?

China and the U.S.: Positions in the Global Hierarchy

It’s the Economy

To begin to answer this question it is necessary to start by looking at these countries’ economies and in particular their economic growth. There are an infinite number of economic measures available to argue which economy in the world is the strongest; however, one of the most traditional and commonly accepted is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this regard, America has enjoyed dominance for decades going all the way back to the end of World War II. Today even in a supposedly more multipolar world, the GDP of the US economy, nearly $17 trillion in 2013, dwarfs that of any other nation and almost doubles the second place country, China.

Nonetheless, while the United States enjoys the largest GDP its rate of growth is much smaller than China’s. Since 1978, when it moved from a centrally planned to a market based economy, China’s yearly GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent. The United States during this time has experienced annual growth rates of 2 to 3 percent.

This figure excludes many factors, notably the fact that as a larger economy it is harder for the U.S. to grow at a rate equal to that of China. This issue has actually started to affect China as well as its recent growth has slipped to the 7 to 8 percent range as it seeks to curb several glaring social issues. Moreover, while China’s economy is growing faster and one day may pass the U.S. economy based strictly on total GDP, the average GDP per person is much lower in China than the United States. Regardless of the metrics though, why is economic might so important in determining whether China is a military threat to the United States?

China and U.S.: Military Spending

The United States Spends More (A Lot More)

A successful economy often goes hand in hand with a powerful military. Such is the case in the United States. As has been well documented, military spending by the United States far surpasses that of any other country. In fact, the edge in military spending by the United States far outstrips its edge economically by any measure. In 2013 for example, the United States spent an estimated $619 billion on military expenditures. This is more than three times what the second-place country spent in that same time period.

That second country on the list is–you guessed it–China again. In 2013 China spent $171.4 billion itself on military expenditures. While the United States again is overwhelmingly outspending China, it is critical to look at the growth rates, not just the overall total. As China’s economy continues to grow, so does its potential military capability.

China is Spending More Lately

In 2013, the U.S. actually saw a significant decline in military spending as a result of not only the ending of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also due to the sequester. In contrast, China actually increased its budget in the same year between 7.4 and 10.7 percent. In 2014, it is reported that China will increase its budget again by an additional 12.2 percent. While this still does not make China equal to the United States, it suggests a desire by China to project its power further beyond its borders. The video below provides a more in-depth explanation.

China and U.S.: Their Relationship

Long and Intricate 

While China’s military capability is increasing this does not automatically make it a threat to the United States, instead it is also important to consider the relationship between the two nations. Historically this could be characterized best as complicated. The video below highlights the complex connection.

The United States has long had a relationship with China, almost from its inception. China was an important market following the Revolutionary War when it was shut out of many other places due to animosity emanating from England. American missionaries also flocked to China and Chinese immigrants came in waves to the United States and were instrumental in constructing the railway network, among other things. Things started going downhill, however, near the end of the nineteenth century during the rise of Imperialism worldwide. In 1882 the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was aimed at curbing Chinese immigration.

Additionally, in 1899 the U.S. provided men and weapons to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in which Chinese citizens attempted to expel foreigners who they viewed as exploitative of their country. The United States did advocate the Open Door Policy, initiated in the late nineteenth century, that prevented the literal break-up of China; however, the motive for that can be seen as greed as much as humanitarianism in that the U.S. wanted to keep China as an open market to which it had access.

The relationship improved again during the lead up to and for the duration of World War II as the United States provided supplies and men to China in its fight against Imperial Japan. Later during the conflict China also served as a launching point for American attacks against Japan. The bond the countries had hammered out during the war seemed to be set in stone when the United States worked to get China to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Once again however, the relationship frayed with the communist takeover of China and with Chinese soldiers actually engaging U.S. troops during the Korean War. At one point the situation was so bad that nuclear war seemed to be a possibility. Relations stayed frozen until President Nixon famously opened up dialogue between the two countries in the 1970s.

Since Nixon’s thawing the two nations have maintained a strong economic relationship. In 2014, China was the United States’ second most valuable trading partner and the United States was China’s top partner. The two sides also recently agreed for the first time to a major environmental pact that is scheduled to cap China’s emissions in 2030 and cut US emissions by 25 percent by 2025. Still though while the U.S. and China are working in concert, many issues remain between the two nations that could potentially lead to conflict, namely human rights abuses and continued Chinese attempts to steal American technological secrets.

Other Considerations

The Price of Friendship

While the complicated relationship between China and the United States may not make China a military threat, the relationship China has with its neighbors in Asia certainly has that potential. Currently China is attempting to exert its newfound power throughout the region. This has led to two separate crises in two separate seas. The one problem in both cases, with Japan in the East China Sea and several Asian countries in the South China Sea, is over control of the seas. Specifically it is over who controls the resources under those seas, particularly the large amount of oil. The video below gives a glimpse of what exactly the issue is.

The reason why all this could lead to China becoming a military threat is because the United States has defensive military treaties with both Taiwan and Japan. Thus if these two nations or others that also have military commitments from the United States were to come into direct physical conflict with China, the United States would be required to come to their aid militarily. The United States could always refuse to honor these obligations, but then that would lead to a loss of credibility.

End of the Pax Americana 

Such a loss of credibility may actually already have occurred. Specifically by failing to honor the security commitment to Ukraine and the failure to punish Syria for crossing Obama’s Red line against the use of chemical weapons, hostile countries may now have their doubts concerning American power, or at the very least its commitment.

Not only has this seemingly emboldened countries like Russia, it may also lead other countries with differing political goals such as China to determine the time is ripe for them to assert their own power as well, without the former fear of American retaliation. This may also signal the end of an unofficial era, defined as the Pax Americana or American Peace. During this period dating from the end of World War II, the United States was able to assert its global ambitions due to its military strength.

To Russia With Love

Another potential challenge to the system, crafted by the United States, comes in the form of China’s growing economic relationship with Russia, which has been both a long term and recent nemesis of the United States. While the U.S. and its European allies sanction Russia for its involvement in the unrest in Ukraine, China was agreeing to a $400 billion energy deal that could undermine the sanctions already in place.

China’s Nuclear Card

Even if China were not emboldened by a perceived American decline, it still has the potential to be a threat to the United States or any other state on this planet because of its nuclear stockpile. While China has long maintained its policy of no First Use concerning nuclear weapons, recent improvements in its arsenal may signal its intent to shrink the nuclear capability gap between the United States and itself.

Conclusion

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

Aside from all the spending and rhetoric, good and bad, many still believe that China cannot be a threat to the United States militarily for one major reason: China and the U.S. are each other’s most important trading partners. But this argument has been made before. In one such case it was argued that Germany and France, which prior to WWI were economically independent, would not go to war. This was proven wrong of course and the two sides soon engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Thus in time China could very possibly become a military threat to the United States with its quickly growing economy and military budget; however, the amount of dialogue and trade between the two countries could just as easily lead to a peaceful and prosperous relationship well into the future. For now only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Gross Domestic Product 2013

World Bank: China Overview

Census: Foreign Trade

Additional

Heritage Foundation: The Complicated History of US Relations with China

Trading Economics: Countries Spending the Most on the Military

CNN: Just How Good is China’s New Stealth Fighter

Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in US Military Spending

The New York Times: China Announces 12.2 % Increase in Military Budget

China Daily: Top 10 Trading Partners of the Chinese Mainland

Guardian: US and China Strike Deal on Carbon Cuts in Push For Global Climate Change Pact

World Affairs Journal: Conflicting Claims: China, Japan, Taiwan on Edge

Atlantic: The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable

National Interest: West Concerned about Russia and China Economic Ties

Diplomat: Could China’s Nuclear Strategy Evolve?

National Interest: Should America Fear China’s Nuclear Weapons

UCSD: Trading on Preconceptions

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 China as a Military Threat: What Does It Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

So this week in controversial t-shirt news, a market in the Philippines received a bit of backlash via Twitter over a top encouraging rape culture. Supermall, the major department store chain with several locations throughout the Philippines and China, promoted the offending item featuring the message “It’s not rape, it’s a snuggle with a struggle.”

In this case, I can’t really give Supermalls the benefit of the doubt. What’s even more bizarre about the product is that it was apparently featured in the little boys section of the store because you might as well get them to start disrespecting women as early as possible. There’s no way this could have been an oversight. Although I don’t know how aware Asian culture is regarding the topic of rape, the only excuse that I could begin to provide for Supermalls is that perhaps something got lost in translation. The word “rape” may not translate the same from Tagalog or Mandarin but I can’t see how “struggle” could mean anything other than something that implies difficulty, which is not a word that anyone would want to use to describe sexual encounters.

‘It’s not rape – it’s a snuggle with a struggle’: Store withdraws T-shirt after complaints http://t.co/jCnIn3jZt3 pic.twitter.com/gLMiAepsmI

— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) September 24, 2014

In response to all the Twitter backlash, Supermalls released the following statement:

Update on t-shirt statement. pic.twitter.com/cDTPamPC1e

— SM Supermalls (@smsupermalls) September 23, 2014

Why thank you, Supermalls as long as you’re sorry it makes it okay right?

What’s even more interesting is that Supermalls’ Twitter banner features a picture of a happy Filipino family with the statement “Everything’s Here for the Love of Lolo (Grandpa) and Lola (Grandma).” Because I’m sure wearing a shirt that promotes rape culture would make Lolo and Lola extremely proud.

Supermalls also apparently has its own foundation in which they “contribute to the welfare and well being of various communities,” according to its website.

While I’m not sure exactly how such a disturbing t-shirt came to be, the issue behind it only goes to further prove that many countries, including the United States, have a long way to go to erase the mindset of rape culture. The U.S. could learn from this incident in the Philippines and work toward spreading awareness about rape prevention while enacting laws that prevent such vile messages from being featured on advertisements and products.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial T-Shirt News: Store Sells Shirt Downplaying Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Many alarms have sounded over the last half century with regard to expanding population and potential consequences to planetary and human health. Recently, some have argued for the converse: population is actually on the verge of a decline, and this is in fact the true threat to our well being. So what is actually happening, what are the dangers, and what do we do about it?

In Outgrowing the Earth, Lester R. Brown argues that the problem is a combination of expanding populations, increasing demands, and decreasing agricultural productivity. In what he calls “The Japan Syndrome,” industrializing countries experience an increase in grain consumption, especially via indirect means such as meat, while simultaneously the land that can produce the grain is converted into industrial and residential space, thereby limiting the amount of grain the nation can produce.

An additional point herein, Brown argues, is that as average incomes rise, so does the overall desire to consume meat, the production of which is more grain and water intensive; there are economic and social identity factors tied into natural resource use. As a result, self sufficiency is lost as the country becomes heavily dependent on imports. Furthermore, globally pervasive damage to cropland quality by way of issues such as desertification, falling water tables, and rising temperatures exponentially contribute to the declining productivity of agricultural lands.

Desertification of previously arable land, courtesy of Bert van Dijk via Flickr

Brown proposes some solutions to maintain farming productivity, such as increased use of soybeans. This crop is nitrogen fixing, and therefore would be effectively paired with the nitrogen-hungry corn in a biennial rotation. This would result in sustained high yields without substantially depleting the nutrients of the soil. He also suggests a method of farming that does not involve tilling, which would decrease erosion. Some actions must be taken, Brown declares, as he is convinced that increasing population and development will result in “food insecurity [that] may soon eclipse terrorism as the overriding concern of national governments.”

Brown’s analysis focuses on the threats of population increase, with regard to food and water security. On the flip side, in The Empty Cradle, Philip Longman addresses threats of population decrease, particularly with regard to economics and capitalism. He feels that these things are fueled by ever increasing populations. A diminishing worker base would require “pushing more people into the workforce and getting more out of them everyday” in a system reminiscent of serfdom. He goes on to argue that entrepreneurship and innovation depend on the presence of many young people. Rather, partly as a result of the Baby Boom, the general population is aging and older people outnumber the young, straining the financial system due to Social Security and Medicare needs.

So who is correct? Brown paints a picture in which humanity is headed to destruction because it will grow too large to sustain itself, while Longman feels that it will fizzle out and collapse. In reality, some countries are experiencing declining populations, while others are rising. The trend may be nearing peak, to be followed by a general decline, but many of the problems in Longman’s assessment arise due to the spike resulting from aging Baby Boomers; once their demands as elders drop off, the situation might stabilize.

One point on which Brown and Longman agree is that one of the primary problems with population and access to natural resources is not necessarily shortage, but maldistribution. There are geographic regions and social classes that are well supplied, while, particularly due to political and social injustices, others decline into famine. The latter rightfully receives extensive media coverage, but consequently our perceptions as to the situation are skewed. Similarly, population geographies are not evenly distributed; more and more people are moving into the cities.

China’s population geographies (darker colors are more densely populated areas), courtesy of TastyCakes via Wikipedia

Looking at a map of the United States or China, one will see the populations very densely concentrated at the coasts, while land at the center remains sparsely populated. Whether populations in general are increasing or decreasing, urban populations are on the rise and sustaining them is a challenge.

The Fall 2013 issue of the NYU Alumni Magazine offered some theories regarding innovations in urbanization. The author of the headline article, “Earth Goes Urban,” views these dynamics not as an alarmist’s theme, but as “…a moment of enormous promise, an opportunity to actually spread the blessings of modernity while ushering in an era of sustainable, smart growth.” The author, Jennifer Bleyer, spoke to Neil Kleinman of the NYU Wagner public policy school, who discussed building innovation into the infrastructure. That is to say, rather than do things as they’ve always been done and face the consequences of change, accommodate for the inevitability of change so that it can be absorbed. This idea applies broadly to Longman’s concerns as well; he is afraid that the economic infrastructure, which is predicated on increasing populations, will suffer. Instead, we can make adjustments so that shifting population dynamics will still interact harmoniously with our financial and social needs.

One of the ways in which innovation can be included in infrastructure, Bleyer details, is with carefully calculated sprawl. Sprawl is one of the causes of Brown’s Japan Syndrome, consuming productive land with pavement and construction, while damaging ecosystems and reducing the health of the country. Shlomo Angel, a professor at NYU Wagner, explains that since growth is inevitable, we should prepare for it instead of trying to contain cities or let them grow haphazardly. By planning in advance where and in what manner a city will grow, we can reduce the negative impacts addressed by Brown, while producing a healthy and thriving urban center.

The Innovative Designs of Dubai, courtesy of Eugene Kaspersky via Flickr

It does not matter whether human population is increasing or decreasing; as long as we plan responsibly, we can answer either threat. Bleyer got it right when she called the search for answers an opportunity; it is not just about trying to save ourselves and reduce our impact, but by way of this quest we can actually thrive.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Moyan Brenn via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Urban Expansion and Population Pressures Strain Natural Resources appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil is hosting a major international party today and the United States is not invited. While Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — also known as the BRICS countries — socialize and chat each other up about world affairs, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines. But don’t worry — America doesn’t feel left out.

BRICS is the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, countries with prominent global influence and rapidly growing economies. South Africa most recently joined the group in 2010, whereas representatives from the other five began meeting in 2006. Economic experts agree on the importance of these nations’ expanding economies and the roles they will play in the future of global trade and finance.

The BRICS agenda is fascinating, but the issues that will be discussed, according to a panel of experts on the subject hosted by the Brookings Institute last week, are more pertinent to quickly growing global economies, not the already well-established U.S., which is exactly why the country isn’t feeling left out. At least not yet.

Under the glow of fluorescent lights and amid the aroma of free coffee (it always smells better this way, doesn’t it?), the five panelists discussed the upcoming conference in front of an audience ranging from eager youths to seasoned foreign policy experts.

Kenneth G. Lieberthal, an expert on China and author of an impressive 24 books, kicked off the discussion. He, along with the other panelists, explained that the major goal of the nations attending the summit will likely be to establish an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In simpler terms, these countries no longer wish to depend solely on the United States and its allies to take care of global financial dealings and monetary crises. The panelists speculated that China’s steady growth as a world power may provoke the other countries in BRICS to downgrade its status as a member of the group because it no longer has the same concerns about which the foundation of the group was based. This parallels the group’s concerns regarding the United States’ domination of world affairs. For now, however, China is still included in the upcoming Brazil summit.

Ken Lieberthal: the BRICS aim to democratize options for emerging markets thru own bank #BRICS2014. Will they succeed? Can they find it?

— Ashley Miller (@MillerAS) July 11, 2014

Each expert panelist represented a country’s specific agenda. Fiona Hill, a frequent commentator on Russian and Eurasian affairs, emphasized the importance of the BRICS summit for Vladimir Putin. After Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, an action that sparked great disapproval from a number of nations, the country was banished from the G8 summit. Hill thinks that Putin will take advantage of his invitation to the BRICS summit to reestablish Russia’s role as a world power. Hill suggested that nothing concrete will likely come of Russia attending BRICS — the summit is simply a means of “political theater” for Putin.

Tanvi Madan, the expert representative on India, touched on how the country does not agree with the United States’ idea of democracy and identifies more closely with the other countries attending BRICS. More specifically, India holds a long-standing pragmatic relationship with Russia. Madan said the BRICS summit will not affect India’s relationship with the United States. For India, the BRICS summit symbolizes India’s new voice. The summit enables India to express that it wants reform in a variety of institutions including issues, sanctionsm and sovereignty. The BRICS summit offers a way for India to form closer ties with the other countries attending.

Harold Trinkunas, an expert in Latin American politics currently studying Brazil’s emergence as a major power, spoke of Brazil as a key player in the upcoming BRICS summit. Now that the World Cup ended, Brazil passed the torch to Russia for the 2018 Cup and moved on to host the BRICS Summit, which starts today.

Sadly, South Africa was left out of the conversation. As the newest member to the group, it hasn’t yet established its own agenda for the summit. We expect to hear few details about South Africa in comparison to the other member countries.

So, why isn’t the United States concerned about BRICS’ desire to decrease their dependence on Western countries? The panelists agreed that BRICS’ wishes to create an alternative to the International Monetary Fund is not necessarily negative. As noted by Kenneth Lieberthal, the expert on Chinese affairs, the BRICS countries want to create a bank focusing on infrastructure loans. Creating an alternative to the World Bank would increase the capacity for big emerging markets to be less reliant on the United States and Europe. Theoretically, this would allow for greater financial democracy and a more efficient way for countries to solve individual financial crises.

As these alliances grow stronger, we will see if there’s any mortar in the BRICS. The United States isn’t too concerned about any of the potential outcomes from this agenda — but only time will tell.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) & Marisa Motosek (@marisaj44)

Featured image courtesy of [Natasha Paulmeno]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is There Any Mortar in These BRICS? appeared first on Law Street.

During the summer and fall of 2013, a drug called “Molly” started to make headlines. As a 20-something, I’d of course heard about it before, but in recent months, the term has become mainstream. In a stretch of a few weeks last summer, four deaths were blamed on overdoses of Molly, which is just the common name for MDMA.

Molly, or MDMA, is what is classified as a “designer drug,” meaning that it’s a drug not naturally occurring or produced, like marijuana. Instead, a designer drug is initially created in a lab, by experimenting on existing drugs or compounds.

Designer drugs are notoriously difficult to regulate and make illegal, simply because of chemistry. There are essentially limitless combinations of drugs that can be synthesized. Anytime a substance is specifically banned, it’s pretty easy to make a variant of that substance, or discover a new substance altogether. 

A man named Dr. David Caldicott founded a group called WENDINOS, an acronym for “Welsh Emerging Drugs & Identification of Novel Substances Project,” which catalogs and tests new drugs. There’s a similar organization in Australia, also founded by Caldicott and called, ACTINOS. There may be similar organizations in the United States, but if so, I was not able to find any. Most regulation and cataloging seems to come from the US government.

Caldicott described the problem with the evolution of designer drugs, stating, “I compare the phenomenon of illicit drug use to influenza. During the course of a year influenza changes slightly, which is why you get a new jab every year. But every 10 to 15 years we see a major shift.”

The other interesting thing about these designer drugs is that they’re often legal…at least for a short period of time. They can be developed much more quickly than laws can be passed to regulate them. The law does eventually catch up, to be sure, but it’s usually at least a few months or a year after the drug has seen some moderate use.

There’s also something to be said for the use of the internet in this, for lack of a better description, grey market. The internet has proliferated this market in two ways. First, it allows chemists and other designer drug marketers to share their information, experiments, tips, and successes. Once a chemical formula has been derived, it can be shared and made by anyone who has the same equipment.

The internet also allows substances to be sold on a virtual, unregulated international market. Mike Power, an investigative journalist with Medium, wrote a powerful piece about his experience with this market. He described how he was able to order a substance that wasn’t necessarily illegal in the UK from a Chinese chemical manufacturer. He gave a rather flimsy excuse for why he needed the chemicals, in fact, scientifically speaking, the excuse was blatantly false. But the Chinese company didn’t look into his reasoning, and a few weeks later sent him the chemically synthesized compound in powder form. If Power was a drug dealer, as opposed to a journalist, he could turn around and sell that drug for a big profit. And the entire thing would probably be legal.

What’s especially concerning about this whole thing is that we have no idea what these synthesized drugs could do in the long term. We know the long term effects of marijuana, cocaine, and any other mainstream drug. We even have some handle on the long term effects of abusing prescription drugs, such as Vicodin. But when these compounds are being created and changed out so quickly, there’s no real telling what they can do.

That’s incredibly scary. Many of the Molly-caused deaths this year are believed to be because of impure substances mixed in with the drugs. When you consider the willingness of young people to take Molly from their friends or from dealers without any certification of what they are putting in their body, it’s terrifying to imagine what these unregulated new drugs could do. But what can be done? As Power put it, “And here lies the problem. We can ban drugs. But we can’t ban chemistry, and we can’t ban medical research.”

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Derek Gavey via Flickr]

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 The Scary Side of Designer Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

Guiyang has created an eco-court, an eco-procuratorial bureau and an eco-public security branch that is included in all three arms of the judicial structure in order to promote ecological progress.

Guiyang, the capital of an underdeveloped inland province, is leading the way in ecologically protective judicial systems. The court was initially established in 2007 and was the first of its kind. Now there are over 130 environmental courts nationwide as pollution and other environmental issues are becoming more prominent.

“Setting up specialized ecological courts could break the limitations of administrative areas and reduce interference from various parties,” said Luo Guangqian, the environmental court’s presiding judge.

In the past five years, the court had decided 619 environmental cases involving water, land and air pollution, punishing 477 polluters. Among them were 13 major public interest environmental litigation cases, which account for half of such cases nationwide.

“For a long time, China has mainly relied on administrative measures to manage and supervise environmental affairs and curb pollution,” said national legislator Wang Qingxi, noting that judicial forces have been playing a relatively minor role in environmental protection.

[inhuanet.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [radiowood via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China creates judicial protection in a green push appeared first on Law Street.