President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

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

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 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: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Treasury Department fined Exxon Mobil $2 million on Thursday for signing business deals in 2014 with a Russian oil magnate who had been blacklisted under U.S. sanctions. Exxon, which at the time of the sanctions breach was led by now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, immediately responded by filing a lawsuit against the Treasury Department.

“OFAC seeks to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury,” Exxon said in a statement, referring to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department’s sanctions enforcement agency.

According to OFAC, Exxon subsidiaries signed eight legal documents with Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned energy conglomerate Rosneft. While Rosneft had not been sanctioned as part of the U.S. punishment for Russia’s seizure of Crimea and incursion in Ukraine in 2014, Sechin had been individually blacklisted. That meant U.S. entities were barred from doing business directly with him.

In Exxon’s complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Texas, the company called the penalty “unlawful.” Exxon argued OFAC’s enforcement of the sanctions, implemented by the Obama Administration in April 2014 is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the penalty denies Exxon its due process.

In a release announcing the lawsuit against OFAC, Exxon pointed to a White House fact sheet published in 2014. The fact sheet said the purpose of blacklisting individuals was to target “personal assets, but not companies that they may manage on behalf of the Russian state.”

Effectively, the oil giant contends, doing business with Rosneft had never been illegal, and so dealing with Sechin in his capacity of its top representative should be permitted. The Treasury Department disagreed, saying there is no “exception or carve-out for the professional conduct of designated or blocked persons.”

Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO at the time of its alleged sanctions violation, and, during an annual meeting, said he did not support sanctions “unless they are very well implemented.” In January, during Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing, his past with Exxon and its extensive dealings in Russia raised concerns that he would be partial in dealing with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

But in his short tenure as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson has worked to keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Earlier this month, in a visit to Ukraine, Tillerson said the sanctions “will remain in place until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered these particular sanctions.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Exxon Fined $2 Million for Violating Sanctions During Tillerson’s Tenure appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is officially in D.C. to meet with President Donald Trump. Elected in May, following the impeachment of South Korea’s former leader, Moon comes to Washington with a vision on how to deal with North Korea that is much different than the Trump Administration’s.

Moon has scaled back maneuvers that could be seen as aggressive toward North Korea, while stressing the importance of dialogue with his country’s northern neighbor. Trump, on the other hand, lacks a coherent Pyongyang strategy, and has flirted with both an armed response and a diplomatic one.

Before the two leaders met, Moon, who landed in the U.S. on Wednesday, sought to highlight the countries’ common interests. To kick-off his first visit to the U.S. as president, Moon visited a Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, and laid a wreath to commemorate the Marines who died fighting in the Korean War. He used the occasion to underscore the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

“Together we will achieve the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program, peace on the Korean Peninsula and eventually peace in Northeast Asia,” Moon said. Later, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Moon highlighted South Korea’s economic and trade ties with the U.S., and called for further cooperation. He said:

The U.S. market share in Korea’s import market has increased and Korea has also seen an increase in its share of the U.S. important market. Expansion of bilateral trade is enriching the daily lives of our peoples…Both our countries have new governments in place; let us become best partners by creating new jobs in our countries. Let us move forward hand in hand toward a path of joint and common prosperity.

Despite the very real economic and military ties between Washington and Seoul, the presidents are bound to clash when it comes to North Korea. Moon is South Korea’s first liberal president in decades; he supports increased dialogue and investment with Pyongyang rather than the more military-based, isolationist approach of his conservative predecessors.

Moon also recently delayed the deployment of additional missile defense batteries supplied by the U.S. He said the delay is intended to provide time for an environmental review. But some analysts see it as a move to placate China, which opposes the system, known as Thaad. Still, where Moon and Trump might bump heads most forcefully is on how to deal with North Korea in the immediate future.

The Trump Administration’s most recent public comments on its North Korean strategy came on Wednesday, from National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The U.S. is preparing “all options,” McMaster said on Wednesday, “because the president has made clear to us that he will not accept a nuclear power in North Korea and a threat that can target the United States.”

Under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, North Korea has increased its ballistic missile tests over the past few years. The launch frequency has increased since Trump took office, and Kim has stated his nuclear arsenal is nearing the capacity to strike the continental U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile.

Though analysts say Pyongyang is months, if not years, away from acquiring such capabilities, the threat is growing by the day. In addition, thousands of U.S. soldiers are spread across South Korea, Japan, and Guam, all of which are currently within North Korea’s range. A few months into his tenure, Trump seemed to have embraced the idea of using China to bully the North to curtail its nuclear ambitions. That tact has apparently failed. Last week, Trump tweeted:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

On Thursday, the Trump Administration tightened the screws on China, imposing sanctions on a Chinese bank that deals with North Korea. On Wednesday, in a stark reminder of the threat North Korea poses, its state-run news agency issued a “death penalty” on former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and her former spy chief. Accusing the former president of attempting to assassinate Kim, the statement said, she might receive a “miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump and South Korean Leader Moon Jae-in Meet Despite Different North Korea Strategies appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

During a meeting in Seoul on Tuesday, South Korean and U.S. officials described guidelines the two allies would follow in dealing with North Korea, which tested a powerful missile on Sunday. With a new administration installed in South Korea last week, a uniform approach between the U.S. and South Korea toward North Korea is facing new uncertainties.

Moon Jae-in, who was elected president last week, is the country’s first liberal leader in years. He supports a more dialogue-based strategy in cooling the North’s nuclear ambitions than his U.S. counterpart, President Donald Trump. The Trump Administration has previously indicated “all option are on the table” in regard to responding to the North Korean threat–including a pre-emptive military strike. But now, U.S. and South Korean leaders appear to be on the same page.

Yoon Young-chan, Moon’s spokesman, detailed the approach to North Korea he discussed on Tuesday with Matthew Pottinger, the Asia director on the National Security Council. “First, the ultimate goal is to completely dismantle the North Korean nuclear weapons,” Yoon said. “Second, to that end, both sides will employ all means, including sanctions and dialogue. Third, dialogue with North Korea is possible when the circumstances are right. Fourth, to achieve these goals, South Korea and the United States will pursue drastic and practical joint approaches.”

Liberals in South Korea, including Moon, favor a diplomatic approach–like increased economic investment–to dampen the nuclear threat from its northern neighbor, in contrast to South Korean conservatives’ hard-line approach. Previous diplomatic overtures to North Korea have failed, and critics say investment from past liberal administrations in South Korea have ironically boosted the North’s nuclear capabilities.

Both Trump and Moon have indicated they would be willing to meet with North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jong-un. North Korean and South Korean leaders last met for face-to-face talks in 2007. In launching a missile test on Sunday, by some estimates its most powerful yet, North Korea reminded the world that its nuclear and military ambitions remain unbroken. The missile flew nearly 500 miles before falling into the sea.

South Korean officials recently said that North Korea’s nuclear program is progressing at a quicker pace than expected. And despite its failed launch last month and recent slaps on the wrist from China, its foremost trade partner and benefactor, North Korea remains a threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region, namely Japan and South Korea.

On Tuesday, U.S. and South Korean officials said a summit meeting between Moon and Trump could come as early as next month. Last Wednesday, when Moon was sworn in at the National Assembly, he said he would “do whatever it takes to help settle peace on the Korean Peninsula,” adding: “If necessary, I will fly immediately to Washington.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post U.S. and South Korean Officials Outline New Approach to North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

On May 19, Iran will hold a presidential election, its first since Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013. Rouhani, a relative moderate who helped broker the nuclear deal with the U.S., is running for re-election against five other candidates. The election pits Rouhani against a host of hard-liners, including Ebrahim Raisi, who has secured the backing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard.

During a speech on Wednesday, Khamenei, who holds greater powers than the president, suggested tensions are growing in the weeks before the election. He bluntly said any troublemakers, anybody seeking to disrupt the election “will definitely be slapped in the face.” It seems Khamenei, who has been Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was suggesting that protests would be met with violence.

Many Iranians saw the 2009 election as a rigged affair in favor of then-incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Millions flooded the streets in protest; dozens were killed, hundreds more were arrested. Ahmadinejad, an extremely controversial figure who took a hard stance against the U.S. and Israel (he’s a Holocaust denier and has called for Israel’s destruction), registered to run for a third term in the coming election.

In April, Iranian authorities rejected Ahmadinejad’s bid, along with 1,636 other presidential hopefuls. The pool of six candidates who were chosen include the mayor of Tehran, Iran’s capital city. Rouhani, however, is widely expected to net a second term. His presidency has largely been defined by his promise to kick-start the Iranian economy, which he contends the nuclear deal helped achieve.

Forged in 2015, the deal lifted sanctions off Iran’s economy, thawing billions of dollars worth of assets. Many Iranians, however, have not felt a substantial change in their daily lives. The deal was also opposed by Iran’s hard-line clerics and its Revolutionary Guard, who saw the deal as a threat to their own economic power. Rouhani’s platform rests on the success of the deal, which he contends needs time to pan out.

But Iran’s most powerful figures want a president more in line with their hard-line ideology. Raisi, who is close to Khamenei, is accused of helping to orchestrate a 1988 plot that killed thousands of political prisoners. He is also seen as a potential successor to Khamenei, who is 77. Electing Raisi could heighten tensions between Iran, the West, and Israel.

Iran is currently on the opposing side in proxy wars being fought in Syria and Yemen. It also funds Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group that the U.S. and Israel deem a terrorist organization. Under a more hard-line president like Raisi, who holds virulently anti-Western views, these conflicts could worsen. In addition, the nuclear deal could hold less weight, as a leader like Raisi has less stake than Rouhani in its ultimate success.

Alec Siegel

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

The post What to Expect in the Upcoming Iranian Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

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

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? appeared first on Law Street.

As the House juggled a doomed health care bill on Thursday, lawmakers in the Senate introduced a bipartisan effort to tighten restrictions on Iran–specifically its government and powerful military–through a new round of sanctions. Iran’s ballistic missile program, its material support for foreign terrorist groups, and human rights violations provide the bases for the sanctions, which the Senate has been seeking for over a year.

The last attempt at tightening sanctions on Iran came last July. That bid failed, largely because the Obama Administration was tied up in negotiations for what would become the Iran nuclear deal. Looming over the bill that was introduced Thursday is that Iran deal, which some worry could be violated by stronger sanctions. In contrast to last summer’s attempt however, both Republicans and Democrats that opposed the nuclear deal, and those that supported it, are behind the new effort.

“This legislation demonstrates the strong bipartisan support in Congress for a comprehensive approach to holding Iran accountable by targeting all aspects of the regime’s destabilizing actions,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “These steps will allow us to regain the initiative on Iran and push back forcefully against this threat to our security and that of our allies.”

More than a dozen Senators joined Corker in supporting the bill, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE). The legislation will likely hit the Senate floor for a vote. 

Days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Iran tested a ballistic missile. His administration condemned the test, and said it might have violated the Iran deal, which Trump has promised to rip-up (he has since walked that promise back.) Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” soon after its missile launch, and some worried the administration would take military action, or aggressive sanctions that could destabilize the nuclear agreement.

Those fears did not pan out: the nuclear deal remains in place and, so far, “on notice” has amounted to no more than lofty rhetoric. But the bill introduced on Thursday does represent a bipartisan push to punish Iran not only for its missile tests, but for its support of Hezbollah–a U.S.-designated terrorist group–and its abominable human rights record.

“The spirit of bipartisanship of this important legislation underscores our strong belief that the United States must speak with one voice on the issue of holding Iran accountable for its continued nefarious actions across the world as the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a supporter of the bill, said in a statement. “Iran’s leaders must understand once and for all, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Senators Introduce Bill to Slap Further Sanctions on Iran appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, President Donald Trump criticized China for not doing enough to curtail North Korea’s nuclear program: “China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won’t help with North Korea. Nice!” Trump tweeted. China seemed to respond to Trump on Saturday by banning coal imports from North Korea through the rest of the year.

Now, the ball is in Trump’s court. How will he engage the insular, and increasingly insolent, country of North Korea? He had a muted response when it tested a ballistic missile earlier this month. Trump’s willingness to actually engage with North Korea will be tested in March, when a meeting is planned between Pyongyang officials and former U.S. officials in New York. If the White House issues visas for the North Korean officials–it has not explicitly said it will or will not–then that would send a signal that Trump is open to diplomatic engagement, something his predecessor, President Barack Obama, was unwilling to do.

Whether the New York meeting takes place or not, China’s decision to freeze imports of North Korean coal is a decisive action that could weaken its resolve. Aside from being a response to Trump, China’s move is also likely the result of increased frustration at North Korea’s endless stream of provocations. Just last week, the half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, was assassinated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. North Korean officials are suspected as having played a role in the attack.

China’s coal freeze could badly hurt North Korea’s already precarious economy. For one, coal is North Korea’s most lucrative export; it accounts for 34 to 40 percent of its exports, most of which ends up being shipped to China. In response to North Korea’s nuclear test last September, the United Nations Security Council imposed new sanctions that urged China to cap its coal imports from North Korea. But China, fearful that a collapsed North Korea could lead to an influx of refugees and a united Korean peninsula backed by the U.S., has circumvented the UN sanctions. That is, until its announcement on Saturday.

“Imports of coal produced in North Korea — including shipments already declared to the customs but yet to be released — will be suspended for the remainder of this year,” said a statement from China’s Ministry of Commerce. However, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday that the move is a bureaucratic procedure, and that China, within the first six weeks of the year, has already reached its annual quota for North Korean coal imports.

A clue to China’s unexpected stiff-arm of North Korean coal came last Friday, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Germany. According to State Department spokesman Mark Toner, Tillerson suggested to Yi that China “use all available tools to moderate North Korea’s destabilizing behavior.”

Diplomatic efforts to reign in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, which have been stretched under Kim Jong-un, have largely failed. Until 2009, China hosted seven-nation talks, which included seats at the table for the U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea. Similar talks, like the one planned for March in New York, have taken place in Kuala Lumpur and Berlin.

But the reclusive country has not budged in ceding its nuclear ambition; it has ramped up its efforts. As the international community–including the U.S. and now, potentially, China–takes a firm stance against North Korea, the question becomes: how long can it continue to provoke without being severely punished?

Alec Siegel

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

The post China Bans Coal Imports from North Korea: What Does the Move Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, CNN aired an investigation that alleged the involvement of Venezuelan Vice President Tareck El Aissami in an operation that issued passports to people with links to terrorism out of its embassy in Baghdad. On Wednesday, in response to the broadcast, Venezuela pulled the plug on CNN en Español. Venezuela’s scuffle with CNN comes a few days after the Trump Administration imposed sanctions on El Aissami, who it says played a “significant role in international narcotics trafficking.”

After a year-long investigation, CNN released its report in a two-part broadcast on February 6 and 8. Out of the Venezuelan embassy in Baghdad, officials issued over 150 passports in exchange for thousands of dollars, the CNN report said. According to intelligence documents obtained by CNN, El Aissami, 42, directed the passport-for-cash operation. At least some of the passports were issued to members of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese jihadist group that the State Department considers a terrorist group.

A little more than a week after its report aired, the Spanish-language version of CNN was pulled in Venezuela. The English-language CNN channel remains on the air. Responding to Venezuela’s silencing, a CNN spokesperson said: “We believe in the vital role that freedom of the press plays in a healthy democracy. Today, the government of Venezuela pulled our television signal, denying Venezuelans news and information from our television network, which they have relied on for 20 years.”

A bi-partisan group of U.S. congressmen recently pushed the White House to sanction Venezuela, whose socialist government is in shambles–its citizens are struggling to find food and daily necessities. On Monday, the Treasury Department levied sanctions on Venezuelan officials, including El Aissami. In a statement, the Treasury Department said El Aissami “facilitated shipments of narcotics from Venezuela, to include control over planes that leave from a Venezuelan air base, as well as control of drug routes through the ports in Venezuela.”

Under the sanctions, El Aissami’s American assets will be frozen, and U.S. companies are blocked from doing business with him. On Wednesday, embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro decried the recent inflammatory actions stemming from CNN and the U.S. “CNN and the State Department are imposing on you a wrongheaded policy toward Venezuela,” Maduro  the Venezuelan people. “They are promoting a general and massive intervention, and aggression against Venezuela.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Venezuela Pulls Spanish-Language CNN After Investigative Report into VP appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

During the transition period, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reportedly discussed President Barack Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador. According to current and former U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials, Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, the ambassador, exchanged texts and at least five phone calls in the moments before and the day after Obama announced his actions on Russia, which were in retaliation for its election hacking. Flynn and White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, repeatedly denied that the two men discussed the sanctions. 

In an interview with The Washington Post, Flynn also denied he and Kislyak spoke about the sanctions, which Obama announced on December 29. However, Flynn, through a spokesman, slightly backtracked on Thursday. Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” the spokesman said.

This saga began on December 29, when Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., and shuttered two Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland. The sanctions were a response to the U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia meddled in the election by hacking email correspondences between Democratic Party officials. According to U.S. officials who have reviewed intelligence reports and diplomatic cables, Kislyak requested a phone call with Flynn when news of the impending sanctions began to leak.

On January 13, President Donald Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Flynn and Kislyak coordinated the logistics of a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But U.S. officials are now saying that the sanctions were also a topic of conversation. Flynn told Kislyak that Moscow should refrain from responding to the sanctions too harshly. Flynn reassured Kislyak that the sanctions would be reviewed once Trump was in the White House. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” a former U.S. official told the Post.

On December 30, when Putin announced he would not retaliate, everyone seemed surprised but Trump. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a Twitter message. “I always knew [Putin] was very smart.”

White House officials have denied that any impropriety took place during the phone calls. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS last month. He also said Trump’s team had no contact with Russia during the campaign. Flynn has raised concerns that he has a more-than-cordial relationship with Russia and its president. In 2015, Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Moscow for the state-owned television network Russia Today. 

While Trump has tempered his seemingly pro-Russia stance since the campaign–he recently said the sanctions will remain in place–many worry that Flynn maintains too favorable of a relationship with Russian officials. There is also the question of whether he broke federal law by discussing the sanctions with Kislyak. The Logan Act of 1799 bars U.S. citizens from interfering in foreign affairs “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government.” It is unclear what qualifies as a breach of that statue; it has never been acted on in court. The FBI, however, is investigating the correspondences between Flynn and Kislyak.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Did Michael Flynn Speak with Russia About Sanctions During Transition? appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest attempt to cripple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) imposed new restrictions on its coal export industry. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the new sanctions, which were unanimously approved by the 15-member council on Wednesday, “the toughest and most comprehensive” yet.

The sanctions are a direct rebuke to Pyongyang’s largest and most recent nuclear test that occurred in early September. They will aim to trim $700 million from the insulated country’s coal revenues, which UN member-states hope will lead to diplomatic discussions. The sanctions limit North Korea to exporting up to 7.5 million metric tons of coal in 2017, or to bringing in $400 million in revenue, whichever figure is reached first.

“So long as the DPRK makes the choice it has made, which is to pursue the path of violations instead of the path of dialogue, we will continue to work to increase the pressure and defend ourselves and allies from this threat,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, referring to the country’s official title, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

China, perhaps even more so than North Korea, will be responsible for ensuring the new sanctions are enforced. As the foremost customer of North Korean coal, and its chief financier and source of aid, China cannot lean on the vague language of previous sanctions to skirt around the new limits. The last round of sanctions, imposed in March, also aimed to curb the country’s coal exports, but with an exception: exports could surpass the imposed limits if they supported “livelihood purposes.”

China used that language as a license to continue importing North Korean coal in copious amounts. In fact, after the sanctions took effect in April, China imported a record amount of coal from its nuclear neighbor. The new sanctions clarified the “livelihood” exception as being reserved only for North Korean citizens.

North Korea responded to the sanctions through its state-controlled Korean Central News Agency. “Obama and his lackeys are sadly mistaken if they calculate that they can force the DPRK to abandon its line of nuclear weaponization and undermine its status as a nuclear power through base sanctions to pressurize it,” the statement said, adding that the sanctions came from the instructions of the U.S. The statement had an ominous conclusion, saying the U.S. will “be held wholly accountable in case the situation on the Korean peninsula and in the region is pushed to an uncontrollable phase.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post UN Hits North Korea with “Toughest” Sanctions Yet Over September Nuclear Test appeared first on Law Street.

About a year after resuming the diplomatic relationship with Cuba, the U.S. government has just approved direct commercial flights from 10 American cities to Havana. This is yet another step toward thawing a relationship that has been icy since 1961.

A statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation reads:

Today we take another important step toward delivering on President Obama’s promise to reengage Cuba […] Restoring regular air service holds tremendous potential to reunite Cuban American families and foster education and opportunities for American businesses of all sizes.

Officials first signed an agreement to open up American flights to Cuba in February—for the first time in more than half a century. Last month, the Transportation Department approved flights to other cities in Cuba, but now the time has come to allow air travel to the the capital city, Havana. American Airlines will receive the biggest share of flights, at 35 per week, closely followed by JetBlue with 27.

Thinking about traveling to #Cuba? Watch this video from @USEmbCuba on 5 things to know before you go! https://t.co/mHQ429chlC

— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) July 7, 2016

The American cities that the flights will depart from are: Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, New York, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale.

Florida has the highest Cuban-American population in the U.S., and so four cities will launch the most flights, at 85 per week. Demand will be high from Cuban-Americans, according to the Miami Herald.

Since Fidel Castro seized power and started collaborating with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s, there has been mutual mistrust and economic sanctions on Cuba. The trade embargo also meant a travel ban, so that Americans could not visit the island legally.

When Obama came into office, he started working towards easing the bans and sanctions, in an effort to normalize the relationship. In 2009 he lifted the travel ban for Cuban-Americans, making it easier for people to visit relatives and travel freely.

La Habana, Cuba – Raw & Beauty, Old Glory | GLOB▲L – M▲G▲ZINE https://t.co/rW8jNvTa6z pic.twitter.com/8ABATUhrIa

— Be ▲rtist Be ▲rt (@BeArtist_BeArt) July 7, 2016

However, the ban on American tourism in Cuba is still in place, so airlines will be required to record the reason why passengers are traveling there. But if you don’t have relatives on the island and want to visit, don’t fret. There are 12 scenarios where you could still be allowed to visit. For example, you’re ok to go if it’s for religious activities, to make a public performance, or compete in an athletic competition.

The decision about the flights won’t be final until after a 30-day trial period during which potential complaints or objections will be handled. The first U.S. to Cuba flight is scheduled to fly from Fort Lauderdale to Santa Clara in September.

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 U.S. Approves Direct Flights From 10 Cities to Havana appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

— UFO4U@NEWS (@UFO4U) July 7, 2016

The Human Rights Abuses

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

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

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

What Do The Sanctions Mean?

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared Sunday that he would sign an executive order to divest funds from any company or organization in his state participating in the Boycott, Divestment, or Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic pressure. The Palestinian-led movement targets corporations and products that contribute to the violation of Palestinian rights, and calls for sanctions to be placed on the Israeli state.

Cuomo’s announcement took place Sunday at the Harvard Club in New York, the same day that the Governor participated in the Celebrate Israel parade along with Mayor Bill de Blasio, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and other public figures, as well as celebrities, organizations, and companies. Cuomo followed his announcement with a series of tweets in which he harshly criticized the movement and its participants:

We made a unity trip to Israel because they were under attack. Today, Israel is under attack on a different level. https://t.co/O3oXmEdnXp

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

This BDS movement is an economic attack and generating a corporate enemy to Israel. We cannot allow that to happen.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

I am signing an Executive Order that says very clearly we are against the BDS movement. If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

Why a state government feels the need to get involved in one of the most complex foreign policy issues of our time is unclear, but Cuomo’s actions highlight the deep roots of the U.S.-Israel alliance, in which an “attack” on Israel is treated as an attack toward the U.S. The official executive order declares that New York and Israel “enjoy a special historical relationship and share a commonly forged cultural bond,” and that the state “stands firmly with Israel.”

The order also declared the governor’s intentions to compile a blacklist of sorts, targeting companies and institutions that have participated in BDS activities and threatening to divest if they are proven to have participated in the movement. Once an organization has been added to the publicly-available list, it’s not easy to be removed: it must submit “written evidence” demonstrating that it no longer participates in BDS activities, and a “good faith” determination will be made by the Commissioner of General Services. The punishments make it nearly impossible for any organization to get involved in the BDS movement without facing major repercussions.

The order is already being criticized by many for being a blatant violation of free speech; Palestine Legal calls it a “dangerous precedent reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

The list of companies and organizations participating in BDS will be compiled in the next 180 days, according to the order. Once released, it will undoubtedly have a major impact on a large number of businesses throughout the state.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Bans Boycotts Against Israel appeared first on Law Street.

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sanctions

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

U.S. Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic and Foreign Response

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

Congress

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

Latin American Community

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

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

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

Maduro Government

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

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

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

Recent Developments

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

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

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

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

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

Council on Foreign Relations: Venezuela’s Chaves Era

Global Research: Letter to the People of the United States

Huffington Post: Democrats Ask Obama to Stop Sanctioning Venezuela

Huffington Post: South American Governments Slam Obama Over Venezuela Sanctions

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

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

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

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

White House: Venezuela Executive Order

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

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 Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

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

What has been happening in Ukraine?

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

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

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

What are sanctions?

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

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

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

What kind of sanctions have been used?

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

Specific Targets

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

Consequences

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

Potential Problems

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

Have they had the intended effect in Russia?

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

Effect on the Elite

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

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

Effect on Public Confidence

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

Effect on the Future

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

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

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

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 20, 2014

Do sanctions hurt the U.S. economy?

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

Resources

Primary

Treasury Department: Treasury Sanctions Russian Officials

Treasury Department: Announcement of Additional Treasury Sanctions

Additional

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

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

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

BBC: Ukraine Crisis Timeline

Politico: The New Russia Sanctions: Stalled Tax Talks

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

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

BBC: The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Russia

Investopedia: Sanctions Between Countries Pack a Bigger Punch

USA Today: Business Groups Oppose Any New Sanctions on Russia

New Republic: These Sanctions Against Russia Will Hurt

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

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

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

Alexandra Stembaugh

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

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