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.

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

The United States and the Empire of Russia

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

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

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

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

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

World War II and the Cold War

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

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

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

After the Thaw

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

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

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

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

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

Going Forward

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

Under a President Trump, American foreign policy would look something like this: Guantanamo Bay would remain open. Drone strikes would continue. Nation building and regime change would cease. And–in what Trump referred to as “extreme vetting” in his foreign policy speech Monday afternoon–immigrants from regions of the world that have a “history of exporting terrorism” will be subject to screening tests.

At Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, highlighted America’s threats–and criticized the architects of its current foreign policy–before revealing the tenets of his foreign policy plan. With broad strokes, he painted a bleak portrait of an America under siege from “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he used often and pointedly in his speech. He derided President Obama’s and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to the Middle East as a failure. “The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton,” Trump said, pointing to decisions made in Libya, Syria, and Iraq that led to the region’s current instability, allowing ISIS to prosper.

That speech was a reminder that Prompter Trump will always be just as dishonest and incompetent as Twitter Trump.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 15, 2016

The Cold War was a consistent reference point throughout his speech, as Trump sought to parallel the idealogical threat of radical Islam with that of communism. “Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus,” Trump said. “That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.” And in a surprising backtracking of his previous remarks that called into question NATO’s effectiveness, Trump said under his administration, America will “work closely with NATO.” He added that “we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS.”

And in a move he has alluded to in past interviews, Trump called for an “ideological screening test” that would root out “all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups.” In addition, such a test would screen out those who “believe that Sharia law should supplant American law;” “Those who do not believe in our Constitution;” and those who “support bigotry and hatred.” Specifically what such a test would look like, to whom it would be distributed, and how it would be administered was not expounded upon.

Trump ends his hateful, bigoted, fear-mongering speech promising…to reject bigotry & hatred. No self-awareness or sense of irony. Amazing.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) August 15, 2016

Trump’s speech–which was precluded by remarks from former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s running mate Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)–focused exclusively on the threat of “radical Islamic terrorism.” He did not mention China, North Korea, or Russia, three nations that many foreign policy analysts see as some of America’s gravest threats apart from ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Though his speech mirrored the apocalyptic tone of the speech he delivered a few weeks ago at the Republican National Convention, he sought to end it on a cheery, unifying note: “I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and respected equally,” he said. “Only this way will we make America great again and safe again for everyone.”

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 Vows to ‘Destroy’ ISIS, Use ‘Extreme Vetting’ on Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

Inside the historic Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. this afternoon, the mainstream press junket packed into a cozy conference room, preparing for a long awaited detailed foreign policy speech from Donald Trump.

Outside, a small group of protestors braved the gray early spring chill to chant and jeer the billionaire businessman, as sleepy cameramen waited around hoping to capture Trump after his speech, which had the presidential hopeful reading from a teleprompter for the first time. (Which according to Twitter, didn’t go all that smoothly).

The protestors held colorful makeshift signs with slogans like: “Love trumps hate” and “stand against Islamophobia.”

Protestors face the gilded doors of the Mayflower Hotel as security looks on. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media]

With a backpack slung over his shoulder and his hands cupping his mouth, Justin Scoville led the protestors in a rhythmic chant: “Donald Trump go away, racist, sexist not OK.”

“I don’t really care about his foreign policy,” said Scoville, 26, who was arrested twice last week as a participant of the Democracy Spring protests. “I care about his domestic policy. What he represents domestically I find much more disturbing.” Addressing Trump’s reason for visiting the posh Mayflower–a detailed foreign policy speech–he added: “I think [US foreign policy] will continue no matter who is in office.”

Over wailing sirens and the general cacophony of downtown D.C., the protestors at times banded together shoulder by shoulder in front of the entrance of the hotel, anticipating Trump’s arrival, or bunched up in a tight mass. 

Justin Scoville (center, hands clasped) converses with fellow protestors. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

Beyond the gray concrete exterior of the Mayflower, in front of a group of reporters and cameramen, Trump dove a bit deeper into his broad foreign policy plan. Press members have reported the following details of the speech on Twitter. Various statements by Trump include:

“I would absolutely bring back interrogation.”

“We are going to get rid of ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] and we are going to do it very, very quickly. Believe me.”

“Replace chaos with peace.”

Amid the “Trump=Nazi” signs and young protestors–the Mayflower is blocks away from the George Washington University campus–the number of visible Trump supporters totaled one.

Laurie Saxson did not confront the chilly wind in a sleeveless turquoise dress simply to show support for a more detailed policy vision or a more “presidential” version of Trump.

Laurie Saxson shows her support for Trump, unlike the man in the camouflage jacket behind her. [Image Courtesy of Alec Siegel Via Law Street Media]

“I think he’s great the way he is,” said Saxson, who wore the ubiquitous red “Make America Great Again” hat. Saxson said she felt confident in Trump’s ability to follow through on the promise sewed onto her hat, and reiterated his positions in the same 140-character style of the candidate who hasn’t roused this much excitement in her “since Reagan”: “Strong economy, fight government corruption, and get rid of the illegal alien problem.”

As Saxson stood alone in the chilly air in a silent show of support, the protestors rushed to the curb as the wailing of a motorcade came cruising by, presumably escorting Trump. They stood on their tiptoes and shoved their signs toward the oncoming police cruisers and black SUVs, chanting, “two, four, six, eight, love always trumps hate!”

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 As Trump Gives Foreign Policy Speech, Protestors Gather In D.C. appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

A Brief Overview

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

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

Who is Involved?

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

The United States and its Allies

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

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

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

Russia

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

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

Saudi Arabia and Iran

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

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

Non-State Actors

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

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

Syria

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

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

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

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

Peace for our Time?

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Resources

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

BBC News: Syria: The Story of the conflict

BBC News: Syria Crisis: Where Key Countries Stand

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

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

Euro News: Aleppo Assault Threatens Fragile Syrian Peace Process

Al Jazeera: Prominent Syrian Rebel Commander Killed in Airstrike

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

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

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

The New York Times: Syria Talks Are Suspended

BBC: Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US Went Wrong

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

In Tuesday night’s Republican debate, the candidates focused most of their attention on foreign policy, specifically what needs to be done to protect the American people. While the candidates ended up agreeing on many ideas, the clearest sense of unity on the stage was behind the notion that the United States needs to be tougher. We need to have a tougher immigration policy, we need to move away from the “feckless weakling president” in the oval office, and most importantly we need to be “tough” on ISIS.

Senator Ted Cruz started off by upping the standards for toughness. When asked about his previous call to “carpet bomb” ISIS, Cruz doubled down. He referenced the first Persian Gulf War, noting that the United States conducted around 1,100 airstrikes a day. But when Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, pressed Cruz on how that would affect civilians, he gave a rather bizarre response:

You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

Now on its face, that might sound like a sensible policy; few people would argue against a decisive bombing campaign that only killed terrorists. But that’s simply not the reality on the ground. There isn’t a huge group of ISIS soldiers standing around in the middle of the desert. They are deeply embedded in civilian populations, primarily in cities where indiscriminate bombing campaigns would kill massive amounts of civilians.

Cruz faced questions like that before, yet he has maintained his view that his policy wouldn’t kill civilians. In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz even noted that “no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians.” But looking at the reality in Iraq and Syria, what Cruz is calling for would have a massive civilian casualty toll. There are only a few conclusions available here–Cruz is either fine with more civilian deaths than he is letting on, doesn’t actually realize how ISIS is operating, or is intentionally misleading people–all three seem troubling.

Not to mention that carpet bombing, a term Cruz has repeatedly used when talking about ISIS, hasn’t been used since the Vietnam war. As Politifact points out, the main tenet of carpet bombing is that it is indiscriminate and not targeted. Even in the Gulf War, which Cruz regularly cites as an example, the military used targeted bombs. Moreover, the practice of carpet bombing may also violate the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention. What is true about carpet bombing? It sounds tough.

To be sure, the current U.S.-led bombing campaign has caused a large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria despite taking some precautions. While that is, by itself, worthy of debate, the debate on Tuesday night changed the way foreign policy is discussed in the Republican campaign. It seems as if the proposed policies are no longer about helping solve an already impossibly complicated situation, rather they are simply a way to display America’s, and by extension the candidate’s, toughness.

So what exactly does this toughness entail? Toughness, while often vague and said without further explanation, means being willing to act regardless of the consequences. That concept was even baked into the questions given to the candidates. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt questioned whether being a kind, evangelical neurosurgeon would prevent Ben Carson from doing what ‘needs to be done.’ Hewitt asked,

We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war… Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

In response, Carson reflected on the tough decisions he had to make as a surgeon, noting the firmness with which he dealt with his patients. “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks,” he said. But what he was saying did become clear until his next exchange with Hewitt:

Hewitt: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? [The crowd boos]

Carson: You got it.

Carson was not alone in his disregard for civilian casualties. The sentiment was largely popularized by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who recently said that the United States should go after terrorists’ families. My colleague Anneliese Mahoney has already noted that Trump is, quite plainly, advocating for war crimes, but he pressed on in Tuesday night’s debate. He said, “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” Trump later asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?” He was seemingly arguing that the U.S. response should play at the same level as the Islamic State.

By the end of the night, only Rand Paul managed to create a compelling contrast to his competitors:

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you’re going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

Paul’s questions, and the extent to which we are okay killing civilians, are worth further consideration from the candidates and voters alike.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Fight Over Who is the Toughest appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Barbra Mikulski of Maryland came out in favor of the Iran deal Wednesday morning, and with that the deal’s opponents will no longer be able to stop it from going forward. With Mikulski’s support, the deal to scale back the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the removal of U.S. sanctions is essentially final.

First things first: the Iran deal was already going to happen. But what was at stake prior to Mikulski’s announcement was the deal’s opponents’ ability to pass a resolution disapproving it–which would prevent the president from lifting sanctions, but would still not stop the entire agreement. Because the negotiations involved several other countries, who have already promised to lift their sanctions, many aspects of the deal would have gone forward regardless of what Congress does.

Now that it is impossible for Congress to override an Obama veto, there is nothing stopping the deal. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority from both chambers of Congress–67 in the Senate and 290 in the House of Representatives. Senator Mikulski is now the 34th senator to support the deal, creating enough support to maintain a veto from the president. Traditionally, Congress would not have the power to stop an agreement like this, but it passed a bill in May that mandated a 60-day review period during which Congress could stop sanctions relief with a disapproval resolution.

Despite the clear path to the deal, there remains some politics to play. The fact that an Obama veto can no longer be overturned frees up several Congressional Democrats to oppose the deal for purely political reasons, as their opposition will not impact the deal. So far only two leading Democrats, Senators Schumer and Menendez, have come out against the deal. But now that the bulk of the pressure is off other Democrats to fall in line with the President, others may begin to oppose the deal.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans may still decide to hold a vote on a disapproval resolution, which while symbolic, would end up getting vetoed. While Obama can stop any action by Congress, having to use his veto would be slightly embarrassing and politically damaging. The Iran deal will likely remain fodder for Republicans in the upcoming election and as a counterpoint to the White House’s foreign policy agenda going forward.

The deal has already prompted a response from several presidential candidates:

Partisan minority should not block bipartisan effort to stop bad deal that will fund mullahs, destabilize region, & pave Iran’s path to bomb

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 2, 2015

When I’m President, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 2, 2015

Great news that the Iran Deal has enough votes; as POTUS, I would aggressively enforce it and counter Iran’s other malicious activities. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

The Iran deal was already a hot topic in the upcoming election, but now that it is moving forward the debate will likely intensify. Beyond the election, the deal will be important for Americans politics–especially if Congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to pass a resolution of disapproval, which they have until September 17 to do. While action from Congress will likely not effect the future of the deal, it could cost the President some influence.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whether You Like it or Not, the Iran Deal is Happening appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order in March banning seven Venezuelan government officials from conducting business with American citizens or travel within the country. The order also permits the seizure of any assets in the United States held by the officials. According to the White House, the sanctions were imposed as a measure against the ongoing human rights violations and corruption within the Venezuelan government; however, the sanctions received a significant amount of negative feedback. The waters had seemed relatively calm between the two nations but spiraled quickly this year. To understand the historically strained diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela, it is important to grasp the relationship under Hugo Chávez, Socialist party member and President of Venezuela between February 2009 and March 2013. What exactly motivated these sanctions? And what’s happening four months later?

History

The United States and Venezuela officially established diplomatic relation in 1835, five years after Venezuela withdrew from its federation with Colombia. The relationship was strong based on economic ties and anti-narcotic initiatives. The U.S. has a history of relying on Venezuela as a major oil supplier. The late Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999 began the current era of strained and aggressive relations. Chávez was famous for anti-American rhetoric, propelling a powerful “us” against “them” mentality within the country.

The charismatic Chávez won his first election with a 56 percent majority and a platform of ending corruption and eliminating poverty. Chávez ran full force with Plan Bolivar 2000, a social anti-poverty program that included road and housing projects and mass vaccination. The newly established constitution, approved by popular referendum, abolished the senate, authorized a unicameral National Assembly, and lengthened the presidential term from five to six years.

His wide popularity lasted until 2001. Opponents criticized his extreme Left agenda and the continued poor living conditions in the country. A short-lived coup ousted him from office for three days, until the pro-Chávez Presidential Guard reinstated him. Chávez accused the U.S. of involvement. Although the United States publically condemned the coup, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice commented, “We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time.”

Although social programs continued, mounting dissatisfaction under the Chávez government ultimately led to a recall vote. Seventy percent of the population turned out to vote and the recall ended in a 59 percent victory for Chávez. Although the vote was verified as fair by the Carter Center, many called foul play. In 2005, Chávez ended Venezuela’s 35-year military ties with the United States, and tensions only increased after Venezuela’s public relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Russia. In 2006, Russia and Venezuela signed a $2.9 billion arms deal. In 2005, Chávez also strengthened his ties with China and Iran. Although Venezuela continued to provide oil to low-income families in the U.S., Chávez publically called President Bush the “devil.”

Chávez only continued to radicalize. In 2007, he announced “the nationalization of the telecom and electricity industries as well as the Central Bank, and cancel[ed] the broadcast license of private media company RCTV.” He also advocated for an act that would allow him to rule by decree for 18 months. In December 2007, he pushed for constitutional amendments that would entirely eliminate presidential terms, suspend media rights, and hold citizens without declaring charges during a state of emergency. In the same year, he withdrew from the IMF and World Bank.

In 2008, relations hit a boiling point when Chávez expelled the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy and recalled the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington. Chávez accused the U.S. of authorizing a coup against him and announced, “When there’s a new government in the United States, we’ll send an ambassador. A government that respects Latin America.”

In 2011, rumors of the severity of Chávez’s health condition began to circulate as he had a tumor removed in Cuba. A year later, he won his fourth election defeating Henrique Capriles Radonski, who represents the Coalition for Democratic Unity. October 11, 2012, he hand picked Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro as his vice president. In March 2015, Maduro announced Chávez had died from cancer.

Maduro, a less charismatic version of Chávez, beat his opponent by a 1.5 percent margin in the next election. Capriles demanded a recount and protests filled the capital. Nine people died in the riots and Maduro, faced with a crumbling economy and exasperated by falling oil prices and increased crime and protests, turned to violent government suppression.

The Sanctions

Still on a rocky platform, the U.S. and Venezuela started 2014 with an optimistic outlook, both countries issuing statements regarding a resumed positive relationship. That quickly turned sour after student-led protests in February turned violent with military involvement. By the end, 43 people were dead and 800 injured. A major figurehead of the opposition, Leopoldo Lόpez, and two opposition mayors were arrested. The Union of South America Nations intervened to initiate diplomatic conversations between the government and opposition that ultimately failed. In 2015, another opposition figurehead, Caracas mayor Antonio Ledezma, was arrested. The Obama Administration claims that the constant violation of human rights, the failure to combat narco-trafficking, and specifically the February protests directly led to the 2015 sanctions placed on Venezuela.

U.S. Policy

On March 9, 2015, President Obama issued an executive order calling Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” and targeting seven Venezuelan officials. The sanctions are authorized under the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 and three other congressional resolutions.

The following video shows Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pushing for this bill.

A press release from the White House states the act is,

aimed at persons involved in or responsible for the erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to antigovernment protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of antigovernment protestors, as well as the significant public corruption by senior government officials in Venezuela. The E.O. does not target the people or the economy of Venezuela.

Before the additional sanctions, the U.S. had imposed financial sanctions on eight current of former officials accused of aiding the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in drug and weapons trafficking. Three sanctions were imposed on Venezuelan companies with ties to Iran and three individuals with ties to Hezbollah. As of today, more than 50 current or former Venezuelan government officials accused of human rights violations are under U.S. sanctions.

Domestic and Foreign Response

Although the sanctions were imposed to promote Democratic ideals and human rights, they have been met with a significant amount of negative feedback.

Congress

Sixteen members of Congress sent a letter imploring President Obama to rescind his executive order. They argued that the sanctions will be ineffective and the timing is poor with the U.S. now re-opening communication with Cuba. If the country is trying to improve diplomatic relations with Latin American, this is a poor second gesture. To open doors with Cuba and cut off Venezuela sends the wrong message to the wider community. Sanctions also harbor ill-will from the people who see it as a direct attack on the country, not just those seven individuals. The letter cites a poll that shows 75 percent of the Venezuelan population are against the sanctions. The members also argue that PROVEA, a Caracas-based human rights organization known for its criticism of Maduro, is also against the sanctions. They fear that the sanctions will strengthen the Maduro government on an anti-American platform, and instead of the Venezuelan people focusing on the corruption of its government, they will now focus on the imperialistic conduct of the U.S.

Latin American Community

The Obama Administration has received a strong negative response from Latin America. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), consisting of 12 countries, has backed Venezuela against the sanctions. The foreign ministers have called the executive order a threat against Venezuelan sovereignty. Cuba has called the action “arbitrary and aggressive.”

The Argentine foreign ministry issued a statement saying “it’s absolutely unbelievable that any marginally informed person would think that Venezuela, or any other South American or Latin American country, could constitute a threat to the national security of the United States.” In a similar tone, former Uruguayan President José Mujica stated, “Whoever looks at the map and says that Venezuela could be a threat to the United States has to be out of his mind.”

Even if the sanctions are legitimate, some believe the particular wording too harsh. The sanctions have seemed to isolate the U.S. from the Latin American community, just as measures were being taken to open doors.

Maduro Government

Maduro responded to the executive action calling it “the most aggressive, unjust and harmful step that has ever been taken by the U.S. against Venezuela.” He quickly named one of the sanctions officials his new interior minister and called all those sanctioned individuals heroes. Maduro also accused Obama of “personally taking on the task of defeating my government, intervening in Venezuela, in order to control it from the U.S.”

In Maduro’s most direct move on the topic, he published a letter in the New York Times calings the order “tyrannical and imperial” and stating that “it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.” More than 5 million Venezuelans petitioned their names to the letter.

To counteract the alleged U.S. threat, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved Maduro’s request to obtain the power to legislate by decree for the duration of the year–a move that those in opposition of the sanctions feared. He also called for an immediate reduction of the U.S. embassy in Venezuela and imposed new visa requirements for Americans.

Recent Developments

U.S.-Venezuela talks took place in Haiti on June 4 between Thomas Shannon, a counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State, and Diosdado Cabello, the chairman of Venezuela’s national assembly and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Rodriguez. Venezuelan officials tweeted that both sides were working to resolve the crisis. Interestingly enough, U.S. media sites have reported that Cabello is currently being investigated by the U.S. for drug trafficking and money laundering.

On July 1, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) arrived in Venezuela to meet with opposition leaders, though the discussions have been kept largely under wraps.

Conclusion

Although meetings are taking place between the two countries after the March blow up, no significant headway seems to have been made quite yet. Venezuelan and American citizens can only hope for the best and rely on our respective diplomatic representatives. Are the sanctions effective? Maybe not. The U.S. aims to fight human rights violations and those who aid or turn a blind eye to drug trafficking. But the tactic used leaves a lot to be desired. The U.S. is effectively isolating itself from the Venezuelan people and giving fire to Maduro’s anti-American campaign.

Resources

Congressional Research Service: Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations

Al Jazeera: U.S. Venezuela Relations Sour in New Spat

BBC: U.S. Venezuela Talks Take Place in Haiti Despite Tensions

BBC: Venezuelan Leader Maduro Condemns New U.S. Sanctions

Council on Foreign Relations: Venezuela’s Chaves Era

Global Research: Letter to the People of the United States

Huffington Post: Democrats Ask Obama to Stop Sanctioning Venezuela

Huffington Post: South American Governments Slam Obama Over Venezuela Sanctions

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Relations With Venezuela

U.S. News & World Report: Venezuela Sanctions Backfire on Obama

Venezuelan Analysis: Over 5 Million Venezuelans Sign Letter Urging Repeal of Obama’s Executive Order

Venezuelan Analysis: U.S. Republican Senator Meets With Venezuelan Opposition in Caracas

White House: Venezuela Executive Order

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 U.S.-Venezuelan Relations: Can the Doors Be Reopened? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

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 U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the unusual-colored suit President Obama wore to a press conference last week. Everyone seemed to have something to say about it. But as unflattering as the suit appeared, I think people are failing to see the real issue at hand, which the suit even helped to illustrate: our president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the current issues at hand in foreign policy.

By wearing this particular tan suit, the president basically let the country know that he has simply given up. The suit washed out his complexion just like Russia and ISIS have washed him out, so to speak. When asked about his plans for Iraq, he merely replied, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Throughout his statement, despite being asked directly what his plans are, Obama seems to beat the bush giving vague answers about a plan that he has to make in the future. While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to give out any information that’s not yet necessarily set in stone, foreign conflicts such as the ones at hand require crucial timing. If he waits too long to make a plan it may be too late, potentially costing a significant number of lives.

This is hardly the first time that the president has caused controversy with his sartorial choices. From his very first days in office, the public was up in arms over his decision to bare his shirt sleeves in the oval office. While he may have wanted to be the cool and casual president at the beginning of his presidency, the tan suit seemed to have gone a little too far. They say clothes make the man, and in this case the clothes made the man look defeated.

Granted, I would love to give the president props for straying away from the standard black suits politicians typically wear, after all it is the year 2014. However, there is a time and place for everything. A conference regarding the current state of war in Iraq and serious foreign threats our country faces from Russia is hardly the time to take a new fashion risk. Perhaps the president should’ve saved the khaki suit for a stroll in the Hamptons over the holiday weekend.

In the grand scope of things, it really doesn’t matter what the president is wearing, but rather the message he has to deliver to our country. The media’s reaction to his suit was certainly blown out of proportion, but I still think it is interesting how the suit’s color seemed to coincide with the overall tone of the president’s statement. There’s certainly no law dictating that the president must exclusively wear black suits, but if there were would the message have been received by the public in the same way? Obama has made several poor decisions throughout his presidency and that morning, his poor sense of judgement seemed to carry through to his wardrobe choices, as well.

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 Obama’s Tan Suit Proves He Has Given Up appeared first on Law Street.

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

 Featured image courtesy of [Fabricator77 via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors 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.

Western countries agree that they do not condone the aggressive actions taken by Russia in Ukraine. Their response? Sanction Russia. Rather than resort to military action, countries now use sanctions as the foreign policy tool of choice. The United States and European Union are united in the belief that the best way to encourage Russia to behave in the international arena is to increase pressure on the country by way of this penalty. So what exactly are sanctions, how do they work, and will they be effective in the case of Russia?

What has been happening in Ukraine?

The conflict began at the end of 2013 when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association agreement with the European Union (EU) and instead accepted a deal with Russia. Thousands of protesters took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the deal and perceived government corruption. In response to the protests, Ukrainian forces took aggressive action. Tensions escalated and eventually in February 2014, protesters overtook the capital and sent the president scrambling for Russian protection. Russia quickly moved to secure its interests by invading and annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. Russia still has troops stationed along the border in Eastern Ukraine and is accused of sending weapons to aid pro-Russian forces. The issue is complicated by the fact that many people in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, are ethnically Russian and would like to become a part of that country. Watch the video below for further explanation of the conflict:

Western countries declared Russia’s actions to be a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law. The White House called Russian intervention in Ukraine “illegal and illegitimate.” The United States sees the actions as a violation of the United Nations Charter regarding the prohibition of force and of Russia’s 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine. Russian leader Vladimir Putin, however, continues to disregard the demands of the United States and European Union. With the collapse of a recent ceasefire, the future of the conflict remains unclear.

Western countries hope sanctions will deter Russia from future aggression in Eastern Ukraine and force the country to abide by its international obligations.

What are sanctions?

Sanctions are a foreign policy instrument applied to a country to pressure it into changing its actions. Sanctions institute deliberate government withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from trade or financial relations. Typically sanctions are used to force a country to cooperate with international law, or to contain a threat to the peace of other countries. Ideally sanctions send a strong message of condemnation and entice countries to comply with international rules in order to avoid further harm. Sanctions can be issued by individual countries or by an entire group, such as the European Union, United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are several different types of sanctions:

• Diplomatic sanctions sever diplomatic ties, such as by removing embassies from the offending country.
• Economic sanctions can include a number of trade and financial punishments, including a ban of trade, imposing tariffs or embargoes, freezing assets, banning cash transfers, and restricting travel.
• Military sanctions include military intervention, targeted strikes, or supplying arms and aid to military.

A long-term study by the Peterson Institute found that economic sanctions are partially successful only one-third of the time. The study showed sanctions are most successful when they are used to reach a limited, modest goal. Using sanctions to influence a more ambitious policy change drops the rate of success to just 30 percent. For example, the Cuban embargo, in place since the 1960s, is largely seen as a failure; however, the more recent blockades and financial sanctions in Iran were extremely successful in forcing the Iranians to negotiate with the United States. The success in Iran may have emboldened the United States to now apply economic sanctions to Russia for its role in the Ukraine conflict.

What kind of sanctions have been used?

So far, sanctions have been limited to specific targets to impose a cost aimed at those responsible for the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. The economic sanctions have been described by Forbes as a “new breed of financial warfare,” which the treasury has been honing as a way to lock terrorists out of the global financial system.

Specific Targets

On March 6, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13660 to authorize sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. More sanctions followed. Currently the list of those sanctioned by the U.S. government includes 23 government officials and 18 companies. The individuals are members of the Russian elite and have significant control over the Russian economy, including its banks, railroads, and media. The E.U. and other European countries also released lists of those sanctioned, which includes many of those targeted by the United States. Watch President Obama’s declaration of sanctions below:

Consequences

The sanctions of the United States and European Union currently only impose asset freezes and travel bans. Essentially those targeted are blacklisted. For those listed in the U.S. sanctions, all assets held in the United States are frozen. Furthermore, Americans are prevented from doing business with the listed individuals or entities and are prevented from making any funds available to them. The individuals listed will also be denied visas to enter the United States. The United States will cut off exports of American products to those companies and prevent exports of high-tech items that would contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.

Potential Problems

One of the problems with sanctions is that many feel they unfairly harm a country’s innocent civilians for a government’s actions. The idea is that sanctions may harm the people, but these people will then pressure their government to change its actions. In the meantime, the effects are felt most by ordinary citizens rather than the intended government officials. The current targeted sanctions , however, were enacted to apply pressure only on the elite rather than on the entire economy. Until more major banks are targeted, ordinary citizens may not feel the impact.

Have they had the intended effect in Russia?

It is difficult to judge the exact impact that the limited sanctions have had. Outwardly Putin still seems unfazed, yet in recent weeks he has tempered Russian aggression. The Russian economy was struggling before the sanctions, so these penalties have only furthered the decline. The Russian central bank predicts growth will slow to just 0.4 percent this year. A report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says that Western sanctions have had a “chilling effect” on investment. The IMF claims that the future strength of the Russian economy lies in greater global integration, which is currently hindered by the sanctions.

Effect on the Elite

Vladimir Yakunin, Putin’s close friend and head of Russian Railways who is on the saction list told the Financial Times, “I did not intend to travel to the U.S.  I have no assets.  So it does not bother me at all.”

These sanctions have much broader implications, however, even if they do not directly affect Yakunin. All financial institutions are discouraged from interacting with him in any way. The U.S. financial system is extremely pervasive, and the U.S. dollar is the world’s numéraire. Every financial institution needs a relationship with a U.S. bank to do business. Since Bank Rossiya appeared on the U.S. sanction list, it can no longer do business with any bank that deals in dollars either. Major credit card companies Visa and Mastercard even severed their business with the bank.

Effect on Public Confidence

Thus far the major impact of the sanctions has been psychological, impacting consumer and business confidence. No one knows who will show up on the sanction list next, so others are hesitant to do business. The entire Russian economy is effectively isolated. The sanctions lead to capital flight, inflation, and limit future investment in the country. Goldman Sachs reports that $45 to $50 billion was taken out of Russia in the first three months of 2014 as compared with only $63 billion in all of 2013.

Effect on the Future

Experts say the sanctions are likely to push Russia toward increased self-reliance. The economy ministry is already pushing to use state funds to aid lagging economic growth. Major effects of the sanctions have already been seen through cancelled IPOs and two cancelled government bond auctions. Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded Russia’s credit to one level above junk status.

Russia has responded by imposing like-for-like sanctions and threatens greater future sanctions. Russia banned nine prominent American politicians from the country, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). McCain responded in a March 20 tweet:

I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://t.co/TgwZneD4HY

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 20, 2014

Do sanctions hurt the U.S. economy?

The typical argument against economic sanctions is that they can harm the U.S. economy, especially for the companies that do business with the targeted country. The U.S. economy will not be significantly affected simply due to the fact that the United States and Russia do not do much business with one another. Trade between the United States and Russia amounted to $40 billion last year — only one percent of total U.S. trade. By comparison, EU trade with Russia is 11 times that of the United States. Even tougher sanctions, like those applied to Iran, would only have a limited effect on the American economy due to limited ties between the nations. Watch the video below for the debate over who will be harmed by the sanctions:

Concerns are growing, however, that Western jobs are at risk if sanctions increase. For example, Boeing uses Russian titanium, General Electric leases aircraft to Russian airlines, and Exxon, Coke, and Pepsi all do significant business in Russia. If Russia sanctions in return, these companies could see a loss in profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are preparing an ad regarding the harmful potential impacts of the sanctions. The groups are particularly concerned if the United States were to impose unilateral sanctions that would single-out American business and put them at a disadvantage. However, recent data shows that the United States exported more goods and services to Russia in May, after the sanctions, than for any other month in 2014 so far.

What’s next?

The idea is to gradually increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. Many expect more sweeping measures to come in the near future, as both the United States and European Union indicated a stronger response will come soon. President Obama recently agreed on a phone call with British Prime Minister David Cameron that if Russia does not take steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would roll out further sanctions. It is likely that targeted bans on key sectors of the Russian economy, such as gas and banking, are next. The options are nearly limitless. The United States could revoke Russia’s favorable tariff rates, which would increase taxes Russian firms have to pay to sell goods in the United States. Other alternatives include quotas, a trade embargo on certain goods, or further limiting Russian access to U.S. financial markets. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses what could be next below:

Unilateral sanctions are rarely effective, and the limited business ties between the United States and Russia means the European Union and United States must impose coordinated sanctions; however, Russia is the largest energy supplier in Europe and among the top three oil-producing countries in the world. Russia supplies roughly one third of the oil and gas in the European Union. This dependency complicates sanction efforts. Europe is hesitant to sanction because it could prohibit E.U countries from purchasing Russian oil, which would then lead to higher prices and potential shortages. Experts agree that ultimately any effective sanctions on Russia in the future must be coordinated and far-reaching.

Resources

Primary

Treasury Department: Treasury Sanctions Russian Officials

Treasury Department: Announcement of Additional Treasury Sanctions

Additional

Washington Post: The West Can’t Afford to Make Empty Threats on Russia Sanctions

Wall Street Journal: Western Sanctions Likely to Push Russia Toward Increased Self-Reliance

Guardian: Ukraine Crisis: Any EU Sanctions Are Unlikely to Make Impression

BBC: Ukraine Crisis Timeline

Politico: The New Russia Sanctions: Stalled Tax Talks

Forbes: Here’s How Obama’s Russia Sanctions Will Destroy Vladimir Putin

CNBC: Russia Sanctions: Who’s Losing Out So Far

BBC: The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Russia

Investopedia: Sanctions Between Countries Pack a Bigger Punch

USA Today: Business Groups Oppose Any New Sanctions on Russia

New Republic: These Sanctions Against Russia Will Hurt

Forbes: U.S. Exports to Russia Rise Despite Tensions

The New York Times: Western Businesses in Russia, Watchful and Wary

The New York Times: Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Are Sanctions the Answer? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, the swap of Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Taliban leaders has sparked much criticism and mixed reactions towards the United States’ policy on dealing with terrorists. Congressional leaders are upset that they did not receive notification prior to the prisoners’ exchange. Others are fearful that the deal makes the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists. So, what does all of this mean–did President Obama make the right call to bring back Bergdahl? Most importantly, what are the future implications for American diplomacy? Here is everything you need to know on the Bergdahl’s exchange.

Who is Bowe Bergdahl?

Bowe Bergdahl is a soldier in the U.S. Army who was held captive by the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network in Afghanistan from June 2009 to May 31, 2014. Bergdahl was released to the United States in exchange for five senior Taliban members who were held at Guantanamo Bay. The controversy surrounding Bergdahl’s release has made him one of the highest-profile POWs in decades. The exchange itself can be seen in the Taliban video below:

A celebration in Bergdahl’s hometown of Hailey, Idaho was cancelled due to the controversy and Bergdahl’s family has been receiving threats. Bergdahl is currently recovering in Germany, where he is speaking but still has not contacted his family or anyone in the United States. The focus is currently on Bergdahl’s emotional recovery, but officials are hopeful he will soon be able to shed light on his story.

How and why was Bergdahl captured?

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s capture remain disputed. National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed on ABC that Bergdahl “served the U.S. with distinction and honor.” However, numerous reports claim Bergdahl to be a deserter who grew increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. According to first-hand accounts, Bergdahl walked off his post and left behind a note along with his body armor and rifle. An unnamed defense official confirmed that Bergdahl walked off the post without authorization. It is reported that Bergdahl’s desertion led to the death of at least six troops in the search for him, though it is unclear if these deaths were directly related to the search for Bergdahl. According to an essay in the Daily Beast by Nathan Bradley Bethea, a former sergeant in Bergdahl’s battalion, “Every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl.” Troops were concerned Bergdahl may be providing the enemy with information. Bergdahl’s former squad leader, Justin Gerleve, goes so far as to tell CNN that following Bergdahl’s disappearance, “The attacks did get more direct, the IEDs did get more pinpoint to our trucks.” Reports dating to 2009 claim Bergdahl had wandered from his assigned areas before. The U.S. Army, currently investigating the claims made by those who served alongside Bergdahl, has yet to confirm any of these accusations.

What led to his release?

A deal involving Bergdahl’s release had been considered for several years but talks had continually broken down. In January 2014, the White House received an emotional video of Bergdahl whose health appeared deteriorated to the point of near death. The Obama administration stated the new health concerns conveyed the need to move quickly to bring Bergdahl home. While Bergdahl is currently listed in good health and reports of his desertion surface, President Obama has defended the decision in claiming the United States cannot qualify the release of a U.S. soldier. Some have praised Obama for his shown commitment to bring back POWs and for refusing to leave a soldier behind as the war ends. Obama defends his actions in the video below:

Relative secrecy of the deal was required as any information leaked from the deal was a clear threat to Bergdahl’s life by the Haqqani. Later, the administration added to its rationale that Bergdahl’s value to his captors was diminishing as negotiations had previously failed and the end of the war in Afghanistan was quickly approaching.

What were the arguments against his release?

The problem many have with the deal is that the President Obama failed to follow the requirement that the Defense Secretary notify appropriate Congressional committees at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The National Defense Authorization Act stipulates the 30-day notification, but Obama did write a signing statement in December 2013 concerning the potential unconstitutionality of this Act. The statement outlines Obama’s concern that the Act could limit his ability to act quickly in conducting negotiations regarding detainee transfers, such as the fast action required to swap for Bergdahl. Still, members of Congress want answers for why they were not briefed. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee on the release of Bergdahl. The clip below discusses the alleged illegality of the swap:

Other concerns involve what future threats the five detainees involved in the swap may pose to the United States. Negotiations for the deal were made through Qatar, who promised the United States that the former prisoners would stay in Qatar and be prohibited from participation in terrorist activities for one year. The five released were all in their mid-to-late 40s and were the most senior Taliban leaders still in the hands of the United States. Questions surround what will happen when their one year travel ban in Qatar expires and what, if any, other restrictions are in place. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses the release of the Taliban and future U.S. actions below:

Discussion has also arisen regarding Bergdahl’s punishment. If Bergdahl was a deserter, the severe law on wartime desertion could mean Bergdahl would be subject to further punishment even beyond his five years already spent in captivity. Current punishment for military desertion could result in death, though it is highly unlikely Bergdahl would face such an extreme punishment.

Is this a new foreign policy stance?

Throughout the War on Terror and especially following the attacks on September 11,  it has been made clear the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Some argue the prisoner exchange has made the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists, which has fueled fears that more Americans will be captured to be used as a bargaining chip. However, the United States has negotiated in the past to free American hostages, most notably in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, in freeing hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s, and even in trading Iraqi militants for the release of British civilian Peter Moore in 2010. It could be argued the country has entered a different era in foreign policy and in dealing with terrorists, but clearly the United States has traded for hostages in previous decades. Listen below  to the discussion of what message is being sent by the swap:

Will this have any impact in Afghanistan?

While negotiations were made through a third party of Qatar, the negotiation process has illustrated that it may be possible for the United States and Taliban to find some small area of mutually beneficial common ground. The Taliban showed good faith in the talks and a degree of trust was established. With this prisoner swap as a potential first step, greater talks in the future may come as the war continues to wind down. Some argue the deal conveys American weakness, as statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show more that 16 percent of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorist activity, while 12 percent are suspected of having returned to terrorism. One of the released, Noorullah Noori, has reportedly already told relatives he hopes to return to Afghanistan to fight Americans. But as the War in Afghanistan is soon set to end, the United States will have to release its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay if the prisoners are classified as POWs under international law. If the prisoners are to be released anyway, it makes sense to use them as a tool for negotiation rather than setting them free and coming away empty-handed. The real question becomes what will happen when detainees are set to be released and the United States no longer gets something in return. Could the swap have energized the opposition so closing Guantanamo Bay will become even harder?

Resources

Primary 

Barack Obama: 876-Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

Additional 

Politico: Rice: ‘Sacred Obligation’ Led to Bergdahl Swap

Weekly Standard: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served with Honor and Distinction

Washington Post: Obama: No Apologies for Bergdahl Release Deal

USA Today: Bergdahl Trade More About Guantanamo

CNN: Kerry Defends Bergdahl for Taliban Exchange

Daily Beast: We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl

Blaze: We’ve Got Bigger Problems: The Broader Implications of the Bergdahl Release

Wall Street Journal: Trading With the Taliban

CNN: Bergdahl’s Former Squad Leader: He Did Not Serve with Honor and Distinction

CNN: The Six Soldiers at Center of Bowe Bergdahl Debate

Wall Street Journal: Behind Bowe Bergdahl’s Release, a Secret Deal That Took Three Years

MSNBC: Bowe Bergdahl: Deserter or Hero?

CNN: Was Bergdahl Swap Legal? Depends on Who You Ask

USA Today: Army Says it Will Launch a New Review of Bergdahl Capture

Washington Post: The Timeline You Need to Understand the Bowe Bergdahl Story

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trading POWs: What Does Bergdahl’s Release Mean for American Diplomacy appeared first on Law Street.