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

DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation into Charlottesville Violence

This weekend, a white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. The march began on Friday night, with protesters carrying torches, Nazi flags, and chanting a Nazi slogan. On Saturday, a lot of counter-protesters arrived at the scene. On Saturday afternoon, a car drove straight into the crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring over 30 others. The driver was later identified as 20-year-old Ohio native James Alex Fields Jr. He has been charged with murder. Governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency Saturday evening.

Alleged driver of car that plowed into Charlottesville crowd was a Nazi sympathizer, former teacher says https://t.co/LWgW6UTy3e

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 13, 2017

President Donald Trump finally commented from his New Jersey golf club, saying that he condemns the display of violence “on many sides.” But this very brief and vague comment was heavily criticized for not condemning the brazen white supremacy on display.

The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the violence and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a more emphatic statement than the president. “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism.

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Revised Travel Ban Takes Effect Tonight

This evening, the new version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban will go partially into effect. On Monday, the Supreme Court said “okay” to parts of the revised travel ban, but will hear the case in the fall. SCOTUS aims to probe how much control a president can actually have over border and immigration issues.

The court said this implementation of the ban would not affect those who can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” Last night, the State Department issued guidelines for how to decide such cases. It says that individuals such as step-siblings, half-siblings, parents, in-laws, and sons- and daughters-in-law are considered close family. However, grandparents, nieces, nephews, or brothers- and sisters-in-law are not.

Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen are the countries that will be affected. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU immigrants’ rights project, said the ruling worries him, as it could create arbitrary definitions of what close family relations are.

Under revised #TravelBan taking effect tonight at 8p ET “close family” excludes grandparents, aunts & uncles, & fiancées, among others pic.twitter.com/TQY3pVFcdd

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 29, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Police in India have arrested at least 15 people for celebrating too vividly after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match that took place in London on Sunday. The two neighboring countries have traditionally had a hostile and competitive relationship, and that also extends to the sports world. The men were arrested on suspicion of sedition, a charge that could carry with it ineligibility for government jobs or even life in prison.

Most arrests were made in the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India, after a neighbor called the police complaining about cricket fans who were shouting anti-India slogans and lighting firecrackers. Police seized 15 men aged 19 to 35 on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Burhanpur district.

“They expressed hatred toward India and friendship toward Pakistan. They are charged for sedition and criminal conspiracy,” said Ramasray Yadav, a police officer who took part in the arrests. However, he also said the men shouted slogans expressing their love for India while in detention.

15 Muslim men arrested in India for celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in the Champions Trophy cricket final https://t.co/8xLdAgh5UT pic.twitter.com/e0EGmcZz9J

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 21, 2017

The neighbor who called in the complaint that led to the arrest of the 15 men is Hindu, while all the suspects are Muslim. And India is not free from Islamophobia. Muslims are a minority there, and many say they are experiencing an increase in violence and hostility, targeted because of their religion. Leaders of the ruling party BJP have tried to paint Muslims as violent and dangerous and accused them of scheming to rid India of Hindus.

Recently there have been several violent attacks on Muslims after people have accused them of killing, selling, and eating cows. Cows are holy in India, so slaughtering them is illegal. What Human Rights Watch calls self-appointed “cow protectors” have made it their task to crack down on Muslims suspected of stealing cows.

Since May 2015, at least 10 Muslims, including a 12-year-old boy, have been killed because of “cow protector”-related violence. On April 21, a mob of people brutally attacked a nomad family, including a nine-year-old girl and an elderly man. After their assault they set the family’s home on fire.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is mainly Muslim. Tensions between Pakistan and India turned so bad a few years ago that the annual cricket competitions had to be cancelled. Scheduled peace talks have been repeatedly abandoned for the past three years, and there seems to be no end to the conflict over the disputed area of Kashmir.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Indian Police Arrest at Least 15 for Celebrating Pakistan’s Cricket Victory appeared first on Law Street.

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

Background: A Look at Kashmir

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

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

The video below describes how the borders formed over time:

The Conflict

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

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

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

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

Peace Process

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

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

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

Line of Control

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

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

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

Current Situation

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

The Region’s Future

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

India is growing… fast. For the first time in its recent history it became the fastest growing economy in the world with 7.6 percent growth in 2015, beating out China. Some economists believe that India will continue to be the fastest growing economy in the 2017-18 financial year. While India may still be in better shape economically than everyone else, will it be able to lead a thriving and free democracy?

On Monday, it was reported by multiple news outlets that India’s Central Bureau of Investigation raided the homes and offices of the private news channel NDTV (New Delhi TV) co-founders Prannoy and Radhika Roy.

In a statement, the Roys claim that the raids were conducted based on a complaint that they had not repaid a loan to the private bank ICICI in 2007. However, documentation provided by the Roys seems to prove that they repaid their loan more than seven years ago.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Prannoy Roy said that he wasn’t surprised by the raids because of how the media is treated by the government. He said:

In American media, it is considered patriotic to question and make the government accountable, here to be patriotic is to just agree with everything the government says.

His comments suggest that this investigation is not isolated but emblematic of how India lacks a robust free press that is guaranteed by the government.

The questions are reasonable. According to World Press Freedom Index of 2017, India ranks 136 out of 180 possible countries, down three slots from a year before. In contrast, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan, two places with massive amounts of political instability and non-democratic regimes rank 135 and 120 respectively.

Though India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated that he believes that having a free press is “vital in a democracy,” his actions since being elected in 2014 contradict that sentiment. In the first months after his election, Modi chose to use state-backed media sources as his primary choice for disseminating information.

In November 2016, the government shut down NDTV for 24 hours, accusing them of reporting on sensitive information when they covered an attack by terrorists on the Pathankot military base. This was done without even needing a court order, and is completely legal under the Indian government.

Furthermore, the laws in India make it significantly easier to curb dissent from media sources. Section 124A of the Indian Penal code, also known as the sedition law, gives prosecutors the ability to issue life sentences based on negative comments against the government.

India may be on the verge of becoming a superpower, but it remains to be seen if the country will be able to accomplish its lofty goals and still allow a free press. Though the Indian government may say that they love the press, they need to start backing up those words with action.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post As India’s Economy Booms, Can it Maintain a Healthy Free Press? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat’s CEO, Evan Spiegel, is at war with India. Spiegel supposedly said India was too poor for Snapchat and now #BoycottSnapchat is trending in the world’s second most populous country.

According to Anthony Pompliano, a former Snapchat employee, Spiegel dismissed his idea to expand in underutilized markets.

“This app is only for rich people,” said Spiegel, according to Pompliano. “I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India and Spain.”

The accusations were found in documents from a lawsuit between Pompliano and Snap Inc., Snapchat’s parent company.

In a statement to the public, a Snap Inc. spokesperson dismissed Pompliano’s claims as the words of a “disgruntled former employee,” adding: “Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free.”

“We are grateful for our Snapchat community in India and around the world,” the statement read.

In spite of the denial, angry Snapchat users took to the internet. As news of the alleged comments spread, #BoycottSnapchat and #Uninstall_Snapchat began trending in India and around the world.

Reportedly, almost 400,000 users in India deleted the Snapchat app from their phones between Saturday and Sunday.

Twitter users also used the hashtag #1star to encourage others to damage the app’s rating and write scathing reviews on both Android and iOS–as of today, Snapchat has a one star rating on the Indian App Store.

It was even rumored that Indian hackers retaliated by leaking 1.7 million Snapchat users’ data on the “dark web,” but these reports have not been verified.

But as Indians took to their respective app marketplaces in defense of their country’s honor, some locked onto the wrong target. Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform that actually happens to be based in India, received a number of one-star ratings and many uninstalled the unrelated “snap app.”

Snapdeal’s CEO took to twitter to express his surprise:

@thetanmay Thanks bud. Ppl asking us to make a statement that @snapdeal is not @snapchat was possibly the last thing I thought I would ever need to do.

— Kunal Bahl (@1kunalbahl) April 16, 2017

Pompliano’s lawsuit accuses executives of exaggerating user data to mislead advertisers. Funnily enough, it looks as though Snapchat’s user data will suffer a painful blow regardless of whether or not Pompliano’s accusations are found to be true.

Callum Cleary

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

The post Why is #BoycottSnapchat Trending in India? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week our best stories included high school journalists kicking some butt, the relationship between President Donald Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and fake butter on Dunkin’s bagels. ICYMI, check out our top stories!

Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi?

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Good News for Bagel Lovers: Dunkin’ Donuts Settles Fake Butter Lawsuit

Jan Polanik ordered bagels with butter at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Massachusetts and couldn’t believe it wasn’t actually butter. So in 2013, he sued two Dunkin’ franchise groups, which run more than 20 restaurants in Eastern and Central Massachusetts, claiming to represent all customers who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.”

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Accusations of State Violence

“Instances of police and security force abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape; corruption” are cited as the most significant examples of human rights violations in India. While an investigation by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed examples of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings throughout the country, the State Department report said, data from the Institute for Conflict Management suggests a concentration of killings in northern states, particularly along the Indian-Pakistani border.

While state violence is identified as a primary concern, injustices are believed to extend to almost every aspect of India’s criminal justice system. Here are some examples:

• According to the report, police and government officials have consistently denied claims of hundreds of unresolved disappearances, and have supposedly demanded bribes from people hoping to learn whether or not their family members are currently detained.
• According to the National Law University in Delhi, 216 of the 270 death row inmates they interviewed had been tortured.
• Investigations by NHRC revealed numerous cases in which police officers raped detainees and NGOs argued the government agency underestimated the figures.
• Research indicates that activists and “economically vulnerable” people are at a much greater risk of being arbitrarily detained and subjected to cruelty. Torture is often used to force false confessions.
• Judicial corruption is believe to be widespread and, according to the Supreme Court, 43 percent of the country’s high court positions are vacant.

The report suggests India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a major contributing factor to state violence and arbitrary detention. Though there are multiple iterations, the act grants security forces special powers in areas the government has determined to be “disturbed.” These “special powers” include, but are not limited to, the right to use deadly force against anyone who is in violation of the law, and to arrest anyone “who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence” without a warrant.

Security forces also have the right to enter and search property without a warrant. While there are numerous Islamic and Maoist insurgent groups operating in the “disturbed areas,” critics argue the decades-long enforcement of AFSPA has only escalated violence carried out by the government with impunity.

A White House Response?

In a press briefing on Friday about the upcoming visits of the leaders of Jordan and Egypt, a senior White House official said that human rights were “first and foremost in our discussions [with foreign leaders],” but that the Trump Administration plans on approaching “these types of sensitive issues in a private, more discreet way.” This approach however, makes it difficult for the public to know whether matters of human rights are discussed with foreign leaders at all. If existing information is anything to go by, trade, not human rights, will be the topic of choice during Modi’s visit.

By all accounts, President Donald Trump and Modi enjoy a warm relationship. Five days after his inauguration, Trump called the prime minister, expressed his support for Modi’s economic reforms, and invited Modi to the White House. Trump called Modi again last Tuesday to congratulate him on his party’s victories in state-level elections. After the call, the White House confirmed Modi would be visiting Washington sometime this year. No date has been set.

When Trump called Modi in January, “the two discussed opportunities to strengthen the partnership between the US and India in broad areas such as the economy and defense,” according to the White House. While campaigning, Trump expressed support for Modi’s plan for economic growth. In an interview with The Times of India, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns suggested that a bilateral investment treaty would likely be a priority for both countries when Modi visits. It is safe to assume that the topic of trade will take precedence in any upcoming discussions between the U.S. and India.

Trump is unlikely to address the matter of human rights, even “in a private, more discreet” setting. After the two leaders spoke in January, a Trump spokesperson noted that they had agreed to “stand shoulder to shoulder in the global fight against terrorism.” India has long used terrorism as the justification for AFSPA and state violence at large. In spite of the fact that the State Department identified state violence as one of the most flagrant examples of human rights violations in India, the “law and order president” is unlikely to condemn the hardline policies believed to be motivating the violence.

While the scathing human rights report carries Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s signature, the endorsement is only a formality. Trade will likely be at the forefront during Modi’s visit and any future discussions between the two countries.

Callum Cleary

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

The post Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi? appeared first on Law Street.

Last November, India began a campaign to eliminate large bills from its currency by removing 500 and 1,000 rupee notes from circulation. The goal was to go after criminals guilty of everything from tax evasion to drug trafficking by eliminating their means of accumulating wealth. This is not just a limited effort, however, as other countries, including the United States, are monitoring the situation in India and considering following suit. Read on to see if the U.S. is ready to actually scrap the $100 bill, what impact it will have on the country, and if the rest of the world is likely to follow suit.

India’s Move

The move by India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was aimed at recouping some of the estimated $460 billion in untaxed wealth, which is equal to as much as 20 percent of India’s GDP. Modi was also seemingly attempting to fulfill a campaign promise to go after so-called “black money” in the economy. Despite these motivations, this led to a massive cash shortage that instead ended up affecting the poor the most and caused the IMF to slash their growth forecasts for India by a full percent. Nonetheless, even though the government failed to take these factors into account, some people hid their wealth in items such as gold, and the fact that the 500 rupee is not really a large bill, the move was still widely popular. The video below looks at the impact of the Indian government’s decision to eliminate the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes:

U.S. Efforts

There have also been calls in the United States that large bills should be eliminated, although the exact methods with which the nation would do so are unlikely to copy those used by India. The charge here is being led by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, whose plan calls for eliminating any bill larger than $10 over a 15-20 year time period. The goal would be similar to that of India, namely to target tax evaders and money launderers. Rogoff claims this would be an especially effective move on the part of the U.S. because 75 percent of the $100 bills worldwide are actually held abroad, many by Mexican cartel leaders and Russian oligarchs. Rogoff believes that, since most transactions in the United States are done electronically, unlike in India, eliminating these bills would not be a major change.

While Rogoff and other Harvard economists such as Peter Sands have suggested making the change, there is still no plan to eliminate big bills as of yet; in fact, there is actually strong pushback against the idea. A group of government agencies that include the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Drug Enforcement Agency are opposing the move for a number of reasons.

The first reason that people are opposed to the move is cost: removing $100 bills and replacing them with twice as many $50 bills would wipe out any profit made by the government through printing money. Second would be usage: while many people do not carry $100 bills, about 5.2 percent of the U.S. population still do, which equals millions of people. Lastly, although criminals may be inconvenienced by having to literally carry more bills, eliminating $100 bills would just force them to use other bills or find other means to accumulate wealth. In fact, cash shipments in smaller bills have already been seized at the border. The following video looks at whether or not the U.S. is likely to eliminate the $100 bill, and some of its potential effects:

Impact on Economy

Economically, a switch to smaller bills or to no cash altogether is also a mixed bag. As mentioned earlier, by eliminating larger bills, the government would lose out on profit made from the difference in printing the bills versus the cost of printing, because higher bills generate more revenue. The term for this is seigniorage. The estimated cost would be roughly $6 billion annually, which may seem like a lot but pales in comparison to what the government alternatively spends fighting crime funded by cash and large bills.

A potential positive economic impact of the move would be in regards to monetary policy. During recessions, central banks lower their interest rates, which makes keeping money in savings accounts less appealing and instead encourages spending. However, there is something known as the “zero lower bound,” where the interest rate actually becomes negative and banks start charging people to save their own money. At this point, rational people would withdraw their money and keep the cash until interest rates were raised. This would be much harder to do with many smaller bills and impossible if there were no bills at all.

A Global Movement?

Whether or not the United States decides to follow India’s lead in eliminating large bills, the movement is not dead on arrival. Nearly two decades ago Canada eliminated the $1,000 bill from its currency to combat the very same criminal activities India is targeting. Singapore is eliminating its $10,000 bill as well. India is not even the only nation in the developing world doing away with large notes, as Venezuela recently outlawed its $100 bill with the goal of fighting crime. There is even some precedent in the United States: in 1969, the United States did away with $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills because of lack of use, as they were almost entirely utilized for moving money between different Federal Reserve branches.

It is in Europe, however, where the most aggressive steps have already been taken. Last march, the European Union announced it will discontinue using the 500-euro note and stop replacing it entirely by 2018. While other large currency notes are often used by criminals, the 500-euro note had become so ubiquitous among criminals that it had garnered the unflattering nickname “the Bin Laden” after the former terrorist leader. But some critics are quick to point out, as they have in other countries, that eliminating big bills just forces illicit funds into other venues. Some also contend that this is a way to force people to spend more, because banks would be forced to use negative interest rates to reduce the larger number of bills in their safes. The accompanying video looks at the impact of eliminating the 500-euro bill on Europe:

Some countries in Europe have gone even further: in Sweden, for example, there is an unofficial yet concerted effort to do away with cash entirely. In that country, only 2 percent of national wealth is held in bills or coins and only about 20 percent of total transactions are processed in cash, so the move makes some sense. However, a switch of this magnitude and nature does not come without consequences. People who do not have access to the apps that are replacing cash and cards, such as older individuals and refugees, may find themselves unable to pay for basic necessities if the transition is made. Additionally, if all transactions are made electronically they are more susceptible to hacking and government oversight. Nevertheless, Sweden is not alone in this push, with Denmark and Norway also following suit.

Conclusion

Reducing the supply of big bills or even eliminating cash altogether comes down to a simple cost benefit-analysis. Having smaller bills will force much of the money associated with the black market economy out into the open, and at the very least it will make it harder to carry. However, as had been mentioned, there are numerous alternatives to keeping illegal funds in cash.

Conversely, while by making transactions increasingly with cards or electronic forms of payment may make it harder to hide crime, it also makes everyday purchases easier to track. This includes not only tracking by the government, but also by websites or corporations. It would make it more likely that information will get stolen by hackers or other nefarious groups as well, simply because there are more opportunities. This is not even factoring in the effort it would take to acquaint many people with the new form of payment or the effect it could have on monetary policy.

In some places this trade-off has seemingly been deemed acceptable, but for the most part it has not caught on worldwide. Cash, even in large bills, is likely to remain king until security and privacy concerns are considered less of an issue compared to concerns over how criminals are hoarding their ill-gotten gains.

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 Not About the Benjamins: Is the United States on the Verge of Eliminating the $100 Bill? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) imposed measures that significantly cut the prices of a variety of “essential” drugs, including drugs that treat cancer. These price controls are by no means unprecedented. For decades, the Indian government has worked to keep drug costs low, which has often meant bucking international drug patenting and pricing norms. In doing so India nurtured and developed a massive generic drug industry. While the Indian government must not be admonished for keeping drug costs low, its longstanding obsession with cheap drugs may distract from broader health care accessibility issues.

In 1970, India passed a newly revised Patents Act, which upended the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The act stipulated pharmaceutical patents would only be issued to drugs that exhibited “one or more inventive step(s).” While this language seems relatively innocuous, it totally changed the way in which pharmaceutical corporations conduct business.

Drug patents allow holders to charge high prices because patents ensure market exclusivity for a given period of time. However, in order to maintain market exclusivity, drug companies engage in a practice known as “evergreening.” In most countries, patent laws are such that pharmaceutical companies are able to extend patents and maintain monopolies by making trivial modifications to an already patented product. According to the American Medical Association, these slight alterations allow patent holders to claim they are releasing a new, innovative drug and extend their exclusive rights over said drug “despite the absence of any compelling pharmacologic difference.” In the United States, companies do all sorts of things to “evergreen” drugs including “obtaining additional patents on other aspects of a drug, including its coating, salt moiety, formulation, and method of administration.”

The language in India’s 1970 act is such that companies selling drugs in India would no longer be able to get a patent unless they were offering a new and “inventive” drug. Companies would no longer be able to patent known drugs in an attempt to extend a market monopoly. As a result, a drug that might have enjoyed patent protection elsewhere, would not be protected under Indian patent policy. Soon after this policy shift, India’s generic drug industry exploded, and domestic drug prices plummeted. Before long, India became one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical exporters.

India has made changes to its patent policy over the years, but its generic drug industry continues to operate and thrive under legal conditions set in motion by the 1970 act. Ironically, India’s largest manufacturers are beginning to push back against price-oriented policies that brought them into existence.

While India’s patent polices undermined evergreening practices, price controls were instituted as an additional means of keeping drugs affordable. The creation of a generic drug industry worked to cut costs by undermining market monopolies but, as time went on, India’s most prominent manufacturers of generic drugs were able to brand their products and charge premiums. Price controls were used to ensure these premium prices were not excessive compared to the average cost of other generics.

Whereas India’s patent laws prevent multinational corporations from charging exorbitant prices in monopolized markets, India’s price controls prevent domestic manufacturers of generic drugs from charging more for a drug that bears their brand. Just as multinational corporations argued India’s patent policies stifle innovation, domestic manufacturers arguing that price control affect their ability to operate. In 2012, the government even went as far as suggesting “a future where we will not issue any brand or trade names.”

India’s government should not be criticized for ending price gouging tactics. Multinational corporations should not be able to exclude swaths of people from access to drugs by manipulating patent policy and extending market exclusivity, and cheap generics are crucial in a country where around 78 percent of the population pays for health care out-of-pocket. However, while access to cheap drugs is vital, the government’s health care policy is largely defined by its longstanding obsession with the generic industry and domestic drug prices.

Decades of policies ensuring cheap and readily accessible drugs have helped improve access for many but may have distracted from more holistic attempts at improving health care accessibility. Yet, notwithstanding cheap drug prices, studies have show health care costs are responsible for half of all Indian households falling into poverty. This most recent round of price controls on essential generic drugs came as no surprise, and that might be an issue. India’s pushback to the international patent regime is commendable but cheap drugs should not be treated as the end all be all of health care accessibility.

Callum Cleary

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

The post India’s Low Drug Prices: Do They Lead to a Struggle for Health Care Accessibility? appeared first on Law Street.

In Florida’s Everglades, the Burmese Python population has spread rapidly over the past two decades, thanks to the warm climate and variety of local wildlife that snakes can eat. The Burmese Python is not native to Florida but has spread after many pet owners (illegally) released their snakes in the wild. According to the National Park Service, more than 2,000 pythons have been removed since 2002, but that is likely a very small portion of the total population. The snakes feed on local groups of mammals and birds, and compete with native predators for food, so they could have a big impact on the ecosystem. After trying several different methods of dealing with the problem, authorities have now turned to singing snake catchers from India to try to catch the big reptiles.

Last year, the University of Florida, Everglades National Park, and the Department of Environmental Protection organized the second edition of Florida’s Python Challenge–a competition that urged residents to capture as many big snakes as they could. The month-long challenge, with a thousand participants, resulted in 106 caught pythons. That may sound like a lot, considering that the pythons are huge and well camouflaged. But in only two weeks, the two Indian men, Masi Sadaiyan and Vadivel Gopal, caught 14 snakes—and one was 16 feet long. They are members of the Irula tribe, from South India. The group is famous for hunting snakes.

Irula tribesmen & detector dogs help @UF @usfwsvero & @MyFWC battle #pythons in #Florida https://t.co/VdFicBd73H #snake pic.twitter.com/ZFN0LDNmJ2

— South Florida FWS (@USFWSVero) January 23, 2017

Sadaiyan and Gopal have headed out to the Everglades almost every day since arriving in the U.S., armed only with tire irons and accompanied by some biologists. They move slowly and head straight into the deep bushes. These experts know how to trace snakes from subtle signs like a specific pattern in the sand or a tunnel through the grass. From traces that the snakes leave, Sadayian and Gopal can determine the animal’s sex, size, and how long ago it was there. Though many people opposed the idea at first, and didn’t think that the methods that work in India would transfer easily to Florida, biologist Frank Mazotti and herpetologists Romulus Whitaker and Joe Wasilewski have been working on the plan for years.

“This is very big and probably the biggest invasive reptile problem that has ever existed on the planet,” said Whitaker, and added that they had to do something. Importing and transporting Burmese Pythons has been banned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since April 2015. The species is harmful to wildlife, agriculture, and humans. And the snakes reproduce quickly; the females lay between 30 and 100 eggs each spring.

Until now, the problem has been that local snake catchers haven’t been able to find the pythons quickly enough to halt their spread. Their pattern is extremely difficult to spot in the wild. The pythons have spread to more areas and were found in Key Largo for the first time last year. Sadaiyan and Gopal caught four snakes in Key Largo alone during their first eight days. “It is outstanding that they have been able to remove pythons from Key Largo,” said Mazzotti. “And to get four pythons, including a 16-foot female, is just incredible.”

According to the National Geographic, the Burmese Python is behind the decline in common mammals such as the cottontail rabbit, but also bigger ones like raccoons, deer, foxes, opossums, and bobcats. And the Fish and Wildlife Conservaton Commission hopes that local workers could learn some of the skills the Indian men possess, to keep up the work after they go home. “Since the Irula have been so successful in their homeland at removing pythons, we are hoping they can teach people in Florida some of these skills,” said Kristen Sommers, chief of the FWC’s Wildlife Impact Management.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Florida Employs Snake Hunters to Tackle its Burmese Python Problem appeared first on Law Street.

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

Middle Eastern Cookies Cause Bomb Scare

Last week a gas station, a nursery, and a road were shut down after a community in Pennsylvania was alerted to a “suspicious” box. The box had Arabic writing on it and had been left at a gas pump, so a bomb unit from Scranton came to investigate. The bomb unit found no bomb but instead discovered that the box was filled with cookies. The Halwani Bros Maamoul Date Filled Cookies had Arabic and English writing on the box. Can these people not read? But many people agreed that it was always better to say something when you see something, especially after last week’s attacks in New York and New Jersey. Police are still investigating.

This cookie box was left at a pump at Gulf Station near E. Stroudsburg. Bomb squad was called to check it. @WNEP pic.twitter.com/qN9tJofLpn

— Carmella Mataloni (@Carmella_News) September 19, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post The Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite China’s strong and consistent economic growth, there have been two areas that are clearly understood to be American-dominated spheres–military and finance. While America still holds a large lead over other countries in terms of military power–at least based on money spent–that other sphere of power may be waning. Although China has long been dismissed as lacking in infrastructure and innovation, that belief is likely about to change. With the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is throwing itself into the financial arena. Read on to learn about China’s latest push for superpower status that has the potential to change the global financial system that has been in place since WWII, and casts into question the future of who controls the world’s purse strings.

History of the Current System

The history of the modern financial system began in 1944. While WWII still raged, representatives from the Allied powers met to decide the future of the global financial system. The result of this was the Bretton Woods Agreement, named after the town in New Hampshire where the meeting was held.

Bretton Woods Agreement

This agreement essentially pegged global currencies to the U.S. dollar. Countries were required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S., buying up dollars if their currency was too low and printing more money if their currency’s value was too high. It was a basic concept of supply and demand, but with physical currency.

This, in effect, made the United States the preeminent global economic world power. It also relied on the relationship between U.S. dollars and gold, because the dollar itself was tied to a gold standard. However, the Bretton Woods system came crashing down in 1971 when the U.S. experienced something known as stagflation–when a country simultaneously sees a recession and inflation–and was forced to abandon the gold standard. In an unforeseen result, the rising demand for the dollar had made it more valuable even though its value was pegged to a certain amount of gold. The resulting disparity led to shortage and the need to scrap the existing system. Despite the end of the Bretton Woods system, two of its guarantor agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, survived and continue to this day.

The IMF

The IMF was created as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Its original purpose was to help countries adjust their balance of payments with regard to the dollar, which was the reserve currency. Once the gold standard was abandoned, the IMF offered members a variety of floating currency options, excluding pegging the value of currency to gold. Additionally, the 1970s saw the beginning of the Structural Adjustment Facilities, which are loans out of a trust fund offered by the IMF to countries. The IMF was instrumental in guiding a number of countries, particularly developing ones, through a series of crises including the oil shocks in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

World Bank

The World Bank was originally known as the International Bank for Reconstruction when it was created as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Initially, the bank was created to help with reconstruction in Europe, with its first loan going to France in 1947. However, over time and following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it has changed its focus to fighting poverty. The World Bank’s footprint has also expanded from a single office in Washington, D.C., to offices all over the world, and it is now made up of five different development institutions. Like the IMF, it has also tackled issues as they have arisen over the decades, such as social and environmental challenges.

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

Although the IMF and World Bank have survived for more than 70 years, they have faced extremely harsh criticism. The IMF has been criticized far and wide. Mostly the criticisms boil down to the conditions upon which the IMF grants loans. Namely, many people believe the IMF intervenes too much in a country’s operations by forcing it to meet arduous standards before it will be given a loan. The problem here is there is no one-size-fits-all way for countries to operate and the parameters the IMF sets are sometimes seen as more detrimental to a country than its existing financial situation. There are also accusations of supporting corrupt regimes and a lack of transparency.

The World Bank faces several of these same criticisms and more. On top of not taking into account individual local situations, the World Bank has also been criticized for enforcing a de facto Washington consensus along with the IMF. In other words, by controlling the money, the World Bank and IMF can force countries to do what Washington wants. Additionally, the World Bank and IMF have been accused of helping large corporations at the expense of poor and developing nations. In particular, the debt associated with the loans, has left many recipients mired in a perpetual state of debt and therefore beholden to the IMF and World Bank structure.

The video below offers a detailed explanation of Bretton Woods, the IMF, World Bank, and the criticisms they face.

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

With the existing state of finance the way it is, it comes as little surprise that China and other nations who do not agree with many American policies would seek to create their own institutions of last resort. This indeed is what China, India, and a number of other smaller countries now intend to do. This has led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment Bank, or AIIB. Although the details of the bank are still murky it will essentially be a clone of the World Bank.

Aside from differing with the U.S. over policy, China and other nations are also upset over representation within the World Bank and IMF. The way the system is currently set up, an American is traditionally in charge at the World Bank and a European at the IMF.

The video below explains what the AIIB is, what it means for the U.S., and how it will impact the existing system.

With Friends Like These

While it is not that shocking that a rising country like China desires its own system and to be free of the constraints placed upon it by the United States and its allies, several other countries that have been quick to sign up for the AIIB have been surprising. These nations included a number of traditional American allies including Germany, France, the U.K., and South Korea. Nevertheless, while it is still unclear what these countries hope to gain from membership, the fact that they would willingly flout American criticisms and join with China is certainly a diplomatic blow.

Progress on the AIIB

Whereas China’s new bank appears as a smack in the face to the U.S., there is still much to be decided. First of all, there was already an Asian Development Bank, so if anything the AIIB seems to be replacing that more than the World Bank or IMF. Additionally and most importantly, the AIIB has not actually been created yet, so all these defections and statements are just plans, not concrete actions. Furthermore, while countries were upset at and critical of the IMF and World Bank as being puppets of U.S. interest, this new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seemingly being designed specifically to make China its unquestioned leader. Thus it bears watching how long countries want to suffer under China’s yoke and if the grass really is much greener.

There are other projects in the works as well. The U.S. has a new trade proposal of its own for the Asian Pacific that would also aid in the development of infrastructure. The following video shows how the IMF and other groups plan to work with the AIIB in the future financial environment.

Conclusion

America’s position as the global hegemon seems increasingly to be challenged in every facet from sports to entertainment to now finance. For roughly 70 years America has been the guarantor of the world’s economy; however, that is beginning to change as revealed by its inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and through tests from other countries such as China. The U.S. therefore, may have to adjust to its new position in a world, where it wields less control and enjoys less prestige. The only lingering question then is not if this degradation of power will occur, but how will the U.S. respond to it?

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

Vox: How a Chinese Infrastructure Bank Turned into a Diplomatic Disaster for the United States

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

Financial Times: Superpowers Circle Each Other in Contest to Control Asia’s Future

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Threat to the Financial System? appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

Hammers swinging and chisels carving, the great arched stone structure rises from the ground. It is 54 AD, and the Aqua Claudia is nearing completion. One of many aqueducts in central Italy, this structure would provide clean and running water to the city of Rome. In the centuries to follow, Rome’s health, trade, and population would boom, propelling it to the pinnacle of greatness in the ancient world. Water has always been vital to the prosperity of human civilizations. As the world globalizes and markets become integrated, we continue to face challenges with regard to water in 2015. Scarcity, abundance, economic forces, and technology all play concerning roles in our need to more effectively manage our water, vital to not only our prosperity but our survival.

An ancient Roman aqueduct. Courtesy of Wolfgang Staudt via Flickr.

Some arguments suggest that scarcity of a resource is paradoxically beneficial, as it pushes people to band together and cooperate in an attempt to secure their needs, ration what they have, and communicate. However, this is overly optimistic; scarcity is tied to violence. While in the modern era this does not necessarily involve resource wars–as in countries fighting each other over access–it often involves internal struggles and alienation of groups. For example, powerful people gain more power by governing access to a scarce resource. In this sense, the issue is largely one of distribution. This is one of the primary concerns with any resource in global politics; whether regarding countries in the developed world in relation to those in the underdeveloped world, or rich and powerful people in relation to the poor and marginalized ones within the same country, some groups enjoy lavish abundance while others go wanting. There remains plenty of water to go around, it is just a matter of who gets it and how.

Another reason why distribution is a challenge is because of poor infrastructure and economic vectors. Already facing energy shortages and blackouts, officials in Pakistan predict a water crisis on top of what will arrive soon. A significant cause of these concerns is mismanagement; thus poor distribution methods and insufficient economic structures disallow the huge population from receiving the water it needs. Of course there are also climate change-related factors involved, but a properly organized system would be able to account for these dynamics to some degree, as well.

Pakistan’s Water and Energy Minister, Khawaja Muhammed Asif, is of the opinion that the country’s resource challenges are largely due to internal behaviors, stating, “There is a national habit of extravagance.” This means that some people are using a huge amount of water unnecessarily, while others are thirsty. Furthermore, New York Times writer Salman Masood points out that water politics have been tied into jihadist activities; Islamist militants regularly accuse India of denying Pakistan its rightful water, and the leader of the 2008 train attacks in Mumbai often cites these perceived dynamics as one of his primary grievances. However, Masood continues, India’s water storage infrastructure is leaps and bounds superior to that of Pakistan, containing over three times the capacity to save it for a not-rainy day.

The Indus River, lifeblood of villages and civilizations. Courtesy of indiawaterportal.org via Flickr.

There exist many proposals regarding what to do about water shortages and accessibility. One such idea involves towing icebergs to locations in need, but this is highly impractical. In addition to the high costs of such an operation, large amounts of the iceberg would melt in transit, and this delivery system does not address the endemic structural deficiencies.

Another idea involves desalinization plants. These draw on the enormous quantities from the oceans, as otherwise only three percent of the Earth’s water is fresh. This process has some benefits, drawing from the seemingly endless supply, but it is also very expensive to put into play and operate. Furthermore, it is often not wisely appropriated. There has recently been a debate over whether to build a desalinization plant in New York’s Rockland County. The primary motive for resistance is that there is simply no need. In addition to the fact that the region receives a high amount of rainfall, water consumption has actually been dropping as water-using technologies such as washing machines and toilets have become more efficient. Constructing the plant would cost $150 million unnecessarily. Furthermore, it would desalinize the briny water from the lower Hudson River, where it meets the ocean, which could be potentially damaging to the estuary life. Most desalinization plants draw directly from the sea.

A desalinization plant in Spain. Courtesy of James Grellier via Wikipedia.

This debate is a product not of scarcity but of abundance; there is plenty of water to go around so the desalinization plant is unnecessary. But economic structures and finances abound, so additional challenges arise. In most parts of the United States, water is so abundant and the physical infrastructure and economic style for delivering it is so effective that water is often wasted. It is so inexpensive that there is little incentive to conserve. But the problem goes far beyond household consumption. Over three quarters of all water use in the United States occurs in the agricultural industry. Flooding fields, using enormous sprinklers for hours at a time, and other inefficient means of irrigation and watering abound because there is so much water and no consequences for using it all.

It is somewhat ironic, then, that on a national scale we care so little about using our water but are very aware of its purity, content, and condition. Several weeks ago, some oil from a spill was found in the Yellowstone River. This serves as drinking water for many people, as well as plays a vital role in the delicate ecosystem of the region. The spill came from a burst pipeline, fueling further concerns about the safety of this delivery system. Just recently, President Obama exercised his veto power for the first time in five years by striking down the necessary legislation to make the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline a reality.

Whether there is not enough water and methods of procuring it must be hammered out, or there is an abundance and measures to regulate and protect it must be put into place, effectively handling water is the key not only to prosperity, but to survival.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Water Management and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another frenzy-inducing H&M designer collaboration. Last week, the long anticipated Alexander Wang x H&M collection hit stores and online. Shoppers lined up nearly 24 hours beforehand, merchandise was immediately posted on Ebay–you know, the usual.

But amid all the excitement for the coveted sportswear with the word “Wang” emblazoned across the chest, a controversial video was released, as well. German website Dandy Diary created what it called a “promotional video” in which they went to India to see how the collection was made. In the video, child laborers are sewing Alexander Wang x H&M logos onto apparel. Even though the video is meant to be an “art piece” it still raises a lot of questions considering the fact that both Wang and H&M have been accused of using sweatshop labor in the past.

Back in 2012, Wang settled a lawsuit filed by 30 workers who claimed they were forced to work in poor conditions for 16 hours at a time without breaks. Never mind the countless child labor accusations that Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M has received over the years.

H&M has since responded claiming that the collection was not made in Indian factories but rather in China, Turkey, and Italy, and that the company does not support child labor; however, we still don’t know whether or not this is exactly true. Just because this video is supposed to be an “art piece” doesn’t mean that we should laugh it off and move on. Despite the fact that thousands of people died last year alone when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, Bangladeshi factories still continue to breed poor working conditions. Obviously major retailers such as H&M are not pulling through on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. While it may be difficult for both the companies and any U.S. law enforcement to keep track of what’s happening overseas, these retailers need to start taking responsibility for any third-party labor that they employ. Perhaps they could send corporate employees to serve as a liaison between the two.

It’s also worth noting the hype surrounding these coveted limited edition collaborations. Twenty-four hours after the collection was released, only some of the items were sold out online (though whether a full size range was available, I’m not sure). Even the items posted on Ebay were not extraordinarily marked up. If anything, it’s more about being the first one to get your hands on the collections first; kind of like when people wait in line for the new iPhone when they could just as easily get it shipped to their house that day.

What better way to further feed into the hype than to release a controversial video shining a spotlight on something that’s been speculated about in the past? Such a video serves as a way to get both Wang’s and H&M’s names in people’s mouths, ensuring sales not only for this current capsule collection, but for any of either label’s future business as well.

Political correctness be damned, apparently.

Ed. Note: The original version of this article included an embed of Dandy Diary’s blog, which has since been removed by the creator. Read a Dandy Diary’s comment on the video’s removal here.

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 Don’t Ignore the Alexander Wang x H&M Child Labor Video appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in decades, the United Nations has declared four of the world’s humanitarian crises a “Level 3 Emergency,” the highest possible rating the organization can assign. The four on the list are Syria, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Iraq; Iraq was just added to the list on August 14th. From the Islamic State beheading journalists, to the thousands dying from the Ebola virus in Western Africa, from the thousands of civilians fleeing towns in Iraq, to the million malnourished and displaced in South Sudan, as a world, we are collectively in crisis.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General, the “Level 3”  emergency designation facilitates “mobilization of additional resources in goods, funds and assets to ensure a more effective response to the humanitarian needs of populations affected by forced displacement.”

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a team of UN and other NGO humanitarians, is responsible for determining the level of crisis. Level 3 is given to countries experiencing civil unrest that causes the displacement or removal of thousands of people. Unlike natural disasters, conflicts put humanitarian workers in the crossfire, making relief efforts that much more difficult.

Iraq became a particular concern after the situation on Sinjar Mountain escalated and thousands of Yazidi families–a particular religious community in Iraq–were trapped on the mountain without water, nourishment or any form of sanitation as ISIS fighters surrounded them. Despite numerous Department of Defense airdrops over a week long period in August, 1.5 million Iraqis are in need of humanitarian help, according to USAID.

USAID estimates that 10.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria; 2.5 million in the Central African Republic, with 900,000 more displaced; and 1.1 million displaced in South Sudan. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said:

This is the first time in our agency’s history that we have been called on to manage four large-scale humanitarian responses at once— in addition to reaching other vulnerable populations worldwide and preparing communities ahead of natural disasters.

UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNHCR, CARE USA, World Vision USA, Save the Children, Oxfam America and many other NGOs are currently operating in these four countries. Their contributions have saved thousands from death, and millions of individuals have been helped to get back on their feet. The U.S. government alone has sent more than $2.8 billion in assistance to these four countries; but the battle is nowhere close to being done.

To the 5,000 people who are suffering from the Ebola virus, I feel for you. To my sisters in India, who have no choice but to give contaminated water to their children, I feel for you. To the 5.5 million children affected by the crisis in Syria, I feel for you. To the families in Gaza whose houses have been destroyed, I feel for you. I know my empathy won’t bring your loved ones back, give you a new home, or calm the fear that you have to live with everyday. But I hope my words can reach and inspire my colleagues here in America. I hope my words will make people realize how mundane their issues are compared to those I’ve outlined above. I hope my words can bring us together collectively, so we can finally realize that it isn’t “us and them,” but simply “us.” We are Iraq. We are Syria. We are South Sudan. We are Central African Republic. If they are experiencing a crisis, we are experiencing a crisis. With countries like Gaza, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the horizon of reaching a level 3 designation, humanitarian aid is needed now more than ever. We are collectively in crisis, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs appeared first on Law Street.

A men’s rights movement has gained momentum within the last several years with the goals of reclaiming rights for men in society. One offshoot of the movement, the Red Pill, is accused of being inspired by a largely misogynistic attitude. This accusation is based on the attacks on women for using and abusing men, and essentially being the “evil” of the sexes. In addition to its major presence on social media, Men’s Rights activists have attempted to gain awareness through conferences and rallies. The Men’s Rights Movement, still controversial in nature, has legitimate goals in that it is working to gain equal rights by advocating for the equal treatment of boys and men in professional, educational, and legal situations. Some feel that this is a hidden effort to disguise prejudice against women, yet men continue to protest their desire to be “equal” citizens in a society where they believe that women currently have all the power. Read on for more information about the Men’s Rights movement and its Social Media counterpart, the Red Pill Movement.

What is the Red Pill Movement?

The Red Pill Movement is comprised of a group of men who hold a certain animosity toward women, believing them to be manipulative, unfaithful, and narcissistic. They band together primarily through social media and rant about their hatred of the opposite sex. Men who “take” the red pill are choosing to live a life free of emotional attachment to any a woman for fear that she will use him for his status, money, or emotional stability. The term red pill has its roots in the 1999 movie “The Matrix.” The red pill symbolizes the consumption of the truth, whereas taking the blue pill results in pure ignorance. Advocates for the Red Pill Movement believe that by taking the red pill, or consuming this eye-opening knowledge, they are becoming aware of women and their antics.

Social Media

Reddit, a social media site where individuals can share information such as texts, photographs, and personal opinions, is the main platform of the Red Pill Movement. Here men rant about their misunderstanding of and hatred for the opposite sex. The theme of most threads is how women are cheating, lying, manipulative, and narcissistic. Members often communicate in a verbally violent and insulting manner toward females and share their negative experiences of being taken advantage of, used, and insulted by women.

The Men’s Rights Movement

While the Red Pill Movement is based on the belief that women are wicked in nature, the Men’s Rights Movement actually does have some concrete goals that members would like to accomplish. According to the Huffington Post, goals of  the pro-men’s rights group Canadian Association for Equality, are mainly to bring awareness about “shared custody of children, unhealthy perceptions of masculinity, declining rates of university enrollment, spousal abuse, and suicide.” Since the Men’s Rights Movement is fairly new, there hasn’t been any policy or legislation enacted yet. The main goal of the group is to draw attention to the issues that men face in a society that tend to focus more on gaining women’s rights and recognition.

Rape

The Men’s Rights Movement emphasizes how often they believe men to be wrongfully accused of rape. Members argue that society has created a stigma that victimizes women and paints a picture of men as violently sexual predators. Many posters and arguments of the movement highlight the idea that women are partially responsible for any sexual acts that occur, in that they consume alcohol and choose to have sex with a man who they then turn around and accuse of rape.

Child Custody

The movement argues that women often receive custody in divorce, and men are unfairly assigned the monetary responsibilities.

#Feminist single motherhood in a nutshell #feminismisawful #NoMRA #MRA @Typhonblue @JudgyBitch1 @AlyssMajere @icmi14 pic.twitter.com/uFyOcaWrIL — Chloé J.F. Berg (@ChloeShell18) July 17, 2014

Domestic Violence

The Men’s Rights Movement accuses society of labeling domestic violence as one sided, in that men commit of all of the abuse. Advocates for men’s rights argue that women are just as responsible for violence in the home, yet it goes unrecognized because of the negative stigma attached to men.

Suicide 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79 percent of all U.S. suicides.” The Men’s Rights Movement aims to prevent this alarming epidemic in men. By providing support and encouragement to young men, members believe that this could eliminate some of the suicides that occur in response to emotional and mental disturbances and abuse.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men is a website that compiles information on the Men’s Rights Movement. The organization’s argument revolves around the theory of gynocentrism, the belief that males have bent to the demands of women for centuries. In addition to the organization’s website, the group has a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter dedicated to the Men’s Rights Movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxcXldIFsbQ

The International Men’s Rights Conference 

The Men’s rights movement is increasingly gaining popularity on the grounds that women are the more powerful sex. According to activists, men face the adverse effects of a certain stigma that society has ingrained into them throughout history. At the first International Men’s Rights Conference held in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, both men and women gathered to discuss the issue. Men’s rights activists believe that men face difficulty in society, which has forced them to live out life as “second-class-citizens,” and that men are continuously blamed for rape. According to conference attendee Barbara Kay,

“The vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides…It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”

Men also blamed their feelings toward women on their early childhood experiences. According to Stefan Molyneux, “If we could just get [women] to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.” Molyneux continued to say that women are responsible for choosing the abuser-types, or in his word “a-holes.” “Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil,” he adds later. “And then know what they say? ‘We’re victims!”

Watch a spoof video below satirizing how women react to men at bars. All jokes aside, this comedic video is indicative of many of the views expressed by members of the Red Pill Movement.

This movement is not just in the United States but many other countries, as well, particularly in the East. Where feminism empowers women, the Red Pill or Men’s Rights  movement cripples them. In a disturbing piece written by Kim Tong-hyung, a professor of medicine at Seoul National University in Korea, Lee Yoon-seong blames women for the rape epidemic. Yoon-seong says:

“If there is money on the street, somebody will pick it up. If there is a woman walking around with sexy clothing, there will be somebody who rapes her …”

The Men’s Human Rights Rally

A men’s rights rally was organized in Toronto, Canada on September 28, 2013. Participants claimed that men are just as likely to face domestic abuse, have a higher rate of suicide, die earlier, and drop out of school as women. They argued that men make up “90 percent” of the prison population and are less likely to get a job after graduation. Thirty people fought for the movement to gain acceptance and recognition. This was a controversial rally, in that some people felt that it was simply a blow to women and masking an underlying current of misogyny.

Case Study: Elliot Rodger and the Santa Barbara shootings

In May 2014 a 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in Isla Vist, California that was fueled by his resentment of the women who rejected him and the men who received their affections instead. Rodger left behind a video in which he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.”

Watch the chilling video of Elliot Rodger before his killing spree.

Rodger was reportedly driven to murder because of the rejection he felt from most women. He complains of being a “22-year-old virgin,” and blames his lack of sexual success on the opposite sex. Clearly, there are other mental health issues that contribute to his feelings of rage, yet his outlet is to target what he believed was the source of his depression and anger for a good portion of his life. Rodger was not the only one who had these hostile feelings toward women; Men’s Rights advocates band together to speak of their negative experiences with women and rant about how they have caused them to live a life of misery and deceit. Some of the arguments are extreme, unreasonably blaming an entire sex for the source of a man’s unhappiness in life.

Rape as a Tool

Case Study: Rape Internationally

According to CNN, “rape has too often become the weapon of choice for frustrated young men who blame women, increasingly visible in the workplace, for their unemployment, and who hope to regain jobs by frightening women back home through sexual violence.” Men are being fueled by their anger toward women; they may feel threatened or humiliated by them and are using the most powerful tool that they have to attack in the most sexually aggressive and destructive way possible. Between 2006 and 2011, rape cases in India rose by twenty-five percent. Even more disturbing, only one quarter of the rapists were convicted. Rape is an increasing normality in India and indicative of the lack of support that women receive in the predominantly patriarchal society. Similarly, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, in the United States, 97 percent of violent rapists will not be convicted and 54 percent of cases are not even reported.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence works to alleviate some of the gender violence conducted against women internationally, specifically in times of war and conflict. Its main goals are to increase services offered to individuals who have been victims of violence and rape, gain justice for victims, and ultimately stop the aggression toward women.

Battling the Red Pill

Social Media to Combat the Red Pill Movement

In response to a society that seems to breed rape culture, the Twitter movement #YesAllWomen has emerged on Twitter. According to Time, the #YesAllWomen hashtag was created “to criticize the way society teaches men to feel entitled to women at the expense of their health, safety and, in [the Santa Barbara shooter] Rodger’s case, lives.” The online campaign was created to empower women, and expand on the belief that women are worth more than their physical appearance. It also brings awareness to how women are constantly placed in sexually offensive and uncomfortable situations. A recent post links to a list of (in)appropriate responses to cat-callers on the street. Tweets such as this one:

Because tweets like this should not exist #YesAllWomen pic.twitter.com/Ng84ItSXjD — Izabella (@izabellaanna_) July 14, 2014

Organizations Against Rape Culture

Organizations such as People Against Rape Culture, are fighting back by attempting to educate, collaborate, and advocate so that people will become more aware of rape culture. There are also organizations that include man’s involvement. Men Can Stop Rape has compiled a list of Men’s Anti-Violence Organizations. The group has also used collaborative methods, such as the Strength Campaign, to educate boys in middle schools, high schools, and universities and assist them in working on relationships with peers, teachers, family members, and members of their community.

Conclusion

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, therefore whether or not the Men’s Rights Movement results in any legislation is irrelevant to its existence as a legitimate movement. This holds true for the Red Pill Movement, as well; however, that it is breeding an extreme sense of animosity toward an entire gender. Governments must continue to educate and prosecute those people who violently and sexually violate women, no matter where the source of that anger comes from.

Resources

Business Insider: Inside Red Pill, the Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women

WorldNews Network: Deadly California rampage: Chilling video, but no match for reality

Washington Post: Men’s Rights Activists, Gathering to Discuss All the Ways Society Has Done Them Wrong

Times of India: Low Conviction Rate Spurring Sexual Assault Cases in India

TIME: The Most Powerful #YesAllWomen Tweets

RAINN: 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive no Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

TIME: What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s-Rights Conference

Southern Poverty Law Center: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women

Ms. Foundation: Stopping the Violence Against Women 

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Pill and the Men’s Rights Movement 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.