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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? 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.

Their tiny, delicate wings make their migration from Central Mexico to Southern Canada equitable to a trip from the Earth to the Moon and back. But due to climate change and habitat loss, the great Monarch Butterfly is growing endangered and few people are likely to act in their defense.

Butterflies are one of the first things we learn about in school, and one of the last that we come to appreciate. Many of us have fond elementary school memories of collecting caterpillars in jars for the classroom. It was an exciting project, but we rarely truly thought about the wonder of what was happening. During its time in the chrysalis, a caterpillar literally dissolves into a bag of liquid, to reassemble as a new creature. One that can take flight, and has an ingrained knowledge of its mission. A butterfly is a symbol of transformation; a reminder that patience and hard work can yield fantastic results.

Numbering in the half billions, Monarch Butterflies cluster in the Oyamel Fir Forests of Mexico, covering nearly ever square inch of tree trunk and branch. As spring appears and warms the air, they emerge from their sleepy lull and prepare for a fantastic journey. This group of insects can make it only so far, mating and subsequently dying somewhere in the Southern United States; however, their offspring appear shortly thereafter, and resume the flight northward. It takes three generations to make the trip, each one understanding its current location and distance it must travel. Then, one “super generation” makes the entire trip back to Mexico.

Courtesy of Agunther via Wikipedia.

The Oyamel Fir Forests are a product of older geological patterns, when the Earth was cooler and wetter. Monarch Butterflies are adapted to the same conditions; if it gets too hot or dry they are very susceptible to death. As the climate changes, the forest coverage recedes, leaving them vulnerable. In addition, the trees retain heat, which keeps the butterflies warm throughout the night and in general provides a suitable temperature zone for the delicate creatures. As illegal logging takes place in this region, poorly regulated by the Mexican government, the butterflies face threats on multiple fronts.

The brilliant orange shading of a Monarch’s wings is actually a defensive signal to predators, warning them of toxicity; few creatures are willing to eat a Monarch. This characteristic comes from a very particular diet, namely the milkweed leaf. It is on this plant that the caterpillar is born and, though a handful of flower types can provide food for the butterfly, is the only thing the caterpillar is capable of eating before making its transformation. Extensive use of certain herbicides and pesticides is killing milkweed in large swathes; caterpillars now face starvation before ever turning into butterflies.

A Monarch caterpillar. Courtesy of vladeb via Flickr.

In the last 20 years Monarch’s populations have declined by 90 percent, while they have lost over 160 million acres of habitat. So what is being done about this? This past August, scientists filed for protection of Monarch Butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. This would enable authorities to take more action with regard to the logging and pesticide use, as international regulations could help curb hazardous human activities.

In a recent meeting of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, panelists discussed the implementation of butterfly habitats on public property. This would basically be an extension of home gardening, insofar as planting milkweed nurseries outside on which butterflies can lay their eggs. We already enjoy hanging bird feeders in our yards and installing bird baths in parks, right? Birds are pleasant company. Butterflies are too; milkweed gardens in our yards, parks, and schools would draw beautiful creatures to our sides, enhancing our appreciation and outdoor experiences. Furthermore, as Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club’s Central Jersey Chapter Kip Cherry pointed out, it would bring greater visibility to the crisis.

Most recently, this endeavor has received a major boost from the Fish & Wildlife Service as well as the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, who together will contribute over $3 million to assist in the development of butterfly oases in communities across the country. While some people are concerned that this action is not enough, as it does not address the use of pesticides that are killing milkweed plants in the first place, it is nonetheless a major effort to provide for the butterflies and may lead to further productive measures in the future.

A milkweed field. Courtesy of mwms1916 via Flickr.

The Butterfly Effect is a scientific model that suggests a minuscule action at the outset of an event can have titanic ramifications down the line. This is often metaphorically exemplified by images of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings setting in motion a chain of events that will alter the behavior of a hurricane. Similarly, this is a common literary tool, as when a time traveler in the past steps on a butterfly and in so doing induces drastic changes to the future. These constructions are poignant because they rely on our perceptions of a butterfly’s insignificance and lack of importance.

Some people might be hesitant to act in defense of butterflies. They conjure up images of effeminateness; a delicate creature is suitable for a delicate person, such as a Victorian gentleman traipsing about with a net. I myself have been laughed at after arguing that butterflies are awesome. In addition to this cultural stereotype, the bottom line is that butterflies are insects. They have antennae and lots of legs and people find these things gross. We flinch and shoo them if they get too close. We imagine insects in general as being infinitely numerous; it is hard to accept that some of them could disappear. As far as endangered species go, they are not comparable to the great Bengal tiger, or sweet and gentle manatee, or majestic humpback whale. In fact, though, they are all of these things. Our prejudices do not entitle us to judge which species deserve to survive or die off, especially if it is our actions that are putting them in that precarious position in the first place.

Courtesy of docentjoyce via Flickr.

Franklin R. Halprin

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

The post A Member of Royalty is in Trouble appeared first on Law Street.