Cold War – Law Street

Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam

Alec Siegel — Mon, 23 May 2016 21:03:49 +0000

"US Army Rocket" Courtesy of [Marco Cortese via Flickr]

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he 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 Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

Is the United States a Superpower in Decline?

Valeriya Metla — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:46:56 +0000

Image courtesy of [mr.throk via Flickr]

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.

The US and North Korea: The Relationship at the 38th Parallel

Michael Sliwinski — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:37:37 +0000

Image courtesy of [(stephan) via Flickr]

The United States and North Korea have had an acrimonious relationship for more than 60 years. America has not only invaded North Korea, but also maintains support for North Korea’s enemies as well as levies punitive sanctions. North Korea conversely has persistently agitated the United States with provocations, both against it and its allies in order to seek an amendment to the sanctions.

With all this in mind then, it is fair to explore how this relationship became so toxic. Certainly war couldn’t be the only factor as the United States now has working relationships with Japan, Germany, and even Vietnam following large-scale wars with each. The answer must lie somewhere else and thus it is important to explore the history of the relationship between the two nations and some of the major flash points.

History of Communist Korea and the Korean War

Although people have been living on the Korean peninsula where North and South Korea sit for thousands of years, North Korea in its current form is relatively new. Near the end of WWII in 1945, Soviet troops kicked out the occupying Japanese forces in the northern parts of Korea. The Americans forced out Japanese forces in the south. It was assumed that at some point the two Koreas would then become one, although exact dates and times were never set. One thing was clear though, the groups deciding the future of Korea did not really include the Koreans themselves, but rather the world’s major powers.

Originally the United States and the Soviet Union discussed creating a trusteeship in which the countries would only govern in Korea until Korea was ready to govern itself; however, when a provisional democratically elected Korean government proved ineffective, the Soviets rejected further efforts, leading the U.S. to appeal to the United Nations. The United Nations decreed there should be one government and the South followed through by electing a pro-democratic government. The Soviets rejected this election.

Instead, one year later, the North Korean Communist Party was created with Soviet-sponsored guidance. One of its leaders became the founder and eventual leader of North Korea two years later in 1948, when Kim Il-Sung declared the nation the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). In response to the communist overtones of the government established in the North, in 1950 South Korea declared its independence, leading to a North Korean invasion and the beginning of the Korean War.

Following the North’s invasion and thanks to the Soviet Union’s boycott of the United Nations, the United States was able to have the actions condemned and create a multinational force to come to the aid of the South. Aid was needed too, as the North Korean advance had almost completely overrun the entire peninsula when the American-led effort began to materialize. Led by George MacArthur, the Americans pushed the North Koreans out of the South entirely.

MacArthur wanted more, and thus aimed to push them all the way back to the Yalu River on the border of China. In response the North Koreans were assisted by Chinese soldiers, who despite taking heavy casualties pushed the American coalition back near the thirty-eighth parallel where the borders had been at the start. What followed was a stalemate that saw more action outside of Korea, where MacArthur was recalled after calling for an escalation to the conflict including the use of nuclear weapons against China. The conflict finally reached a ceasefire in 1953 following the election of President Eisenhower. The map below shows the progression of the war; the red represents North Korean forces, and the green South Korean forces.

Map Courtesy of Roke via Wikimedia

While the conflict technically ended in 1953 with the deaths of more than 50,000 Americans and over a million Koreans and Chinese, it is important to note that the war is not officially over. An armistice was indeed signed, but that only ended the conflict; technically the war is not over until a peace treaty is signed. Also interesting is that South Korea was not a signatory to the armistice. Regardless of the exact terms the war left the Korean peninsula divided into two very different nations. Watch the video below for a good overview of the war.

North Korea and the United States: Post-Korean War

The Immediate Aftermath

Despite its infrastructure being basically destroyed by U.S. bombing, coupled with the fact that it lost nearly 12 percent of its population, the North actually rebounded well following the war. This was due mostly to huge infusions of aid from both China and the Soviet Union. This assistance led to rapid industrialization through the rest of the 1950s and on through the 1960s, with North Korea being the more economically advanced Korea at the close of the decade.

Following this, however, the North Korean economy began to slow down as it started to exhaust its industrial capability and accrued massive debt in search of new technology from the West. While North Korea sputtered, the nation to the south took off. Since 1950, the economy of South Korea has grown by an average of seven percent, with only two years of negative growth during a crisis in the mid-nineties. The last year that North Korea’s GDP equaled that of the South was 1976, according to a study published by the CIA.

Unlike the North, the South’s economic rise was not predicated on heavy industry, but instead on international trade. Utilizing a well-educated workforce and a campaign of state intervention in which money was funneled into particular companies whose families were trusted by the government, known as chaebols, companies from the South such as Samsung were enabled to grow into multinational corporations capable of competing with any western firms. South Korea was also able to adapt in a time of turmoil, namely by overhauling its inept financial system which was exposed following the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998. Thus by the end of 2013, South Korea’s economy was the world’s fourteenth largest. Watch the video below for a comparison of the two economies.

South Korea has also been enabled by its political transformation. For roughly the first 40 years after independence, the South was ruled by strongmen. These leaders engaged in every measure of violent repression imaginable and in many ways mirrored their counterparts to the north. However, with the democratically elected Roh Tae-Woo in 1987, that began to change. Following him were two more democratically elected presidents who were not linked to the old regime, as Roh was. This marked a major turn toward liberalism for South Korea. Nonetheless, with the election of Park Geun-Hye, the daughter of one the most notorious South Korean authoritarian leaders, questions still remain.

North Korean leadership has been much more clear cut since the end of the war. Specifically, since the end of the Korean War the North has been ruled solely by the Kim family, who has created a cult of personality in North Korea in which they are portrayed as gods.

Assasinations and Attacks

While North Korea may have given up hopes for military conquest, at least temporarily, following the war it still tried to ensure its agenda by less direct means. This played out primarily though assassination attempts against South Korean political leadership, seen as puppets for a U.S. master. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s several assassination attempts were carried out on the president’s life, and while they all failed, one in 1974 led to the death of the first lady. In 1987 the North stepped up its efforts by bombing a South Korean Airliner, which garnered it a place on the list of the countries that support terrorism as designated by the United States. Since then North Korea has been even more overt, now occasionally actively attacking South Korean military units, and most importantly building and testing nuclear weapons.

The North Goes Nuclear

In 1985 North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Chief among the treaty’s goals is limiting the number of countries with nuclear weapons. In 1993, North Korea was accused of running a nuclear weapons program. In response, it threatened to leave the NPT and was only pacified in the following year when it was given aid in order to halt its program.

For the next eight years the North promised to halt its program in exchange for nuclear power plants built by the United States to provide electricity, as well as the loosening of sanctions and more aid. In 2002 it was revealed that North Korea had continued with its nuclear weapons program and by 2003 had withdrawn from the NPT. The next few years featured six-party talks in which North Korea tested increasingly long-range missiles and made threats in exchange for aid and other concessions. In 2007, North Korea finally confirmed its first test of a nuclear weapon. Since the test in 2007, North Korea has allegedly tested nuclear weapons twice more, while also continuing to make threats with the goal of attaining incentives such as aid and the easing of sanctions.

Much of this see-sawing has to do with North Korean leadership. Since the inception of the nation more than 60 years ago, North Korea has been ruled solely by one family, the Kims. Currently Kim Jung-Un is Supreme Leader following in the footsteps of his father, Kim Jung Il, and his grandfather, Kim Il-Sung. If there is any question about the power wielded by these men one only has to travel the streets of Pyongyang where portraits of them are everywhere and people flock daily to their birth places as a sign of deference to their greatness.

Potential Future Outcomes

While the world hopes for a breakthrough, the reality of any such event happening soon seems bleak. This begins and ends with the Kim dynasty; as long as this family is in charge there is unlikely to be any sudden liberalization. Each ruling Kim is perceived as the father of his people and also god, so it seems unlikely the people of North Korea would suddenly rise up and overthrow the government. The only group that could potentially topple Kim is his inner circle; as long as they are comfortable and worried for their own safety, which is likely following the execution of Kim’s own uncle last year, a coup seems unlikely. In addition, no matter how bad famine gets it is unlikely to have any impact on the great leader’s status.

U.S. vs. North Korea?

Like Iraq and Iran, North Korea was labeled by President Bush in 2003 as part of the axis of evil. Unlike Iraq, however, North Korea has a powerful ally in China, which has already shown a willingness to come to its aid, making North Korea an unlikely target of American invasion. China does not want to see North Korea fall because it creates a buffer between it and U.S.-backed South Korea, and also because the potential wave of refugees who would flood into China following the fall of North Korea could be very destabilizing.

North Korea has a big army and its people are indoctrinated into a cult that worships the Kim family, not conditions conducive for being greeted as liberators. The country also has nuclear weapons in some form. While its ability to hit the U.S. mainland remains in doubt, that would be a big risk for any American president to take without major provocation. The video below offers the potential outcome of North Korean-U.S. conflict.

Conclusion

As 2015 dawns, the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which divides the two Koreas and countless families, is still the most heavily armed border in the world. At any one time North Korea, the world’s fifth largest army by total numbers, has 75 percent of its 1.1 million member force stationed there. Across the line is an American contingent numbering as many as 37,000 men supported by the majority of the South’s 650,000 strong group. At any provocation these two sides could engage and the tenuous armistice signed more than 60 years ago could vanish.

All hope is not lost, however. As the Kaesong Industrial Complex–a complex in which South Korean companies are allowed to manufacture goods in the North–shows, there is still opportunity for change. For true change to occur in this relationship, North Korea would have to alter just about its entire society, which is unlikely. Additionally though, the United States must also change its attitude to the upper half of the hermit kingdom. As the Sony Hack, which quite possibly may not have been carried out by North Korean hackers but was attributed to them immediately, showed, the bad blood built up between these two nations has made it hard for any real dialogue to occur.

This is a real problem too, as dialogue is necessary to settle grievances. An example of the value of simply speaking to each other is recent attempts at normalcy between the United States and Cuba, which also seemed unfathomable before they began. While that situation was very different and required assistance from the Pope, change has to start somewhere.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: GDP Rankings

Additional

BBC: North Korea Profile

United States History: The Korean War

National Campaign to End the Korean War: Korean Peace Treaty Campaign

Country Studies: The Post-War Economy

New Jersey Government: Fact Sheet: the Korean War

Foreign Affairs: Six Markets to Watch South Korea

Guardian: Timeline

CNN: North Korea Nuclear Timeline Fast Facts

CNN: Witness

Daily News: Kim Jung Un

Economist: George Bush and axis of evil

Quora: Why Hasn’t the US tried to take down North Korea

CNN: North and South

Guardian: FBI Doubts

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 US and North Korea: The Relationship at the 38th Parallel appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. and Cuba: The Path to Normalized Relations

Michael Sliwinski — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:30:03 +0000

Image courtesy of [Day Donaldson via Flickr]

On December 17, 2014 following a prisoner exchange, President Obama outlined efforts being made to normalize relations with Cuba. The announcement was monumental as it signaled a major change in a policy dating back to the Cold War. It was also vague. What exactly did this mean and how will the Cuban American community take this? To answer these questions it is necessary to go back in time and look at the relationship between the United States and Cuba from the beginning, from before the embargo to present day.

History

It’s easy to imagine that the relationship between Cuba and the United States only began when Fidel Castro became the ruling dictator; however, the two nations shared a bond that is much older than that era. It can be argued that it goes all the way back to the 1860s when, after seceding from the Union, the Confederacy believed it would eventually conquer the small island of Cuba and incorporate it as one of its states. A more concrete beginning to the relationship, however, lies in the events following the American victory in the Spanish-American War.

After the end of that war, Spain ended its claim to Cuba. The United States granted Cuba its independence, but this came with two conditions: first, that the United States had the right to intervene in Cuban affairs; and second, that the U.S. would be granted a continuous lease for a naval base, which would become the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

While the United States has clearly exercised the second right, it also made use of the first. The U.S. intervened in Cuban affairs by frequently helping to crush rebellions in the first half of the twentieth century, despite brutal crackdowns on dissent, which was one of the reasons it allegedly wanted to fight Spain for Cuba’s independence in the first place. Aside from American government overtures, American businesses also invested heavily in Havana, turning it into a popular vacation getaway. Even the Mafia became involved in Cuba, using it as a conference center and investing there heavily themselves.

The Cuban revolution occurred in 1959, and Fidel Castro overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. The immediate aftermath did not foreshadow what was to come. In fact, in one of history’s odd turns of events, the United States quickly recognized Castro’s regime, and Castro himself came to visit Washington, D.C. just weeks after the successful coup.

The honeymoon phase, of course, did not last long. Along with Castro’s increasingly clear Communist leaning, he made efforts to nationalize private companies, including American ones, and impose heavy taxes on American goods, which served to sour the relationship. In response to heavy taxes on American goods, President Eisenhower in turn enacted trade restrictions allowing for only food and medical supplies to be shipped to the island. Outraged at what they deemed to be American imperialism, Cuban officials then increased trade with the Soviet Union. This proved to be the nail in the coffin; the United States severed all diplomatic ties and the permanent and infamous embargo was put into place in early 1962.

Sanctions & Embargo

The embargo itself both leveled economic sanctions on Cuba and restricted travel and commerce with the country for all people and companies under United States authority. The embargo was strengthened in 1963 with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which prohibited financial transactions with Cuba and outlawed the importation of Cuban-made goods. The embargo was further strengthened by two additional acts passed in the 1990s. According to these acts, the embargo could only be lifted if Cuba would:

Legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.

Since Cuba has not met these conditions yet the embargo has endured.

Diplomacy Under the Embargo

Since the enactment of the embargo, the two countries have been at strife, communicating only through Switzerland when necessary. Nevertheless, while the two nations were not talking they were still crossing each other’s paths. The action was greatest immediately following the embargo with the Bay of Pigs disaster and the Cuban Missile crisis, which nearly led to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

In the Bay of Pigs operation, 1,400 Cuban exiles who had been trained in Guatemala were to land at night and begin guerilla operations against the Castro regime with the additional aid of U.S. airstrikes. The invasion faltered immediately when the airstrikes missed their target and the invading force met much stiffer resistance than expected. In the end, downed U.S. pilots were taken hostage and nearly the entire invading group was forced to either fall back, surrender, or was killed.

That operation led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that situation, Cuba asked for and was to receive Soviet nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future American attacks. The United States learned of the planned installation of nuclear weapons and a standoff briefly ensued when Cuba was quarantined by American naval ships. Eventually the Soviets agreed publicly to remove the weapons if the United States promised not to invade Cuba; privately the U.S. also removed nuclear weapons it had in Turkey.

Since the 1960s, the relationship can best be characterized as a standoff with each side occasionally making an effort to proverbially poke its rival. On Cuba’s part this includes releasing thousands of criminals and mentally ill and sending them to the beaches of Florida as exiles. For the United States, this has meant continuing to turn the screws and ratcheting up the intensity of sanctions, even while Cuba suffers from hunger and a grossly underdeveloped infrastructure.

The video below outlines Cuba and U.S. relations since Castro’s takeover.

The Winds of Change

Despite nearly 60 years of animosity, the relationship between the two nations began to change again following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. As part of his original campaign platform, Obama had vowed to reduce restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives. Obama’s actions were two-fold: first, they allowed Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba to travel there freely, and they eliminated the cap on the amount of remittances people could send back. Secondly, people without family members in Cuba were also allowed to send capped remittances to the island, and could travel there with a license for educational or religious reasons. This also opened Cuba to companies that wished to provide cellular, television, and telephone services to the island.

Recent Developments

The last domino fell the day before the president made his speech on the path to normalization between Cuba and the United States when Alan Gross, an imprisoned USAID worker, was finally released and brought home to America in a prisoner exchange. The exchange was in part made possible through a dialogue brokered by Pope Francis who had invited the two sides to resolve their differences. Also, part of the agreement were pledges by both countries to open embassies in each other’s capitals. Additionally, the United States promised to further relax business and commercial travel restrictions with the island nation. Lastly, the U.S. has guaranteed to go even further by unfreezing bank accounts and agreeing to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror.

The video below explains what exactly the president plans to do.

Obstacles

There are still several potential obstacles to the establishment of full relations. First is the large Cuban-American voting bloc in Florida, a traditionally pivotal swing state. Many Cuban-Americans want to see the entire Castro family regime removed before relations are normalized; however, that may be changing–while a 1991 FIU poll reported that 87 percent of Cuban-Americans supported the embargo, by the time Obama was elected in 2008 the majority had moved the other way. Although this reversed course yet again, by 2014 the majority of Cuban-Americans polled were once more in favor of lifting the embargo. Support was especially strong among young people, with 90 percent in favor of reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. So, it’s difficult to tell conclusively what percentage of the Cuban-American population will be in favor of these more normalized relations.

Another obstacle is Cuba’s extremely poor human rights record. As mentioned earlier, one of the conditions for removing the embargo by the United States was that Cuba respect internationally recognized human rights. Cuba’s human rights record has remained dismal. In 2014, Human Rights Watch listed Cuba as “not free.” More specifically, in three indicators–freedom rating, civil liberties, and political rights–Cuba received scores of six and a half, six, and seven, respectively. The scale goes from one to seven, with seven being the worst. Clearly, if Cuba wants to lift the embargo and normalize relations with the U.S., improving its regard for human rights is something that needs a lot of work.

Most challenging for President Obama, however, is Congress. While the president can make some tweaks to the relationship himself, he needs Congress in order to abolish the embargo as it is codified into law. This will most likely prove especially difficult for a president who was not having much success dealing with Congress before Republicans won a majority in both the House and Senate in 2014; however, the political loyalties of Cuban-Americans themselves may alter the status quo.

Traditionally, Cuban-Americans have favored the Republican party; in 2002 according to a Pew poll, 64 percent favored Republicans. However, by 2014 only 47 percent favored Republicans and 44 percent now favored Democrats. This is partly a result of this demographic skewing younger, and the younger generation being overall more open to reconciliation. Whatever the reason may be, both parties now will likely work to secure this group’s loyalty. Thus, while the Republican Congress may be recalcitrant on many issues supported by the president, if it believes Cuban-Americans desire an end to the embargo and normalized Cuban relations with the United States, the prospect of that happening is much more likely. Congress may be especially eager to act if it means maintaining historical support from a key swing state supporter.

Potential Outcomes

While the Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. could gain as much as $1.2 billion annually from lifting the embargo on Cuba, the economic worth pales in comparison to other considerations. By finally lifting the embargo the United States could signal a major policy change from the Cold War tactics of years past and even the “democracy by force” doctrine that many people associate with the war in Iraq.

Furthermore, it could also signal to some of the United States’ other antagonists, namely Iran and North Korea, that there is another way dialogue can be established. It may even serve as a way to save face as the sanctions on both of those countries are also seemingly ineffective. Additionally, it may further add some lost luster to the United States’ image of being an international good guy and not a traditional Western imperialist. Specifically, for other developed critics of the United States such as Russia and China, this might remove some of their argument that the United States is hypocritical and has different policies for different countries based on its interests.

On a more personal level for President Obama, this could signal a foreign policy coup that seems needed after the debacle with the Syrian Red Line and ISIS. If the president is successful in this endeavor it might also secure an important voting bloc in a swing state for Democrats down the road. Of course it may also come back to bite the United States if Cuba doesn’t make any changes. It might make people worry yet again that the United States is weak and has no stomach for drawn out conflicts anymore, which could actually further embolden adversaries such as Iran and North Korea even more. Still, the potential to garner goodwill, end fruitless policies, and reassert the image of the United States as a haven for freedom seem to outweigh the bad and are also the most likely outcomes.

Conclusion

While many critics of normalizing relations with Cuba say that the president is essentially rewarding the country and prolonging the regime, their facts do not add up. Although Cuba certainly should be required to improve its human rights laws as part of any normalization, sanctions seemed to be ineffective. In today’s globalized world, countries cannot be shunned simply because their policies are not what we want them to be. This is especially relevant for nations such as Iran and North Korea that also draw Washington’s ire and are sanctioned accordingly for it. Rapprochement with Cuba therefore appears to have raised more questions than answers, but perhaps these questions are the key to an overall more successful foreign policy.