As Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro puts together plans to rework the country’s constitution, widespread protests have popped up across the South American nation. Most notably, a 24-hour general protest is planned for Thursday to show Maduro the national mood as it reaches a crucial crossroads. 

Maduro has never been particularly popular, but protest tactics have ramped up recently due to his plans to rewrite the 1999 constitution, removing some democratic principles. The first step is a July 30 vote for a “constituent assembly” that would modify the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

The overhaul would give Maduro new powers and potentially extend his term. Maduro’s term is set to end in 2019, but the assembly could vote to remove limits completely. After almost three years of conflict, many view this as Maduro’s final step in achieving a dictatorship.

According to an earlier survey, 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose changing the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier this week Maduro’s opposition organized a referendum as a sign of protest to show the government how they felt. The results were overwhelming: of the 7.6 million surveyed, 98 percent rejected the government’s plans and urged officials to uphold their democratic principles.

“People will be disappointed if they expect the government to react directly to the results [of the referendum] or change anything,” said Luis Vicente León, a political analyst and the director of the Datanalisis polling agency, told the Washington Post. “More than 7 million people participated actively in an act of civil disobedience and ignored the government’s allegations that it was an illegal one.” Officials from Maduro’s party–the Socialist Party–immediately dismissed those results as inflated due to some citizens allegedly voting twice, but never offered evidence to support that allegation. 

Anti-Maduro protesters have stuck by their values despite the consistent threat of violence against them. Just recently a gunmen fired outside a police station, killing one citizen while injuring four others, according to the Washington Post.  At least 92 people have been killed in three months of clashes between protesters, opposition, and police forces.

The distaste for Maduro’s regime began around 2014 when oil prices began to drop and the Venezuelan economy began to falter, according to the CIA Factbook. The economic crisis left millions of citizens impoverished and hungry. Many began to seek asylum; many of those who couldn’t leave became fierce opponents of Maduro.

Even President Donald Trump spoke out against Maduro. In the past Trump has praised dictatorial, powerful leaders like Vladamir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, but he came down hard against Maduro. Trump warned of economic sanctions if Maduro’s aims are realized and added that the Venezuelan leader is “bad leader who dreams of being a dictator,” according to Al-Jazeera. 

Still, Maduro vows that he will not change his course of action. He implored his opponents to “sit down to start a new round of dialogue” with his representatives, according to Al-Jazeera.

The 24-hour strike was organized by the Democratic Unity coalition and leaders say that they hope to bring the country’s operations to a standstill by urging businesses, restaurants, and workers nationwide to cease working. Those leading the opposition view the strike as a last-ditch effort to save their country from a looming dictatorship. They believe if they don’t succeed that Venezuela will have its democratic principles discarded and replaced by a dictatorial leader. 

Maduro was handpicked to run the nation by Hugo Chávez in 2013 and then elected later that year in a vote that drew praise from “Chavistas” and sorrow from opposition. So, there is some dispute over whether or not his election was legitimate. 

The coming weeks will decide the course of action that Venezuela’s future takes and will also dictate possible international reactions or interference. So far the issues in Venezuela have been overshadowed by larger world events, but if Maduro succeeds with his power grab, it may be time for international attention.

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 Massive Protests Planned Against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Law Street.

During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

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 Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Paraguay’s Senate recently took a step toward amending a constitutional rule that restricts presidents from holding more than one five-year term in office. President Horacio Cartes has long been pushing for the amendment and has formed a pluralistic coalition with some of his traditional political rivals.

Nonetheless, many in Paraguay’s Congress and a vast majority of the public oppose the amendment for fear that it might allow yet another dictatorship to take hold of the country. While unpopular, the amendment seems inevitable, though the political consequences of the change are unknown.

Of Paraguay’s 45 senators, 25 met for Tuesday’s charged special session in which they pushed through procedural changes that will make it easier to amend the constitution. President of the Senate Roberto Acevedo was not present at the meeting. Instead, a pro-Cartes senator took to the microphone, declared himself Senate President, and called for a vote.

By a show of hands, legislators lowered the number of votes needed before proposals could be put before Congress and restricted the Senate President’s power to strike down legislation. These procedural changes come seven months after the legislature successfully defeated a bill that would have ended the one-term limit.

As legislators met inside the El Cabildo, Paraguay’s congressional building, riot police mobilized outside and protesters amassed in the streets. Numerous politicians, including many from the president’s own Colorado Party, denounced the proposed amendment as well as the irregular means by which legislators have pursued the proposal.

Paraguay’s Catholic Bishops came out against the Senate’s vote, arguing it demonstrated an “absolute lack of consideration and respect for the democratic institution.” Though the clergymen urged Paraguayans to “reflect, calmly and reasonably, on what happened,” many fear the country might once again fall under dictatorial rule. This concern is justified considering Paraguay’s history with authoritarian rule.

A New Era of Dictatorship?

After regaining power from the Liberal Party in 1947, the Colorado Party ruled Paraguay as a one-party dictatorship for six decades. While opposition parties were technically legalized in 1962, Alfredo Stroessner led the party and country as a military dictator until 1989, when a faction of the Colorado Party staged a coup and implemented reforms.

In spite of these reforms, the right-wing party retained power for another two decades until Fernando Lugo won the presidency in 2008. Now, a Colorado president and the man who ended six decades of Colorado rule are working together to amend the constitution with the intention of facing off against one another in the 2018 elections.

The highly controversial battle does not fall along party lines. Supporters for the amendment include members from all three major parties. Pro-Cartes members of the right-wing Colorado Party have aligned with a faction of the center-right Liberal Party and the bulk of the center-left Frente Guasú party. Though this three-party coalition is working to pass the same constitutional amendment, their motivations differ.

The pro-Cartes faction of the Colorado Party hopes to see the current president re-elected. Some lawmakers in the Frente Guasú party want to amend the constitution so former President (and leader of Frente Guasú) Lugo can run against Cartes in 2018. Lugo was impeached in 2012, and under the current constitution, is barred from running again.

Despite its wide congressional support, the amendment is extremely unpopular among Paraguayans. A recent poll shows that 77 percent of Paraguayans oppose the amendment. Aside from the fact that many feel the government’s fixation with amending the constitution has distracted from more important issues, Paraguayans seem to recognize the term limit is intended to safeguard against the re-occurrence of a Stroessner-style regime.

Could Lugo Win Again?

Though the public overwhelmingly opposes the amendment, polls show that were the election held tomorrow, Lugo would win over 50 percent of the vote, while Cartes would win less than 12 percent. Lugo is the only candidate to defeat the Colorado Party in decades and remains popular with the electorate. Were Lugo to run in 2018, his win could potentially weaken the Colorado Party’s traditional hegemony and embolden voices opposed to the status quo.

While allowing Lugo to run again could help normalize the peaceful exchange of power between parties, the strength of the Colorado Party must not be underestimated. While Lugo won the presidency in 2008, he did not complete his term. A year before his term expired, Colorado and Liberal members of Congress formed a coalition and impeached Lugo. The conditions for his impeachment where somewhat dubious and many Latin American leaders condemned the decision. Unless Lugo’s Frente Guasú is able to secure a strong contingency in Congress, there is no guarantee that his prospective second term won’t end up like his first.

Recent developments seem to suggest a constitutional amendment allowing multiple terms is inevitable. While the amendment could see a popular opposition voice return to the highest office in the land, it may also reopen a door that was locked shut, bringing a new era of dictatorship to Paraguay.

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 Is Paraguay on the Verge of Becoming a Dictatorship? appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the U.S. sanctioned North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un for human rights abuses for the first time. There are already sanctions on the country for its nuclear activities, but this is a unique step since it names the dictator himself, as well as 10 other prominent figures, by name. These sanctions are seen as a stepping up of the United States’ efforts to control and isolate the Asian nation. Now North Korea has offered a denuclearization plan–if the U.S. agrees to its demands.

Only one day after the news about sanctions on Kim Jong-un, Pyongyang released terms for a deal. North Korean leaders want the U.S. and South Korea to give them information about American nuclear weapons in South Korea, pull out those weapons, and a guarantee from Washington that it will not use nuclear weapons against North Korea, reports news agency TASS, among other terms.

However, in the statement cited by TASS it also says that unless the U.S. agrees to these conditions, North Korea will continue to build up its nuclear forces—both in quality and quantity.

South Korea has welcomed the U.S. sanctions and hopes that they will raise international awareness of how serious North Korea’s human rights violations are.

South Korea welcomes first US sanctions against Kim Jong-un https://t.co/KiVbJH3bup #UFO4UBlogAsia

— UFO4U@NEWS (@UFO4U) July 7, 2016

The Human Rights Abuses

North Korea “continues to commit serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced labor, and torture,” said the State Department in a statement about the human rights sanctions.

It goes on to describe the political prison camps that are still in use in the country, holding family members and even children of those accused of crimes. The State Department estimates the number of prisoners to be between 80,000 and 120,000. Freedom of speech, media, expression, and religion are heavily restricted and guarded.

North Korean workers are often sent abroad to make money to send back to the homeland, in order to get around different sanctions, according to human rights groups cited by Huffington Post. These workers go to countries without much control over companies’ conditions, such as Poland or Russia. People work up to 70 hours a week without proper pay—most of the money is sent to the government—while their wives and children are held “hostage” in Pyongyang. If a worker defects, the family members are punished, or in a few extreme cases, killed.

What Do The Sanctions Mean?

The sanctions toward Kim Jong-un and the 10 other men are mostly symbolic, but mean that U.S. companies are prohibited from collaborating with any of the people on the list. U.S. companies can also not do any business with Kim Jong-un or any international companies that are under his control. Any assets belonging to Kim Jong-un in the U.S. will be frozen.

This could be the start of a wave of additional sanctions and have a worldwide effect, according to USA Today, since it would be risky for any international companies or banks to have anything to do with the individuals on the list. Hopefully it will push North Korea in the right direction. But analysts doubt it will have any effect on the leader, who just created a new State Affairs Commission that will take care of all national and foreign affairs. Who’s in charge of that? Kim Jong-un himself, of course.

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 North Korea Replies to U.S. Sanctions on Kim Jong-un appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorism is a global problem and has been an especially challenging issue for the Philippines. A nation with a long and complicated history with the United States, the Philippines plays an important role on the global stage. Read on to learn about the history of the Philippines, its relationship with the U.S., and the struggles it faces today.

History of the Philippines

The settlement of the island nation began as early as 30,000 years ago. It continued with waves of Malay immigrants and Chinese merchants. Islam was brought to the area in 1500, and as Islam spread, Christianity was also introduced.

Christianity was brought to the Philippines by the Spanish, who then spent the next two centuries conquering the nation and establishing colonial rule. This was ultimately challenged and the Spanish were temporarily defeated by the British in the late 1700s. While the Philippines was eventually returned to the Spanish, the mindset had changed and rebellions against colonial rule became more prevalent, especially among the ostracized Muslim communities. As a result, Spain slowly allowed the nation greater freedom, eventually allowing free trade and a form of quasi independence.

Despite increased freedom, resistance and nationalism continued to grow, led by native Filipino members of the clergy. This led to a series of revolts that Spain was able to put down until it entered war with the United States in 1898. The Spanish were defeated by the U.S. and subsequently relinquished control of the Philippines to the United States. The video below explores the history of the nation.

Relationship With the United States

Philippines: An American Colony

While some in the Philippines saw the Americans as liberators and fought alongside them against the Spanish, this viewpoint quickly changed. Although the Filipinos quickly attempted to assert their own independence and even elected a president, the Americans snuffed out any efforts toward immediate independence. This led to years of fighting between the two countries.

Americans eventually became the de facto new colonizers of the Philippines, with Filipinos supposedly being brought along the path toward independent self-government. The final path toward independence did begin in 1934 with the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Soon after, the Philippines saw the election of its first president, Manuel Quezon, and the approval of its constitution. This time these actions were also sanctioned by the United States. The American plan was to allow for a ten-year transition period before proclaiming the Philippines an independent nation; however, this was all quickly undone when the Japanese captured the Philippines during WWII. The nation was eventually freed from Japanese rule in 1945 and during the following year, 1946, finally gained its independence.

Philippines: After Independence

Although technically independent, the Philippines was still highly dependent on the U.S. for trade, and there were still numerous American military bases on the islands. These bases and other forms of American intervention would occasionally crop up as major issues for Filipinos for the rest of the century. There were also concerns over American support for President Marcos, a strongman who effectively ruled the country as a dictator for over 20 years.

A particular low point in the relationship came in 1991, when the U.S. was forced to abandon its military bases in the Philippines after the government refused to renew the leases. However, the threat of a rising China and the events of 9/11 caused the Philippines to again seek a closer partnership with the U.S.

In 1999, the two sides signed a Visiting Forces Agreement under which the two countries could engage in joint military exercises as long as no American bases were established and the U.S. maintained a non-combatant role.

Following 9/11, a rotating Joint-Operations Task Force was also created in the Philippines numbering approximately 600 soldiers. Its purpose was to help the country fight against Islamist extremist groups. While several of these groups were created worldwide to fight terrorism following 9/11, the Philippines, as a long-standing American ally, was an area of grave concern. Not only was there already an established Islamic insurgency in the south, but there were concerns over two terrorist groups, Abu Sayyef and Jemaah Islamiyah, that operate in the Philippines and have ties to other international terror organizations, including al-Qaeda.

Yet another agreement was signed in 2002, which permitted the U.S. to use the Philippines as a resupply center. The Philippines is a useful ally for the U.S. to have, especially when it comes to a sometimes contentious American relationship with China.

In addition, the U.S. and the Philippines have signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allowed greater access by U.S. personnel to Filipino military bases, the construction of new U.S. facilities, and positioning of defensive equipment. In 2014, while military cooperation was still ongoing, it was announced that the Joint-Operations Task Force would be dissolved as progress had been made. The video below documents U.S. efforts in the Philippines.

What issues are the Philippines facing now?

While many of the recent collaborative agreements between the U.S. and Filipino movements have been part of the United States’ overall involvement in Asia, the relationship between the two sides truly regained strength after 9/11. As terrorism became a main foreign policy concern for the U.S. it looked abroad to combat a wide variety of terrorist organizations, leading to its efforts in the Philippines.

In addition, the Philippines struggles with militant groups that make it difficult to successfully run the country. The current President of the Philippines is Benigno Aquino III; he was elected in 2010. He’s had to deal with many issues, including the Filipino-American relations, and the push against the terrorist and militant groups in the nation.

Terrorism

There are three prominent terrorist groups in the Philippines according to the U.S. State Department. These three are the Abu Sayyaf Group, the New People’s Army, and Jemaah Islamiyah. The Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah are both Islamist groups.

Abu Sayyaf Group

Abu Sayyaf Group, or ASG, is a splinter group of the Moro National Liberation Front. While smaller than the others, it has been the most aggressive. Its list of transgressions is long but includes such nefarious acts as murder, kidnapping, extortion, and robbery. It is mostly funded through those robberies. It operates primarily out of the southern islands of the Philippines, which have the largest chunk of the Muslim minority population.

Jemaah Islamiyah

The other Islamic extremist group is Jemaah Islamiyah. Unlike the ASG, Jemaah Islamiyah is based out of Indonesia but operates in the Philippines. The group engages in many of the same criminal enterprises as ASG, particularly in bomb-making. Both groups also have ties to Al-Qaeda which has provided logistical support for both, particularly Jemaah Islamiyah.

New People’s Army 

The third group is a bit of a throwback to an earlier era. The New People’s Army, or NPA, is the Communist party of the Philippines, founded with the goal of overthrowing the Filipino government. Unsurprisingly, the group was founded in 1969 during the height of the Cold War. This group mainly targets public officials and U.S. personnel, as it is highly critical of the U.S. presence on the islands. The NPA receives most of its funding locally or from ex-patriots in other countries. While the group’s main aims might be different however, its members still often train alongside Islamist groups.

Other Actors

Along with these groups are the Alex Boncayao Brigade and the Pentagon Gang which were other organizations that were formerly listed on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. However, their capacity has been reduced to the point where they are no longer considered terror groups.  The following video gives a detailed explanation of terrorism in the Philippines.

Militant Groups

Moro National Liberation Front 

Along with the terrorist groups that operate in the Philippines are two militant groups that are also very prominent. First is the Moro National Liberation Front or MNLF–“Moro” is the Spanish name for  Muslims in the Philippines. It comes from the word “Moor.” Founded in the 1970s, this group has waged a guerrilla campaign against the Filipino government, which it believes has marginalized Muslims in the southern area of Mindanao. In 1996 the two sides reached an agreement with Mindanao achieving semi-autonomy from the government in Manila. Following the agreement and a failed uprising the MNLF’s status has declined.

Moro Islamic National Front 

The second group is the similarly named Moro Islamic National Front, or MILF. Besides sounding similar, the overlap extends further, as the MILF is actually a splinter group formed from the MNLF. Also founded in the 1970s, this organization employs many of the same tactics as the MNLF. The MILF reached its own peace agreement with the government in 2001; however, whereas the MNLF declined following its treaty with the government, the MILF–which is the larger of the two–has continued fighting in hopes of creating an independent Islamic nation in the south.

As fighting continued for the next decade, both sides were also working to reach some kind of a peace agreement, which they finally did in 2014.

Current Outlook

With peace made between the main insurgent threat and the Filipino government, it is fair to ask whether the efforts by both the Filipino government and the U.S. have succeeded. While the terror groups have not completely abated and probably never will, their capabilities have been greatly reduced to the point that the U.S. feels comfortable enough to dissolve its anti-terrorism unit there. Thus, while it may not be the best-case scenario, it does provide a type of closure in the war on terror that is better for both sides than more fighting. This type of agreement might also prove to be the standard going forward in the war against terrorism globally for other afflicted nations.

There are of course many other issues that the Filipinos will have to address in the coming years. As the continued U.S. presence suggests, the Philippines may be a central point of action if relations between China and the U.S. deteriorate to the point of no return. Although this seems far from certain, potential flash point disagreements still exist between China and her neighbors, many of whom are U.S. allies, including the Philippines.

Other issues also exist, such as extreme poverty. The gravity of this problem was on display following the devastation from Typhoon Haiyan, which killed over eight thousand people. The storm also destroyed large swaths of desperately needed farmland. This forced as many as four million people to be displaced and seek help from outside sources. Already many people there were living on around a dollar a day and scavenging just to get adequate food supplies.

Domestic violence has also been on the rise in the nation. While more cases were naturally expected to be reported following the passage of the Violence against Women and their Children Act in 2004, the results are unsettling. According to one report by the Women and Children’s Protective Center, the rate of violence rose over 150 percent from 2004 to 2011. While these numbers are unnerving, it is still suspected that incidents are underreported as abuse is seen as a private matter.

These are only some examples of existing issues and while they are certainly not exclusively Filipino problems, they do point to areas of future concern. Also, while an agreement is in place, something more concrete will likely need to be worked out between the ruling government in Manila and its autonomous regions. Whether this is full independence or greater inclusion of the Muslim minority, the status quo does not appear likely to hold out forever, as evidenced by history.

Resources

Primary

Council of Foreign Relations: Terrorism Havens: Philippines

Additional

Anti-Defamation League: The Philippines and Terrorism

Nations Online: History of the Philippines

Foreign Policy: Old Frenemies

War on the Rocks: End of An Era in the Philippines

Global Security: Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Huffington Post: Is This What Terror War Success Looks Like?

Reuters: Typhoon Haiyan

IRIN: Philippines Steep Rise in Gender Based Violence

International Business Times: China-Philippines Territorial Dispute

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 Philippines: A U.S. Ally Grapples with Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.