Putin Reacts to New American Sanctions

At the end of last week, Congress passed a bill that would levy sanctions on Russia for its involvement in the 2016 election-related hacking, as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign it–although even if he chose to veto it, it appears that Congress has the votes to override his veto. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to the measures yesterday, ordering a reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff by 755. That would bring American staff to 455 at all the diplomatic missions across Russia. Russia is also seizing some American property in the country.

The Russian government says that the affected diplomats must leave the country by September 1, although State Department numbers indicate that many of the people working at diplomatic missions in Russia are local hires, meaning they’ll likely just be let go. Tensions with Russia have been on a bit of a roller coaster of late–Trump’s staff has been accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. But, Putin has said that he doesn’t see relations changing “anytime soon.”

Putin said Russia had run out of patience waiting for relations with the United States to improve https://t.co/pUzx6nZZYb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 31, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Late April saw a major reversal in what had been a long-running trend. Piracy on the high seas–not including the latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie–may be back on the rise after years of decline. Although recent attacks marked the first major assaults on merchant ships in nearly five years, the location of the hijackings, near the Horn of Africa, was normal. However, there has also been a rise in the number of attacks on the West Coast of Africa as well. This all comes despite major efforts following a recent peak in piracy attacks in 2008-2011. Read on to find out why these attacks are happening again and if this latest wave of pirate attacks is the beginning of a new trend or just an isolated spike.

A Brief History of Piracy

Trying to trace the history of piracy is similar to trying to trace the history of other crimes like theft or murder in that there really is no identifiable start date. Nevertheless, most estimates place the beginning of the practice sometime between 1400 and 1200 B.C. near the southeastern coast of present-day Turkey. The practice continued throughout the years, involving every Mediterranean empire and many important historical figures including Julius Caesar.

Piracy was a major tool used by the Vikings and later by the English, most notably when the Queen of England commissioned Francis Drake to attack Spanish ships during a war. The United States had its first brush with pirates in the early 19th century when Barbary Pirates from North Africa attacked its shipments and demanded tribute, which ultimately led President Thomas Jefferson to send the navy to fight back. While the frequency of piracy decreased after that, it was never eliminated outright–it mostly just shifted regions, first to Southeast Asia and ultimately to what is now Somalia.

Somali Pirates

Piracy near the Horn of Africa clearly has a long history for a number of reasons. Recently, its surge has been the result of many factors, notably the region’s significant population growth and failing economy, which is the legacy of various colonial governments cutting up Somalia into disparate parts. Additionally, many of the pirates themselves–who are generally men between 20 and 35 years old–have few employment opportunities and view piracy as lucrative means of employment. In fact, piracy has actually led to the development of many other symbiotic industries such as communications, mechanics, and food production. Pirate crews are often formed along clan lines and some believe that an important part of the reason why piracy is so prevalent in Somalia is due to the amount of illegal fishing in Somali waters. Illegal fishing has significantly depleted the resources available and is likely part of the reason why the local economy does not offer enough opportunity to young men, which forces many to seek alternative means of making money.

The video below looks at piracy in Somalia and some of its underlying factors:

Regardless of the specific reason, piracy exploded in this region and peaked from 2008 through 2011. During this time, more than 700 merchant vessels were besieged. At one point in 2011, as many as 758 individuals were being held for ransom and the costs to the shipping industry were estimated to be higher than $7 billion. Piracy became such an issue during this period that one high-profile incident even became the subject of the blockbuster movie “Captain Phillips.”  But in 2012 this trend slowed dramatically and there were no major hijackings until earlier this year.

Efforts to Fight Piracy

Although it seemed as if piracy in the area around the Horn of Africa just vanished, it was actually the result of several factors. These efforts started by land (and sea) with U.S. airstrikes and efforts by Kenyan security forces that pushed Al-Shabaab (Somalia’s Al-Qaeda offshoot) out of key areas, including the port of Kismayo. These actions along with efforts by local clans, which were irritated at the flashiness of the pirates, brought back some stability to the region.

The greatest effort, though, came from Task Force 151. As part of the U.S.-led force, NATO and the European Union sent ships to the area to protect merchant ships. This effort was joined separately by navy vessels from Russia, China, and India. The primary contribution made by these ships was deterrence, however, they did also attack coastal storage areas and capture pirates to bring in for trial. The coalition also shared vast quantities of information with merchant ships that proved very useful.

The merchant vessel operators themselves also contributed to the reduction in piracy through several actions of their own. According to Foreign Policy, those efforts include, “cruising at higher speeds, installed barbed wire on the lower decks, built ‘citadel’ safe rooms for crews, and toyed with foam machines, high-power water jets, and deafening sonic devices.” Notably, many also employed security teams, which usually consisted of people with military experience.

While it certainly seems like there was a reduction in piracy over the last few years, thanks to a variety of efforts, this may be somewhat misleading. Although Somali pirates generally refrained from attacking high-profile international targets since 2012, there have still been numerous attacks on smaller local fishing boats. In addition, some suspect that several attacks went unreported, suggesting the problem never really went away, but that rather it changed forms.

Latest Developments

Regardless of what happened during that period, piracy is unquestionably an issue in 2017. For the first time in years, a major hijacking occurred off the coast of Somalia when pirates captured the Aris-13 in March. Somali pirates also hijacked an Indian commercial ship in April. Last year marked the first time since 2010 that the costs associated with piracy have gone up, reaching an estimated $1.7 billion. The reason for this spike has been attributed to several causes. One is declining vigilance on the part of shipping companies–the Aris-13, for example, did not have private security on board and was also cruising in dangerous conditions. Aside from the shipping companies, the spike has also been attributed to famine and drought in the area along with the continued lack of stable government and law enforcement in Somalia.

At the same time, piracy is also increasing on the coast of West Africa. Namely, pirate attacks off West Africa nearly doubled in 2016, according to a report from Oceans Beyond Piracy, an anti-piracy NGO. Most of these attacks have occurred off the coast of Nigeria and have focused on attacking the country’s oil infrastructure. The attacks from Nigeria stem primarily from the country’s criminal gangs. The tactics employed by West African pirates differs, however, from their Somali counterparts. While Somali pirates tend to target large ships, West African pirates seek out the crew then go into hiding until they receive ransom payments. Part of this has to do with the nature of the local government. Nigeria, unlike Somali, has a functioning government and military, which makes seizing large ships more difficult. The presence of a functioning state apparatus has also made the need for an international coalition, like the one in Somalia, less necessary.

Conclusion

Piracy is one of those concepts, similar to terrorism, where it often seems as if the international community is pursuing the incorrect, reactive approach. Namely, instead of taking a step back and asking why people engage in piracy, we try to target individual pirate leaders in the hope that defeating them will end the scourge. In other words, we treat the symptoms instead of looking at the underlying cause.

When rates of piracy went down, the international community pointed to increased vigilance and became complacent. With the threat seemingly neutralized, protection decreased and ships started employing fewer armed guards. Unsurprisingly, piracy returned and now the community must grapple with the same problems again. If the world at large hopes to be more successful this time, it must understand the history behind this practice, and more importantly, this divided region. Above all else, though, greater emphasis will need to be placed on the cause, or at least offer an alternative, rather than simply trying to kill a few leaders and assuming that will solve the problem.

If the U.S. and its global partners really want to end piracy they need to establish a secure and functioning state in Somalia and address the food problem there. In West Africa, there is less to do since there is a functional government in place and pirates rarely try to seize entire boats, instead focusing on ransom payments for individuals. In that scenario, however, the government may need to look into addressing the inequality caused by mineral wealth that has left certain groups wanting. There is no one universal approach, other than working to target the reason why piracy exists instead of just reacting when piracy occurs.

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 After Years of Decline, Piracy May Be on the Rise Again appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Trump’s first week, but the protests haven’t stopped quite yet. For example, actor Shia LaBeouf has launched a four-year-long livestream art project called “He Will Not Divide Us.” It involves a camera outside of New York’s Museum of the Moving Image and its first featured guest was Jaden Smith. Check it out here.

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

Trump’s Team Hired Actors to Attend His First Campaign Speech

Way before President Donald Trump won the election, back when he publicly announced his candidacy in June 2015, his campaign team indirectly hired actors to be in the audience. Members of Trump’s team were accused of doing so at the time, but denied it—and they are right, in a sense. They didn’t hire the actors directly, but they worked with a contracting firm, which then subcontracted a talent agency to make sure that some actors came to cheer for the new candidate. A complaint that the American Democracy Legal Fund filed in March was made public last week and confirms the allegations. That organization supported Hillary Clinton and is alleging that Trump’s campaign team didn’t pay the agencies appropriately.

Trump hired a firm to provide actors to cheer during his 2015 campaign announcement then didn’t pay them for months https://t.co/7Ktaj6Jiec

— Liam Stack (@liamstack) January 22, 2017

A journalist from the Center for Public Integrity found that the Trump campaign also failed to pay the contracting firm until a month after the company had filed a complaint, and four months after it was originally hired. In the end, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the Trump campaign hadn’t done anything wrong. But if nothing else, it’s an embarrassing revelation for a team that only days ago claimed to have had the largest inauguration audience in history, despite photo and video evidence to the contrary.

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: January 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s inauguration week, but there are a lot of other things going on too. For example, the Air Force just relaxed its rules for recruits who have used marijuana before enlisting. Read more about that here. And that’s good news! Now check out some rant-worthy news. 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:

Just Days Before his Inauguration, Trump is Sued for Defamation

With only a few days left until his inauguration, President-elect Donald Trump is facing a lawsuit by a former contestant on his TV show “The Apprentice.” Last year, Summer Zervos, who participated in the reality show in 2006, accused Trump of aggressively kissing and groping her when he met with her a year after she was on the show. In response, Trump claimed that she was a liar and made the whole thing up. Zervos is now saying that Trump defamed her by doing so. She says that she will retract her lawsuit and not seek any monetary damages if Trump takes his statement back and admits that what she said was true.

BREAKING: Former ‘Apprentice’ candidate Summer Zervos files defamation lawsuit against Donald Trumphttps://t.co/S3vTcKPB9P pic.twitter.com/XUHXCFiEDR

— Globalnews.ca (@globalnews) January 17, 2017

Gloria Allred took the case and is also representing three other women who have accused Trump of similar behavior. “Enough is enough,” Allred said. “Truth matters. Women matter, those who allege they were victims of sexual misconduct or sexual assault by Mr. Trump matter.” Trump has already settled several lawsuits to avoid legal issues while in office, but those settlements have not required him to admit wrongdoing. Given that this lawsuit could be resolved without money, it will be interesting to see what his response will be.

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: January 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Bringing huge relief for some Nigerian families, 21 of the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram in 2014 were released early Thursday. After negotiations between the militant Islamist group and the Nigerian government, the girls were freed in exchange for imprisoned members of the militant group.

According to the BBC, members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Swiss government helped broker the talks. Nigerian security staff and the ICRC brought some detained high-ranking Boko Haram members with them to an exchange point, where they were switched for the girls, most of whom are now mothers. The girls will be taken to the capital city, Abuja, and examined by doctors and psychologists.

1/2 Today we transferred 21 of the #Chibokgirls and handed them to the #Nigeria government authorities, acting as a neutral intermediary.

— ICRC Africa (@ICRC_Africa) October 13, 2016

But at the same time, Information Minister Lai Mohammed said at a news conference that there was no swap, and no Boko Haram leaders had been freed in exchange for the girls. “The release of these girls does not mean an end to military operations, but it is a new phase in the war against insurgency‎,” he said. “People want to believe bad news than good news. The girls were released, there was no swap.”

21 Nigerian schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram released

Read More:- https://t.co/kt2512VcOs#WorldNews #Terrorist #BokoHaram pic.twitter.com/14sYVIldPc

— Baba Ramdev (@SwamiRamdevBaba) October 13, 2016

Boko Haram kidnapped more than 270 schoolgirls from a Chibok boarding school in 2014, but 57 of the girls managed to flee immediately after being taken. Only one has been freed up until now, when she was found walking in the forest in May. People urging the group to free the girls and the Nigerian government to act have tweeted using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, in a social media campaign supported by Michelle Obama.

But even though this is a huge step forward in the negotiations between the Islamist group and the government, Boko Haram has also kidnapped thousands more women and girls in Nigeria. Many are forced to marry the soldiers and transferred to what have been called rape camps.

It has been difficult for Nigerian security forces to discover where the group hides, or where the girls are located, due to dense forest and how spread out the fighters are. On top of all that, the northeastern part of the country, where Boko Haram’s territory is located, is suffering one of the biggest hunger crises in the world. But for now, 21 more girls are reunited with their families, and at least this is one step forward in the fight against the militants.

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 Boko Haram Releases 21 Chibok Schoolgirls in Exchange for Militant Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

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 Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

One of the missing Chibok schoolgirls abducted by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram back in 2014 has been found alive and well in Nigeria. She is the first of the girls to be brought back since the kidnapping, not including the 57 that were able to flee before they were taken. There are 218 allegedly still missing, and activists say they are heavily guarded somewhere in the Sambisa Forest in the northeast of Nigeria.

According to reports, the girl is Amina Ali Nkeki, and activists from the Civilian Joint Task Force (JTF) claim to have found her with a baby in her arms and in the company of a man who said he was her husband. He was also a prisoner of Boko Haram. Allegedly they walked out from the forest, asking for help.

But the Nigerian army has an opposing story. Army officials claim that they retrieved the girl in a rescue operation, and that her name is Falmata Mbalala. At the same time they confirmed that they were talking about the same incident. It remains to be seen whether the stories are about two separate girls, or just a case of miscommunication.

Over two years ago, in April 2014, 276 schoolgirls were taken from their secondary school in Chibok by the terror group Boko Haram. The kidnapping sparked reactions from all over the world and was the origin of the social media campaign #BringBackOurGirls, strongly supported by Michelle Obama.

Most of the girls were Christian, and believed to have been forced to convert to Islam, since Boko Haram released a video of the girls reciting the Koran about a month after the kidnapping. Another video, shot on Christmas Day 2015, showed some of the girls wearing long black robes, saying they were treated well but wanted to go home.

Boko Haram was founded in 2002 and its main opposition is to a Western political and social lifestyle. The group wants to prohibit people from participating in elections, wearing Western clothing, and getting a secular education. In 2009 it initiated military operations to create an Islamic state, but today most of its territories have been recaptured by Nigerian military.

The discovery of the girl comes just a few days after reports of a thawing relationship and reconciliation between Nigerian and American governments, with the hope they will cooperate to defeat Boko Haram.

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 #BringBackOurGirls: First Chibok Schoolgirl Freed from Boko Haram appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? 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.

Nigeria recently elected a new president, Muhammadu Buhari, in a prolonged fight for victory against current President Goodluck Jonathan. The election was postponed six weeks due to the instability caused by terrorist group Boko Haram.

Read More: Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change

To assist with stabilizing the region and achieving safety for civilians, Nigeria employed hundreds of South African and former Soviet Union mercenaries to fight Boko Haram. Initially, this was only rumored after pictures and allegations surfaced on social media.

President Jonathan was quoted as saying that two companies provided “trainers and technicians” to help Nigerian forces fight Boko Haram, though he was not specific in names, sources, or firms.

Eeben Barlow, the head of one of the private military companies working in Nigeria, confirmed that South African Defence Forces have aided in the training, equipment, and strategy for Nigerian forces against Boko Haram, as well as camping out in Northern Nigeria to forcibly take back territories.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Barlow’s South African private military firm, Executive Outcomes, has been influential in conflicts in Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho, and South Africa.

Unfortunately there may be an issue here: this is illegal. The 1998 South African Act of Military Assistance Abroad bans its citizens from directly participating in wars in other countries for private gain. They must act in an official capacity under the authority of the government in Pretoria.

The Act is explicit: “Regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident within the Republic, and foreign citizens rendering such assistance from within the borders of the Republic…”

South Africa is not alone. Georgia, which is a also a source of the mercenaries, has laws criminalizing participation in foreign military activities. South African Defense Minister Mapisa-Nqakula has even said that the country should charge the men under the regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.

Laws, policies, and guidelines are drafted and implemented in the name of justice; so would it really be bad if some foreign nationals were paid to fight terrorists? The lack of action or fuss from the international community proves that we’re willing to look the other way in the name of combating terrorism. For now, no action has been taken by or against the foreign mercenaries.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South African Mercenaries Fight Boko Haram in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

Never before has a sitting president been defeated in a Nigerian election–until now. General Muhammadu Buhari ousted President Goodluck Jonathan in a decisive victory in the country’s latest election, and it is an incredibly momentous event in Nigeria’s history.

Courtesy of Chatham House via Flickr.

Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC) won 15,424,921 votes against President Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which won 12,853,162. Since independence from Britain in 1960, there have been numerous coups and many contrived elections–even this election has observers wondering.

President-Elect Buhari, a 72-year-old Muslim from northern Nigeria, won the presidency on his fourth attempt. Previously he ruled the country from January 1984 through August 1985 after taking control through a military coup.

Buhari lead the northwestern states, which have suffered the most by Islamist militant group Boko Haram. In Borno state, one of the worst affected by Islamist violence, Buhari won 94 percent of the vote.

For 16 years, PDP had been in power. This year Nigerians decided that the Opposition should have a go at sorting things out. Nigerians are accustomed to the incumbent fulfilling a second term; something rather big made them change their minds. The keyword is change.

Buhari now has to prove he really can change things. Boko Haram, the economy, and the unceasing cry of corruption are at the forefront of the list.

Boko Haram

Islamist militant group Boko Haram  has instilled so much fear in the Nigerian government that the Presidential elections were delayed for six weeks to allow time for the security situation to improve. Its existence is one of the biggest reasons that only 17 percent of Nigerians turned out to vote.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Boko Haram has been launching military operations since 2009 with the goal of creating an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians, and it’s terrorized Northern Nigeria, taken over cities, and infamously kidnapped 200 school girls in April 2014. Many people question the strategy of the Nigerian military, and criticize Jonathan for not challenging this threat.

The Economy

Nigeria is Africa’s leading oil producer, yet more than half of its people live in poverty. The market for stolen oil has increased violence and corruption in the Niger Delta–the home of the industry. Few Nigerians, including those in oil-producing areas, have benefited from the oil wealth.

Read More: The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices

Nigeria was badly hit by the fall in the oil price. Oil represents 90 percent of Nigerian exports and 70 percent of its government revenues; it’s hard to recover from a fall in the oil price. Additionally, the U.S. is no longer importing Nigerian oil because it has had such success in the shale revolution.

Corruption

The contentious issue of corruption undermines the trust in Nigeria’s government. Allegations of deception, fraud, and bribery include security funding, the legality of government officials, and enforcement of policies and elections. Past elections have been tarnished by serious suspicions of rigging. In 2007, observers said the presidential poll was not “credible.” In 2011 the vote was considered better, but fraud still took place.

This time the electoral commission took more steps to prevent rigging, including new biometric voters cards.

These are the changes the Nigerian people–and international community–call for and will be looking at closely. If there are significant advances toward counterterrorism strategy, economic schemes, and financial circulation, as well as more serious crackdowns on corruption, then we could look forward to long-term positive outcomes not only in Nigeria, but globally as well.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change appeared first on Law Street.

Boko Haram became internationally known in April 2014 for the kidnapping of 276 teenage girls from a boarding school in the town of Chibok in Borno, a state in northeastern Nigeria. The group can be considered one of the deadliest and most dangerous terrorist organizations, as its attacks have displaced more than a million people and killed approximately 9,000 last year alone. This year is proving no different, as its beginning was marked with Boko Haram’s abduction of 40 boys and men, and its seizure of a multinational military base. Read on to learn about the group, its history, and what can be done to counter it.

What is Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is a militant Islamic group that operates in Nigeria and adjacent countries.

“Boko Haram” often translates as “Western Education is Forbidden,” conveying the group’s opposition to Western influence, as well as its support for Islamic education and Sharia law. In its local language the group is refered to as “Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad,” which can be translated as “The Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad” or “People Committed to the Propaganda of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

Boko Haram follows a radical Islamic ideology based on the fundamentalist Wahhabi theological system. Its main goal is to establish an extreme version of Sharia law and a true Islamic State in the whole of Nigeria. In addition, the leaders have articulated their demands to end the current government and to prohibit western education in its territory. It imposes its values on all non-believers, killing all those who refuse to embrace that interpretation.

History

Boko Haram appears to have existed since the late 1990s, but the official beginning of its activities can be traced to the year 2002 when the group was unified under Muslim leader Mohammed Yusuf. Yusuf was an eloquent leader, attracting and recruiting followers to his radical vision of Islam. He condemned the corrupt Nigerian government and rejected Western education and culture, advocating strict Islamic ideology as the alternative. The first hostilities date back to December 2003 when Boko Haram militants attacked multiple police stations in the state of Yobo. Generally from 2002 till 2009, the group engaged with villagers who failed to adhere to Yusuf’s teachings, or attacked local police stations. As outbreaks of violence were sporadic and generally low-key, Boko Haram didn’t attract international attention.

Boko Haram Uprising 

Everything changed in 2009 when Boko Haram’s violence began to spread to northeastern states, including Borno, Kano, and Yobo, in the so-called “Boko Haram Uprising.” It is possible, though difficult to confirm, that local politicians manipulated local issues, prompting Boko Haram to use violence against the state. The authorities responded with brutality, killing Yusuf and several hundred of his followers. The video below tells the in-depth story of the 2009 events, featuring video recordings of extrajudicial killings by the police, including that of Mohammed Yusuf.

The Nigerian government denies the allegations, claiming that Yusuf was shot after he tried to escape police custody.

Change of Leadership

Boko Haram re-emerged under the leadership of Yusuf’s deputy, Abubakar Shekau. Staring in July 2010 when the organization released a video statement announcing Shekau’s leadership, Boko Haram became a truly violent group. It changed its methods and tactics; the attacks became widespread and deadly. The group started to carry out kidnappings and bombings, mostly operating in northeastern Nigerian states.

Click here to see a the timeline of the attacks, including a death toll for each.

Chibok Kidnapping

Boko Haram became known around the globe on April 14, 2014 when it kidnapped 276 girls from their schools in Chibok. It prompted the West to start paying attention to the proliferation of the group, and resulted in the worldwide “Bring Our Girls Back” campaign. As of now, 57 girls have escaped and 219 remain captive.

Funding Boko Haram

Boko Haram finances its activities through profits from bank robberies, kidnapping ransoms, and smuggling. Due to the presence of an indigenous mining industry in Nigeria, explosives are easy to obtain. Vehicles and weapons are usually stolen. Theft of weapons from government sites is especially concerning as it implies a certain level of infiltration of military and governmental institutions by the group or its followers. So far, there is no information that can point to Boko Haram receiving remittances from oversees, confirming the group’s sole interest in Nigeria and adjacent countries.

Ansaru

Ansaru is a splinter organization of Boko Haram based in the Kano and Kaduna provinces of northern Nigeria. It translates from local language as “Vanguards for the Protection of Muslims in Black Africa.” As evidenced by its name, the group is against the killing of Muslims, instead targeting Christian populations. As Boko Haram carries out murders of Muslims who adhere to a more tolerant version of Islam, Ansaru diverged, not willing to kill Muslim brothers.

Unlike Boko Haram, Ansaru has links with other radical Islamist groups outside the country such as Algeria and Mali. Some of its fighters are from Chad and Niger. It’s believed that it was Ansaru that introduced kidnappings and suicide bombers to the region in the last year. There are also rumors that two groups are reuniting as Ansaru tactics are evident in the most recent Boko Haram attacks.

Why is Boko Haram getting so strong?

Boko Haram’s ideology is not based on international goals, nor does it have tight ties with other radical Islamist groups outside the country. This poses the question of why its influence throughout the region continues to grow.

Poverty and Poor Governance

In spite of considerable oil wealth, the majority of the Nigerian population is poor. The country lacks infrastructure such as roads and transportation and there is a shortage of clean water and reliable electrical power, not to mention inadequate education and healthcare systems.

Nigeria is also one of the most unequal countries in the world. While profits from the oil extraction go to the pockets of the country’s elite in the South, the northern states are underdeveloped, uneducated, and desperately poor. This map provides a good idea of wealth distribution in Nigeria.

Both grand and petty corruption are considered widespread in the country, and are often cited as primary reasons for the above shortcomings and the overall poverty level. Transparency International scores Nigeria only at 27 out of 100. Combined with poor governance it’s a recipe for failure.

Religious Divide

Nigeria is literally divided into a Muslim North and a Christian South. Both religions converge in the middle belt, creating a fertile ground for the conflict. Besides that, the Muslim North was long dominated by the struggle between different Islamist factions, in particular the one between Salafi fundamentalists and tolerant Sufis. Boko Haram’s interpretation of Islam is very radical, while northern Nigerians adhere to the more traditional version of the religion. For example, Sharia law exists in the North, but regulated by the secular law and court proceedings. Boko Haram wants to implement a much stronger version of it, without proper trial and with public hangings for any minor deviation from its version of the religion. Not only is Boko Haram a threat to the traditional Islamists in the North, but also to the Christian population in the South.

The video below provides background on both economic and religious factors that contribute to the proliferation of Boko Haram.

Political Dispute

The current president of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, is Christian. That wouldn’t really be problem if he didn’t break a long-standing political deal between Muslim and Christian elites brokered at the end of military rule in 1998. In simple terms, the two religious groups decided that Muslims and Christians should take turns governing the country. The ruling People’s Democratic Party established this rule to manage ethnic, regional, and religious divisions between the Muslim North and Christian South. Now the deal is off. In November 2014, Goodluck Jonathan announced that he would seek a second term in the next elections scheduled for February 2015. This decision incited more dissatisfaction with the current government, especially from the northern states. At the same time, it provides a favorable environment for Boko Haram to proceed with its radical agenda.

Response to Boko Haram

Government Response

The Nigerian government doesn’t recognize that Boko Haram emerged from the country’s religious divisions, poverty, inequality, and poor governance. It declared a “state of emergency” in northeastern Nigeria and marked Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations. It further responded with killings of alleged Boko Haram members and many others who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nigeria’s security forces have been accused of human rights violations in the past and during their current efforts to contain the violence perpetrated by Boko Haram. As thousands of military and police forces were deployed around the country to fight the organization, they engaged in brutalities, disregarding law and human rights of the citizenry. Nigerian security forces are responsible for multiple atrocities against their own citizens such as extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, beatings, looting, and even rape. Not only did it create a further divide between the government and communities, but prompted many people to withhold information and provide support and lodging for Boko Haram instead.

The video below gives an in-depth look at the military abuses during Nigeria’s fight of Boko Haram.

International Response

The United States and British governments labeled Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations in 2013. The United Nations followed suit, designating Boko Haram an al-Qaeda affiliate in 2014. The same year, the U.N. Security Council announced that it approved sanctions against Boko Haram, including an arms embargo, travel bans, and asset freezes.

After the Chibok kidnapping, the United States and major western countries publicly condemned Boko Haram’s actions. The most famous public speech regarding the schoolgirls’ kidnapping was issued by Michelle Obama on Mother’s Day. See the video below.

The West also dispatched multidisciplinary teams of experts, expanded intelligence sharing, and provided aircrafts and military units to look for the missing girls. According to the White House there are several initiatives under way:

• A $40 million Global Security Contingency Fund for Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria to fight Boko Haram.

• The Security Governance Initiative (SGI) in which Nigeria and the United Sates are planning to work together to improve security sector institutions.

In addition, the United States provides some humanitarian assistance to the victims of Boko Haram through trauma counseling, and is planning to create other initiatives to promote democratic institutions, strengthen education for women, and improve dialogue with security forces.

The entire international community wants Nigeria and its neighbors, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Benin, to resolve the Boko Haram problem on their own, while the West will provide technical, advisory, and financial assistance. As former UK foreign secretary William Hague put it: “That requires a better regional strategy among the African countries, but with our support.”

However, countries that are committed to advancing human rights around the globe are reluctant to provide further assistance to Nigeria due to its security forces’ long-standing human rights atrocities. For example, the Leahy Law in the United States bars the Pentagon from training or funding military forces that commit human rights abuses.

What should be done to stop Boko Haram?

First and foremost, both the Nigerian government and the West should focus on humanitarian assistance to the victims of Boko Haram violence. The clashes between government forces and Boko Haram have already internally displaced thousands of people and forced many to cross the borders. It’s critical to secure basic needs for the Nigerian population and extend humanitarian assistance to the neighboring countries. As mentioned earlier, the United States has already assisted the affected population, and other Western countries should follow.

Before the international community can help to contain violence in the region, the Nigerian government needs to clean up its act. This includes:

• Prosecuting those responsible for the human rights violations. The citizenry needs to know that the government is protecting their interests. Needless to say, the military forces should stop engaging in further brutalities and human rights abuses. If Nigeria fails to do so, there will be no assistance from the West.
• Start lifting people from poverty. The “Safe School Initiative” is so far the only example of economic and security development in the northern region of Nigeria. It aims to provide the physical protection of schools. Started by a $10 million investment from the country’s business leaders, it was matched with another $10 million by the Nigerian government. More initiatives are needed to create jobs and safety in the northern states.
• Enforce the rule of law through the judicial system. The Nigerian government cannot retaliate by killing people without trial and expect its citizenry to trust it. The rule of law should be upheld for all Boko Haram affiliates according to the existing laws and through the court proceedings.
• Begin tackling corruption to legitimize the government and release much needed funds that otherwise would be pocketed by the few.

How Nigeria’s Neighbors Can Help

As Boko Haram’s violence has already spilled across the borders, adjacent countries should unite in their efforts to tackle the issue. Creation of a multinational joint border patrol comprised by representatives from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and the Republic of Benin can be the first step. Discussions between the countries is on the way, but action should be taken soon, before it’s too late.

How the West Can Help

The West can help to train Nigerian military forces in counter-insurgency, as that is essentially what they have to do to fight Boko Haram. Besides learning technical skills, security forces need to know how to engage with local communities in the northeastern regions to gain their support and trust. Western nations can also develop mechanisms of accountability to minimize human rights violations by military forces. It’s vital that appropriate training in how to engage with civilians and alleged Boko Haram supporters is provided as it will foster military personnel’s understanding of human rights principles and guidelines.

Western nations can provide greater intelligence and data support, increasing the chances of Nigerian forces finding the right strategies and methods to fight the terrorist group. And finally the West can provide financial support. Nigeria doesn’t have sufficient funds to initiate training, pay salaries to the military, and obtain much-needed equipment and arms. In addition, the high level of corruption spoils all the odds of using government funds to the fullest.

Conclusion

In order to effectively contain violence in Nigeria and to fight Boko Haram, tactical counterinsurgency should be paired with economic development and increased support for the rule of law. The Nigerian government should realize that Boko Haram has emerged from the shortcomings of the government’s own system and start dealing with that fact.  The Nigerian government should focus on human security and development, not military response alone as it’s simply not working.

Resources

Primary

HRW: Spiraling Violence: Boko Haram Attacks and Security Forces Abuses in Nigeria

Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre: Boko Haram: Origins, Challenges, and Responses

Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index 2014

White House: Fact Sheet; U.S. Efforts to Assist the Nigerian Government in Its Fight Against Boko Haram

Additional 

CNN: Boko Haram Fast Facts

World Bulletin: Nigeria 2014 Sees Bloodier, Emboldened Boko Haram

African Arguments: Nigeria is Losing This War: Here’s How to Win the Fight Against Boko Haram

CNN: Boko Haram Seizes Military Base in Nigeria

Hamilton Spectator: Boko Haram Extremists Kidnap 40 Boys, Young Men in Northeast Nigeria, Attack Army Base

BBC: Why Nigeria Has Not Defeated Boko Haram

Guardian: African Leaders Pledge ‘Total War’ on Boko Haram After Nigeria Kidnapping

The New York Times: Dealing With Boko Haram

Christian Science Monitor: Africa’s Best Response to Boko Haram

C-Span: Boko Haram and Nigeria

Human Rights First: To Stop Boko Haram, Start Promoting Human Rights

Vanguard: Boko Haram: The US House report

Huffington Post: Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan Will Run For A Second Term

Africa Check: Fact Sheet: How Many Schoolgirls Did Boko Haram Abduct and How Many Are Still Missing?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror? appeared first on Law Street.

As anyone who drives a lot–or has a TV, reads the paper, or just generally pays attention–knows, the price of gas has gone down recently. Way down! More specifically the price of Brent crude oil, a major global type, dipped below $60 a barrel Tuesday for the first time in more than five years. That means the price of crude oil has dropped by more than $50 a barrel since its peak, which was just in June. Additionally, nationwide the average price of a gallon of gas has dropped from a high of $3.70 in April 2014 to the current low of $2.53. There are several reasons for this drop; there are also numerous issues that have already begun to arise from the drop in price and many more potential problems if the price of oil remains low or falls even further.

Why is the Price of Oil Falling?

First, the obvious questions: why are oil prices suddenly dropping and why is it happening so rapidly? To answer these queries one must look into account, supply, and demand.

Too Much Supply

First is supply. Specifically, there is too much oil out there, or at least that’s the perception. This buildup is the result of several actors overproducing when the market is not ready to absorb their goods.

• OPEC: OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization aimed at fixing oil prices of its member countries to ensure each has a fair and stable market for its product. The organization is made up of countries from South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. OPEC gained its greatest notoriety, and also put its fairness into question, with two embargoes in the 1970s that dramatically increased prices at the time. In a surprising about face however, in late November 2014, members elected to continue production at current levels. Why would OPEC elect to continue producing at high rates when basic economic wisdom called for a smaller supply? First, several members of OPEC have only just recently been able to ramp production back up to earlier levels. Libya, for example, was in a long struggle with rebels before it recently was able to reopen two key ports critical for oil exportation. Saudi Arabia was already burned before by trying to reduce supply to match demand back in the 1980s. Instead of keeping prices high it saw a significant loss in market share.
• U.S. Energy Boom: OPEC members increasingly have to tangle with the United States. While reports vary on which country is ranked where, the United States is unquestionably the world leader in energy production when natural gas and bio-fuels are included along with oil manufacturing. Biofuels and natural gas aside, the United States still ranks second in oil production behind Saudi Arabia, it being responsible for approximately 12 percent of the world’s output. The reason for the spike in American production is the now well documented shale boom that transformed places like North Dakota into energy and job hot spots. The video below details some of the pros and cons of the U.S. oil boom.

• Other Players: Along with OPEC and the United States there are several other major players in the Oil Industry. Chief among them is Russia, which sits closely behind at number three on the world’s production list. Russia is incredibly dependent on its energy sector, which generates up to 50 percent of the funds necessary to underwrite its budget. Along with Russia there are a few other non-OPEC countries, namely China, Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Less Demand

Clearly then, higher supply is impacting world oil prices, but it is not alone. Equally as important is demand. After all, you can make as much of something as you like, but if no one wants it you are never going to make any money. So it is, in a sense, with oil.

A major decline in demand has occurred in two generally reliable regions–Asia and Europe–but specifically in Germany and China, due to economic slowdowns. In other key places such as the United States, similar sags in demand have been seen, but for different reasons. In the U.S., use of gasoline by companies plummeted following the financial crisis and has never returned to pre-crisis levels. Additionally, after numerous experiences being burned by unstable prices America has shifted away from high gas consumption toward more efficient technology like hybrids.

What It Means Now

Bad News

So what does this all mean then? For some countries this drop in oil prices is very bad. Russia in particular has a lot to lose with plunging oil prices. As alluded to earlier, up to 50 percent of its economy is dependent on oil prices and those prices have plummeted. As a result, Russia’s currency–the Ruble–has recently collapsed, losing a massive amount of value in just a couple of days. The collapse, coupled with western sanctions over Ukraine, is threatening to send Russia into a recession. The big question then is whether Russians are still willing to support Putin’s tactics when their standard of living starts to decline?

Other countries such as some of the members of OPEC also have a lot to lose as a result of the crisis. Like Russia, much of their budgets are predicated on their oil revenue. Thus countries like Iran and Nigeria that had relied on oil prices at much higher rates to maintain a sound budget now find themselves being forced to make cuts or face deficits–and even potentially defaults. It is even worse for another member: Venezuela.

Venezuela, despite having huge oil reserves, is facing an impending crisis that could be even worse than Russia’s. At least in Russia’s case it has reserve currency and little debt. Venezuela on the other hand has neither and was already dealing with shortages of other goods earlier this year. This situation has the makings of a powder keg. Some of these countries may also have to consider giving up stipends or canceling social programs funded by oil production. Some of these programs were instrumental in countries like Saudi Arabia potentially avoiding Arab Spring-style uprisings. The video below touches on the problems dropping oil prices imposes on Russia and Venezuela.

Mixed News

What about the United States? As mentioned earlier it has recently become either the biggest or second biggest producer of oil itself. What would a prolonged drop in the price of oil mean to the stars and stripes? Well, as is often the case, the United States may provide the most difficult answer. In certain ways this is a good thing. For example, Americans spending less on gas have more money to spend on other consumer goods, which could help spur faster economic growth.

Conversely, lowered prices could also mean some firms could no longer compete in the market. Many have speculated that lowered prices could dampen the U.S. oil boom currently taking place. In fact in has been widely circulated that OPEC’s decision to keep production high is basically a stare down between it and the United States where one side will eventually be forced to lower production to artificially inflate prices to stay in business. Additionally, employment is a major concern. Lost jobs here could be especially painful as they account for many of the jobs created since the recession.

 Conclusion

At the end of the day it is still unclear what will be the long term results of the drop in oil prices. In fact, as of right now it is still unclear how long these drops will be maintained at all; however, as the price continues to plunge and producers continue to forge ahead it seems fair to at least speculate. Really it’s just amazing that after all the war and talk of renewables globally that the world finds itself on such a precipice again concerning the familiar black gold. It seems then for now the impact of oil’s price drop will be left, much like its value is calculated, up to speculation.

Resources

Primary 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries: Brief History

Additional

Finances Online: Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World: Where’s the Greatest Petroleum Domination

USA Today: Eight Countries that Win and Lose Big from Oil Plunge

Vox: Why Oil Prices Keep Falling and Throwing the World Into Turmoil

USA Today: Russia’s Ruble in Free Fall Amid Panic

CNBC: Ticking Time Bombs: Where Oil’s Fall is Dangerous

Sovereign Investor The Hidden Cost of Oil

Foreign Policy: Can OPEC Kill the US Oil Boom?

Forbes: Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth and Security

CNN: Oil Plunge Takes Prices Below $55 A Barrel

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 High Cost of Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Law Street.

Loves, the conservaturds are at it again.

Conservative pundit and asshole extraordinaire Ann Coulter decided to use her considerable star power for the greater good this week. Harnessing the power of social media, she took to Twitter to show support for her fellow human beings, advocating an end to gender-based violence and oppression around the world.

LOL JUST KIDDING.

Did I have you going for a second there?

Probably not! Because unless you live in an actual cave, you know that Ann Coulter is probably the least positive person in the history of political pundits.

Thank goodness this lady is just a culture maker and not a legislator. That would make her even more horrifying than she already is (which is saying a lot).

So, since we’ve established that the woman infamous for condoning the murder of abortionists, reversing women’s suffrage, and “perfecting” Jews (I literally cannot) isn’t using her Twitter account to spread peace and light throughout the social media universe, let’s talk about what she IS using it for.

This jerk is using it to mock Malala Yousafzai’s Twitter campaign to #BringBackOurGirls.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

Last week, I wrote about the 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.   That’s what Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign is all about. It’s about raising awareness of a wildly, disgustingly awful human rights violation that’s happening in Nigeria right now. It’s about starting conversations around the world about gender-based violence and oppression. And of course, it’s about drawing attention to a grossly under-reported story that deserves way more attention than it’s currently receiving.   Basically, Malala wants women not to be abducted and sold into slavery. And when they are, she demands that it be stopped. Ann Coulter does the opposite. In response to Malala’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign, Ms. Coulter tweeted this:

My hashtag contribution to world affairs … pic.twitter.com/Wkb8ozYZFC — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) May 12, 2014

#BringBackOurCountry.

Ann Coulter, you officially win The Worst Person on Twitter Award. I literally cannot with you and your vomit-inducing shenanigans.

What country, exactly, Ms. Coulter, are you looking to bring back? One where its citizens don’t care when girls are targets for violence because they’re receiving an education? One where women are abducted, beaten, raped, sold like cattle — and no one bats an eye?

Because that’s all you’re advocating when you turn a call to bring abducted women home safely into a warped, twisted statement about how fucked up our country is. The United States may not look the way you want it to look — being all full of Jews and voting women and abortionists and whatnot — but this is not an appropriate way to express your distaste.

Not even a little bit.

Luckily, the legions of Twitter users are in agreement, and they’re restoring our collective faith in humanity. With a magical little tool called Photoshop, folks who DON’T think saving abducted Nigerian women is a cause to shit all over, taught Ann Coulter a lesson.

And it’s awesome.

Here are some of the best Ann Coulter-Photoshop-Takedowns. Scroll through and rejoice in the wonderfulness that can still exist in the world, right alongside the bile of people like Ann Coulter.

@CletisStump @Kalaax008 What Coulter does for a ‘living’. pic.twitter.com/pWz1LiDZnn

— ⒿⓄⓁⓉⒾⓃ ⒿⓄⒺ (@fullofbalogna) May 12, 2014

Wildly accurate.

Man, sometimes I’m shocked by the shit @AnnCoulter says for attention. pic.twitter.com/m3QnG2ZJhr — Atchka! (@atchka) May 12, 2014

Wouldn’t that be magical?

Thanks for calling Ann Coulter, and all of her conservaturd followers, on their bullshit, Internet. We love you. Keep fighting the good fight.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ann Coulter Destroys Our Faith in Humanity, Sassy Twitter Users Restore It appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, how many of you are John Green fans? I hope every single one of you raised your hand. He’s basically perfection.

Not only does he write awesome books, but he also posts weekly vlogs on YouTube with his brother, Hank. The two of them cover everything from goofy details about their daily lives to politics and religion. And they do it HYSTERICALLY. Seriously, I never knew I could be so entertained while watching a video about the American healthcare system.

Anyway! One of John Green’s wonderful books, The Fault in Our Stars, has been made into a feature film. It’s hitting theaters next month and stars Shailene Woodley.

So much gorgeousness is happening here, you guys.

Shailene is pretty awesome, making some queer-ish, feminist-y comments about love being independent from gender, doubting our society’s obsession with marriage and monogamy, coming down on Twilight for promoting an unhealthy and abusive relationship dynamic, and advocating for more nuanced, kickass roles for women in movies.

She’s pretty rad.

But! Shailene was recently asked if she identifies as a feminist. And she said no. Cue collective exasperated sigh of disappointment.

Why is this apparently feminist star eschewing the feminist label? Because, it seems, she doesn’t actually understand what being a feminist means.

“No,” said Woodley, when asked if she considered herself a feminist, “because I love men.” She went on to say that feminism means giving undue power to women at the expense of men, an arrangement that wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone.

But, see, that’s not what feminism is. That’s not what it means. Not even a little bit. Feminists aren’t power hungry man-haters looking to depose men from their porcelain thrones of fragile masculinity. We’re not looking to climb over the men, flip the oppression coin, and unfairly win some sort of gender pissing contest where vagina-bearers come out on top.

Feminists are people who come in all shapes, sizes, and genders — some of them are men, go figure! — who believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Just ask Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the TEDx talker who came up with this perfectly coined definition of feminism. This isn’t power grabbing. This isn’t renewed, rearranged sexism.

Feminism is a commitment to ending gender-based oppression. And that’s something that both men and women will benefit from.

Because, let’s be real. We live in a world where gender-based oppression is a huge fucking deal. There’s so much of it, in fact, that every week I’m swamped with potential stories to cover here on The F Word. My email inbox is consistently flooded with article recommendations from friends, family members, and coworkers, all alerting me to the latest crazy incident of racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit to hit the airwaves. There’s always too much to cover on any given day.

This week, for example, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky. Vanity Fair has debuted an exclusive essay by Lewinsky, breaking her decade-long silence regarding her past as the White House whore. “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” she writes, going on to express her deep regret and remorse for her affair with former President Bill Clinton — which, she insists, was totally consensual.

But does consent really exist between an intern in her early 20s and her boss — a man who’s not only twice her age, but who’s also the President of the United States? The leader of the motherfucking free world asks you for a blow job, and what do you do? Report him to human resources?

I feel like the U.S. military’s Commander in Chief probably pulls rank on that one, no?

Yes, yes he does.

We live in a world where the man who abused his position of power to score sex from a hot, 20-something staffer, is now getting paid millions of dollars in speaking engagements. Meanwhile, his well-educated, exceptionally capable whore has been unable to land a full-time job ever, AT ALL, because of her “history,” a media sensation that’s transformed her from a person into a joke.

This is a world that needs feminism.

Then, we’ve got Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey who filmed her surgical abortion and posted it online, to show other women that “there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

The short video, featured below, is not graphic or violent, shows only the top half of Letts’ body, and focuses on her emotional and physical experience during the procedure. As a counselor, Letts wanted to share her experience to diffuse some of the frightening misinformation surrounding abortions, modeling one possible solution to a very personal, complicated situation.

Letts’ video and her accompanying essay for Cosmopolitan are helping women across the country come to safe, informed decisions about how to handle an unexpected pregnancy. They’re also helping to chip away at the deeply ingrained stigma our country holds against women who take control of their bodies and reproductive systems.

We live in a world where those are two goals that cause a huge chunk of the United States to respond with anger and vitriol, calling Letts a Godless Baby Slaughterer Witch from Hell. I give it about five minutes before death threats start rolling in.

This is a world that needs feminism.

And then, we’ve got 300 girls in the Nigerian village of Chibok who were abducted from school, OF ALL PLACES, and are now being sold into sexual, marital slavery for a few dollars a pop by Boko Haram, an Islamist fundamentalist group.

#Malala stands in solidarity with Nigerians & people everywhere calling for action to #BringBackOurGirls pic.twitter.com/woAjreav0W

— Malala Fund (@MalalaFund) May 4, 2014

These girls, who range in age from 9 to 15 years old, haven’t been found, which is SHOCKING considering how little media or political attention their abductions have warranted. (Please re-read that sentence and multiply the sarcasm factor by infinity.) And why were they abducted? Because Boko Haram is opposed to women in Nigeria receiving Western educations.

That’s right, folks. We live in a world where girls are violently denied educations and sold into slavery — all while making fewer headlines than Kimye.

This world needs feminism so badly that I have to come up with creative ways to squeeze multiple stories into a single blog post — and I never manage to cover them all. It needs feminism so badly that I had an entire post written about this racist, sexist,  douchebag extraordinaire from Princeton who’s not apologizing for his white privilege, and I SCRAPPED it, because there were too many other stories that were even more important to cover this week.

So, to Shailene Woodley, and to all the other people in the world who are hesitant or unwilling to adopt the feminist identity, please listen.

Feminism is not man-hating. Feminism is not power-grabbing. Feminism is not dangerous, destructive, or harmful.

Feminism is empathy. Feminism is self-love, and love for your fellow human beings. Feminism is working to end the oppression of all people — men, women, queers, people of color, poor people, disabled people — so that all of us can live happier, healthier lives.

Being a feminist means that you believe in social, political, and economic equality between the sexes. Being a feminist means you believe in ending oppression.

And sadly, this column is proof that there aren’t enough of us.

So, please, get next to feminism. Feminists are changing the world for the better. And we need you.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mingle MediaTV via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear appeared first on Law Street.

The U.N News Centre announced new members of the UN Security Council. Among the new members,  Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Chile, to accept non-permanent seats, was suppose to be Saudi Arabia. The operative word is “was”, as Saudi Arabia turned down the seat, instead adopting a double standard.Released on October 17, the U.N. News Centre announced the new member, along with videos of the event. In an informal interview after the announcement, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi congratulated the other elected countries, and spoke about Saudi Arabia’s concerns and interests with its new position. More specifically, Saudi Arabia reiterated its support of the rebel forces in Syria, and also stressed the paramount importance of finding a solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict. He broadcasted, “we take this election very seriously as a responsibility, to be able to contribute to through this very important forum, to peace and security of the world.Our election today is reflection of a longstanding support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means”.

These same troubles, however, caused Saudi Arabia to shift its position. The following day, the country refused the seat. The Saudi Foreign Ministry stated that the United Nation’s inaction toward Syria’s government handle of rebel forces demonstrated the deep-rooted errors with the council, “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN Security Council’s inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities.”

Given this position, Saudi Arabia was granted a platform to fix the problems it believed existed in the UN Security Council. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s critique of UN Security’s inaction did not deter them from following suit. By rejecting the position, Saudi Arabia, too assumes inaction.

[un.org] [aljazeera]

—

Featured image courtesy of [United Nations Photo via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Inaction is an Action: Saudi Arabia Declines UN Security Council Seat appeared first on Law Street.