As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

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 Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

The California Supreme Court has decided that it’s time to change the state’s notoriously difficult bar exam after observing very low passage rates for the past few years compared to other states.

The state’s passing score, referred to as the “cut score,” has been set at 144. California has the second highest score to pass nationwide behind only Delaware. Last year 62 percent of applicants passed. Other states, like New York, saw a rate around 80 percent, according to the New York Times.

The changes, which will take effect in January, will give the California Supreme Court the ability to change the “cut score,” according to the ABA Journal. The court will have the authority to appoint 10 of the 19 members of the committee of bar examiners. The court amended the California Rules of Court to expand its power, dictating that it “must set the passing score of the examination.” The Supreme Court justices could make the decision soon and retroactively apply them to last month’s exams, according to the New York Times.

Some businesses that prepare law students for the bar exam called the move “unprecedented.” But according to Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, this action isn’t out of the ordinary. Instead, it will bring California in line with other states. “Virtually all state supreme courts exercise their inherent authority to regulate the admission of lawyers more closely than has appeared to be the case in California,” she said.

In February the state bar received a letter from 20 California law school deans advocating a scoring change, which prompted the group to launch the study.

The court was further compelled to act after the University of California Hastings College of the Law Dean complained to the California Committee of Bar Examiners. Dean David Faigman called the steep standard “outrageous and constitutes unconscionable conduct on the part of a trade association that masquerades as a state agency” after only 51 percent of his school’s graduates qualified.

Robert Anderson, a professor of corporate law at Pepperdine School of Law, who studied the 10 most difficult state bar exams in 2013, concluded that California had the most difficult exam even if its score standard was lower than Delaware’s, according to the New York Times. Anderson recommended lowering the score to 133, the same as New York. That change would mean that 87 percent of test-takers would pass, according to ABA Journal.

There are still people who advocate for the high standard when certifying lawyers. Supporters believe that the high cut score protects citizens from unprepared lawyers and continues a tradition of accepting only very qualified candidates.

California is home to plenty of prestigious law schools–ranging from Stanford in the northern part of the state to UCLA in the southern part–so it trains many law students. If California feels as though young law students are fleeing the state to get easily certified elsewhere, a change makes sense. The strict standards have been part of the California Bar Association’s reputation for a while now but for a state that is home to economic hubs for entertainment and technology, it’s important to retain talent.

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 Is the California Bar Exam About to Get Easier? appeared first on Law Street.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry apparently spent 22 minutes on the phone last week discussing international energy issues with someone who he believed was Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman. Unfortunately for Perry, the call was a prank from Russian jokesters posing as Groysman. They discussed, among other topics, a fuel that is made from home-brewed alcohol and pig manure.

Perry was duped by Vladimir “Vovan” Kuznetsov and Alexei “Lexus” Stolyarov, who are known for pranking high-profile celebrities. Perry and the duo talked via a translator so the American politician was convinced the man he was corresponding with was Groysman. Besides the alternative fuel, Perry discussed underwater pipelines for gas, cyber attacks on America, natural gas in Ukraine, and even the Paris Accords, according to Bloomberg.

“Our position is that it’s our record that should be looked at, not whether or not we have signed onto some international accord,” Perry said. “We see our record of progress relative to the global environment to be substantially defensible.”

The pair even inquired if Ukraine could strike a deal on American coal exports, to which Perry responded that negotiations are always possible.

(FYI: the entire conversation was uploaded to a Russian video streaming site and can be found here.)

The prank phone call was first reported by E&E News. After the hoax was discovered, Perry’s office commented on the matter in an email to the Washington Post:

Secretary Perry is the latest target of two Russian pranksters.These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments.

The duo, known as the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” claims to have pranked celebrities such as Elton John, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and John McCain, but rumor-debunking site Snopes notes that while some instances are true, such as McCain’s call, others remain unverified.

The situation is perhaps even more confusing since Perry and Groysman met in person just last month. On June 20, Perry hosted Groysman and his entourage at the Department of Energy office in Washington D.C., according to the Washington Post. So when Perry’s office received a call requesting a follow-up conversation, they assumed it was the Prime Minister. Instead it was the young Russians scheduling their prank.

After serving as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015, Perry was the second contestant eliminated on ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars,” (though it’s debatable how much of a star Perry really is.) Besides competing on the reality show, Perry has famously been pretty gaffe-prone throughout his career. During a Republican Presidential Debate in 2011 Perry forgot which government agencies he vowed to abolish. Then, in 2013 Perry was giving a speech in New Orleans when he mistakenly said he was in Florida.

Perry has the political resume to lead the Department of Energy, but these juvenile gaffes should worry some Americans as we enter an era in our country where the debate over climate change is fierce. Citizens can only hope that mistakes like these don’t eventually endanger American interests at home or abroad when it comes to the energy sector.

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 Rick Perry Tricked by Russian Pranksters appeared first on Law Street.

Starting August 1, Wisconsin technology company Three Square Market will inject microchips between its employees’ thumbs and index fingers. The program is not mandatory, but so far, more than 50 of the 80 employees at the company’s River Falls headquarters have volunteered.

The microchips are about the size of a grain of rice. They use radio frequency identification technology (RFID), which the Food and Drug Administration approved for human use in 2004. Once an employee gets a chip, they will be able to access the building, pay for items, and log in to computers with a wave of the hand.

The procedure is reportedly quick, painless, and free to volunteers–the company will pick up the $300 tab per procedure.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized, allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities, etc.,” said Three Square Market CEO Todd Westby in a company blog post.

Some people, however, are more skeptical of the technology. Dr. Alessandro Acquisti, professor of information and technology at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, is concerned about potential  security breaches. Three Square Market insists that the chips are encrypted, but Dr. Acquisti explained to the New York Times that encryption “is a pretty vague term which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable.”

The chip is not currently equipped for GPS tracking, but that doesn’t mean Three Square Market won’t add it in the future. Dr. Acquisti worries that the chips could one day track employees’ lunch and bathroom breaks without their permission.

“Once they are implanted,” he warns, “it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage.”

This is the first time a U.S.-based company has chipped its employees, but globally, the practice isn’t new. Epicenter, a Swedish startup, tagged its employees with the same technology back in 2015. So far, the program has been successful–Epicenter holds monthly events and parties where specialists can chip employees at no cost.

“People ask me, ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say, ‘Yes, why not,'” said Fredric Kaijser, Epicenter’s chief experience officer, in an interview with CNBC. “And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.”

Judging by the high number of volunteers, the workers at Three Square Market are equally willing to “try new things.” Software engineer Sam Bengston signed up right away.

“In the next five or 10 years,” he told the New York Times, “this is going to be something that isn’t scoffed at so much, or is more normal. So I like to jump on the bandwagon with these kind of things early, just to say that I have it.”

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wisconsin Tech Company Offers to Implant Microchips in its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

R. Kelly, the R&B singer known for his outlandish, sometimes criminal behavior, is again embroiled in controversy. On Monday, BuzzFeed News reported that the 50-year-old is manipulating a group of young women, controlling everyday aspects of their lives as they stay at one of his properties, apparently by their own free will.

The report features testimony from the parents of some of these women, as well as three former members of Kelly’s entourage who corroborated the details. After luring young, attractive women into his inner circle by inviting them backstage and flying them out to concerts, Kelly would convince them to live in one of his properties in Atlanta or Chicago.

“Puppet Master”

According to the report, Kelly “controls every aspect of their lives: dictating what they eat, how they dress, when they bathe, when they sleep, and how they engage in sexual encounters that he records.” 

The famous artist, who recorded “I Believe I Can Fly” for the Space Jam soundtrack, purportedly uses his lavish lifestyle to attract women before using his verbal skills to convince them to stay with him, according to Cheryl Mack, Kelly’s former personal assistant.

“[Kelly] is a master at mind control. … He is a puppet master,” Mack told BuzzFeed.

One issue with police intervention is that the law allows consenting adults to participate in any relationship they wish, even when it is nontraditional. So when police in Illinois and Georgia performed welfare checks over the past year, no charges were filed. Instead, one 19-year-old aspiring singer staying at Kelly’s mansion in Atlanta, told authorities that she was “fine and did not want to be bothered.”

Some of the parents have spoken with FBI detectives but the bureau could not comment on the investigation to the public.

Mack, along with other former entourage members, said they wish they had documentation to prove their claims. They said Kelly controlled their cell phone usage and barred them from taking pictures of him or his homes. Kelly reportedly has the women call him “Daddy” while he calls them “babies.” He also has them request permission to contact other people besides himself.

For example, the parents of the 19-year-old singer, who last saw their daughter on Dec. 1, 2016, have only received two texts from their daughter since then. The first, sent on Christmas Day said, “I hate Christmas has to be this way this year.” The other came on Mother’s Day: “Happy Mother’s Day from me and Rob,” it said, referring to Kelly’s given name of Robert.

Kelly’s lawyer, Linda Mensch, defended her client’s actions and asked for privacy when BuzzFeed approached her with the allegations. In an email to BuzzFeed, she wrote:

We can only wonder why folks would persist in defaming a great artist who loves his fans, works 24/7, and takes care of all of the people in his life. He works hard to become the best person and artist he can be. It is interesting that stories and tales debunked many years ago turn up when his goal is to stop the violence; put down the guns; and embrace peace and love. I suppose that is the price of fame. Like all of us, Mr. Kelly deserves a personal life. Please respect that.

Criminal Past

Kelly is no stranger to criminal activity and sexual misconduct. In addition to being charged with assault and battery multiple times, Kelly has been accused of sexual relations with underage girls. He settled a dozen or more cases outside of court.

Here is one example of his clear indifference to age-related consent laws:

R Kelly said this but we still bumped “I Believe I Can Fly” at every Kindergarten graduation

pic.twitter.com/O9hlzbmclc

— (@Dr_Sweets23) July 17, 2017

Kelly is perhaps most infamous for a 2002 video which featured him having sex with, and urinating on, an underage girl. During a raid on his property, police found images of the girl on a camera hidden inside Kelly’s duffle bag. Since those images were ruled ineligible in court, Kelly was ultimately found not guilty on 14 child pornography charges. But the stain on his fame and public perception has never disappeared.

And while it’s not criminal, Kelly created the 33-part, 133-minute music video series titled “Trapped in the Closet,” which features a cheating husband, a bisexual pastor, and plenty of gun violence.

“Robert is the Devil”

According to Kelly’s former partners, the women staying at Kelly’s home, or in his Chicago recording studio last summer, include a songwriter, a singer, and a model. There is also a woman known as the “den mother” who teaches newcomers “how Kelly liked to be pleasured sexually,” according to BuzzFeed. All of the women are between the ages of 18 to 31.

Kelly reportedly keeps a black SUV stationed outside each of his properties with a “burly driver” to keep a watchful eye. This is just part of the psychological warfare Kelly wages against his “babies.”

Kelly makes the women wear jogging suits to minimize their attractiveness to other men, Mack said. If the women break one of his rules, Kelly is known to physically and emotionally abuse the women, according to Mack and fellow insider Kitti Jones. Jones said Kelly once pushed her against a tree and slapped her after she was too friendly with a male cashier at a Subway sandwich shop.

“R. Kelly is the sweetest person you will ever want to meet,” Asante McGee, another former Kelly insider said. “But Robert is the devil.”

Kelly wasn’t perceived positively by the public even before this report, but these allegations carry new weight. Every few years Kelly seems to get himself into legal trouble, so this is no surprise, but it is a horrifying portrait of a formerly well-liked artist.

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 R. Kelly is Reportedly Controlling a “Cult” of Young Women appeared first on Law Street.

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

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 Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

One of America’s most enduring mysteries is what happened to Amelia Earhart after she attempted to become the first female pilot to fly around the world in 1937. Earhart, and her navigator Fred Noonan, seemingly vanished over the Pacific Ocean, and concrete evidence of a crash was never discovered.

But now, researchers may have a new theory. A previously classified photo was discovered at the National Archives which appears to show a short-haired woman sitting on a dock looking at a boat towing a plane that is 38 feet long– the same length as Earhart’s plane. With her back turned to the camera, the woman’s identity is unclear, but her short hair and height match Earhart, according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, there is a man in the picture whose nose and hair match up perfectly with Noonan, in the opinion of a facial recognition expert. Their location would make sense since the small islands could have been along the path that Earhart took before disappearing over the Pacific. The tweet below identifies the two subjects:

Holy crap, there may be new evidence that Amelia Earhart didn’t die in that plane crash https://t.co/RF3xT9jR1Z pic.twitter.com/2JFg00Ot9E

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 5, 2017

The photo was discovered by former U.S. Treasury agent Les Kinney. It will be featured as part of an upcoming History Channel documentary titled “Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence.”  In order to ensure the authenticity of the photograph, it was examined by two independent photo experts who confirmed it was not distorted, according to the Washington Post.

At first, Shawn Henry, a former FBI assistant executive director who is now helping privately investigate the Earhart disappearance, was skeptical of the photo. But once he saw the woman wearing what appear to be Earhart’s trademark pants, his opinion changed.

“I’m looking at her sitting on the dock and thinking, ‘This is her,’” he said.

One of the theories is that Earhart and Noonan were held in Japanese custody after crashing in Japanese territory. Kinney believes that this photo is as close to a smoking gun as has ever been discovered in this decades-long investigation.

“We believe that the Koshu took her to Saipan [in the Mariana Islands], and that she died there under the custody of the Japanese,” said Gary Tarpinian, the executive producer of the special.

After finding the photo–the location pictured is Jaliut Harbor on Jaluit Island, Henry traveled to the Marshall Islands to speak with those who claim that Earhart did in fact visit there. Henry spoke with the son of one man who claimed to have seen Earhart in Mili Atoll in 1937. He also met the last living person who claims to have seen the duo after their arrival, according to the Washington Post. While these stories are inconclusive when considered alone, Henry believes that they corroborate the picture and that all combined we have “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Japanese authorities did tell NBC News they have no record of Earhart ever being in their custody. However, many documents were lost after the islands switched from German to Japanese ownership, according to BBC.

Japanese explorers first arrived at the islands in the 19th century, but the first permanent settlements were created in the 1920s. The person who took this picture is believed to have been a American spy who was keeping tabs on Japanese military activity in the Pacific, according to NBC News. Japanese power over the region ended after the nation’s surrender in World War II. So, there is the possibility that Imperial Japan did keep Earhart and Noonan in its custody up until that point.

The mystery may never be solved, but this photograph is essentially the only concrete evidence ever discovered, and it has reignited the mystery.

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 Was Amelia Earhart Captured by Japan? appeared first on Law Street.

Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

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 With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge appeared first on Law Street.

North Korea is Firing Missiles Again

Yesterday, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the U.S. The U.S. then carried out a joint military exercise with South Korea to show off its power and send a warning message to North Korea. But the North just replied by saying that it would not stop developing its nuclear abilities as long as America’s “hostile policy” and “nuclear threat” persist. The missile traveled 578 miles, according to the South Korean military. It stayed in the air for about 37 minutes. That means that it could potentially reach Alaska.

The North’s plan is to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. The timing of the launch was also significant. “The American bastards must be quite unhappy after closely watching our strategic decision,” a North Korean state media agency quoted its leader Kim Jong Un as saying. “I guess they are not too happy with the gift package we sent them for the occasion of their Independence Day. We should often send them gift packages so they won’t be too bored.”

North Korea’s state media claims the country now has the power to strike the United States with a nuclear warhead https://t.co/UQ9uGZ2Ebc pic.twitter.com/m9c4phzFm7

— CNN (@CNN) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS have resigned in frustration with the Trump’s Administration’s apparent lack of interest in “the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Since its creation in 1995, the council has sought to craft national policy on the disease, prevent its spread, and promote effective treatment as a cure is developed, according to U.S. News and World Report.

The members of the council who quit began becoming concerned during the 2016 presidential campaign when the Trump team showed little interest in meeting with advocates for those struggling to survive the disease. At that point, while the council noted the Trump camp’s disinterest, they clung to the hope that he could be engaged on the issue once in office, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Things escalated when the White House site “Office of National AIDS Policy” was removed during Trump’s inauguration, said Scott Schoettes, a member of the council since 2014.

The final misstep was when the new American Healthcare Act was passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, despite pleas from marginalized communities that it would have disastrous impacts, especially for those with HIV/AIDS.

New HIV infections in America declined 18 percent between 2008 and 2014, according to estimates from the Center for Disease Control. The council worked with the previous administration to create the new healthcare system that provided easier access to diagnosis and treatment. Those who quit the council felt that the new GOP bill would take that away.

Schoettes, and his peers, wanted to provide input for the council, but said that they could no longer stand idly by as the Trump Administration ignored their recommendations. Schoettes wrote in a guest column for Newsweek announcing the resignations:

The Trump Administration has no strategy to address the on-going HIV/AIDS epidemic, seeks zero input from experts to formulate HIV policy, and — most concerning — pushes legislation that will harm people living with HIV and halt or reverse important gains made in the fight against this disease.

Trump has still not appointed anyone to head the White House Office of National AIDS Policy after 150 days, while former President Barack Obama appointed a leader after only 36 days. Schoettes penned the column, but it was cosigned by his partners in resignation Lucy Bradley-Springer, Gina Brown, Ulysses W. Burley III, Grissel Granados, and Michelle Ogle.

While the council can have up to 25 members, it currently has only 15. The council last met in March, at which point the members wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price expressing concern about the repeal of the American Healthcare Act and the impact it would have on access to HIV/AIDS treatment. Price responded with an uninspiring, “perfunctory” response, according to Schoettes, which further frustrated the council.

Still, Schoettes says he and his colleagues have a desire to help the community they have worked with for many years. They don’t foresee Trump mustering any more interest than he has shown, but they hope other politicians find it necessary to work on a serious public health issue. The column finished:

We hope the members of Congress who have the power to affect healthcare reform will engage with us and other advocates in a way that the Trump Administration apparently will not.

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 Six Members of the HIV/AIDS Council Resign in Frustration appeared first on Law Street.

While it’s been more than 20 years since a major Washington, D.C. sports team has been invited to the White House, two faces of Washington sports are getting political this summer.

Last week Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins played a round of golf with President Donald Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Meanwhile, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin attended an annual event for President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader answered questions from a studio audience and civilians across the nation.

Neither has made any specific political statements, but the actions of both stars raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Some fans expressed frustration on social media, but others accepted that each athlete has their own personal lives and they can do what they choose.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–which comprise the main fan base for both teams–all voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Cousins said that Eric Shuster, the director of strategic partnerships at CSN Mid-Atlantic, helped put the duo together. The opportunity was too much to pass on. Cousins said the round was a great experience, adding:

I didn’t ever think that would happen. Had a good enough time that if there’s any former presidents in the D.C. area that want to give me a call, I’d love to meet them at one of the courses around here. I know lots of them are members at these courses and I’m not, so I’d love to get on and get to meet them. Republican, Democrat, left, right, I’d love an invite.

Meanwhile, Alex Ovechkin explained his rationale to Sovetsky Sport, a Russian outlet. Ovechkin said he was making a plea to Putin to help save the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) from its massive financial troubles.

Alex Ovechkin goes to Vladimir Putin town hall meeting to lobby for struggling Dynamo… https://t.co/6iA87Fdy62 pic.twitter.com/1SmEDqe9tw

— Zesty NHL News (@nhl_zesty) June 16, 2017

The KHL, Europe’s premier hockey league, is in serious debt, with teams owing their players more than $17 million, according to the Associate Press. Some players haven’t received a salary payment in over six months.

Ovechkin’s former team, Dynamo Moscow, is in about $35 million in debt and in danger of shutting down. The future Hall of Famer wants to do all he can to avoid that situation.

“It’s a great pity that such things are happening in our sport,” Ovechkin said. “I hope the teams experiencing difficulties will overcome them.”

So both Washington sports stars had their own rationale for spending time with these world leaders. Ovechkin had a goal in mind while Cousins simply jumped at the opportunity to meet the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Neither meeting means much in the grand scheme of global politics, but it does add intrigue and anguish to the beginning of summer for many Washington sports fans.

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 Washington Sports Stars Spend Time with Trump and Putin appeared first on Law Street.

Today, United States law enforcement officials charged the security detail for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after they escalated a protest outside the Turkish Embassy, leading to violence.

The skirmish broke out this May after Erdogan and his security detail met with President Donald Trump at the White House on May 16. Court documents reveal the demonstration was peaceful until a group of “radicalized protesters began taunting the peaceful protesters,” according to the Washington Post.

When Erdogan’s group arrived at the property, Turkish security provoked the demonstrators and a violent outburst broke out that entangled demonstrators from both sides, Turkish security, and American law enforcement. Eleven people were injured and nine were hospitalized, as Erdogan watched from his Mercedes-Benz.

Police in Washington D.C. have been investigating the incident alongside the State Department and Secret Service.

These charges levied against Turkish security officials are the first steps since the attack a month ago. Since the incident, American authorities have been frustrated privately and publicly regarding what they perceived as a foreign government’s attack on American free speech, according to the New York Times. 

The State Department responded by saying “violence is never an appropriate response to free speech” and that officials are “communicating our concern with the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a bill condemning the violence and asking for punishment.

While America views free speech and protest as an integral part of its democracy, the same cannot be said for Turkey. After a failed military coup last year, Erdogan’s government has pursued enemies and detractors of his regime. Nearly 200,000 people have been arrested, dismissed, or suspended from their jobs, according to the Washington Post. While the United States ranks 43rd in the World Press Freedom rankings, Turkey is ranked 155th.

One issue is that Erdogan and his team returned to Turkey just hours after the skirmish and it is unlikely that the country would extradite its people to face charges. If they ever return to the United States, however, they risk being arrested, according to the New York Times.

With that in mind, the State Department added that it would consider additional action “as appropriate under relevant laws and regulations.”

Another issue the outburst created was how it would impact diplomatic relations between the nations. It has already halted the progress of a $1.2 million arms sale to Turkey, according to the New York Times.

The incident has certainly raised tensions with Turkey, and American officials may continue to be disappointed with their attacks on protesters. Now it remains to be seen how Turkey, and Erdogan, will respond to the charges from law enforcement.

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 Turkish Security Detail Charged after May Melee appeared first on Law Street.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman’s lifetime of strange behavior continues with yet another trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea this week–his fifth trip to the isolated nation.

Rodman has built a close relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in recent years, becoming a pseudo-ambassador for the United States. America has no ambassador or diplomatic relations with North Korea; instead, it relies on the Swedish embassy as a mediator, according to its website.

“My mission is to break the ice between hostile countries,” Rodman told Sports Illustrated in 2013. “Why it’s been left to me to smooth things over, I don’t know. Dennis Rodman, of all people. Keeping us safe is really not my job; it’s the black guy’s [Obama’s] job. But I’ll tell you this: If I don’t finish in the top three for the next Nobel Peace Prize, something’s seriously wrong.”

Rodman’s current trip is being sponsored by Potcoin.com, a cryptocurrency business that does banking for legal marijuana companies. While there is little known about cultural life in North Korea, some defectors have said that marijuana is obtainable and common in North Korea.

I’m back! Thanks to my sponsor https://t.co/zBtIFz1QBr. #NorthKorea #PeaceAndLove https://t.co/G7t6PX3WV9

— Dennis Rodman (@dennisrodman) June 13, 2017

Another one of Rodman’s previous trips was sponsored by Paddy Power, an Irish gambling company.

The fact that Rodman, an eccentric NBA star who has headbutted a referee, kicked a cameraman, once married former “Baywatch” star Carmen Electra for less than six months, and then donned a wedding dress and wig to marry himself, is the main liaison between the two nations is pretty strange. But his rapport with the supreme leader is even more bizarre.

Dennis Rodman gives copy of ‘The Art of the Deal’ to North Korean official https://t.co/QKyhrMvigp via @RyanGaydos pic.twitter.com/FQYXQyGnm6

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2017

In the past Rodman has discussed politics with North Korean leaders, in addition to having fun as a private citizen. Prior to his fifth trip, he told to reporters he is “trying to open a door” for better relations between the two nations, according to Chicago Tribune.

In 2014, Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-born American citizen, publicly thanked Rodman following his release from the country after being imprisoned and sentenced the prior year to serve 15 years of hard labor in the country. Bae called Rodman the “catalyst” for his release.

Coincidentally, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was released back to the United States within hours of Rodman’s arrival in North Korea Tuesday. It remains murky as to whether or not Rodman had something to do with Warmbier’s return, but Michael Anton, a US national security spokesman, told CNN he didn’t believe Rodman played a role.

Rodman endorsed President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign after twice participating as a contestant in Trump’s reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” Since his inauguration, Trump has repeatedly criticized and threatened both Kim and North Korea.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 2017

Despite Trump’s public criticisms, Rodman still believes the president would approve of him befriending Kim. When asked by reporters in Beijing if Trump was aware of the trip, Rodman replied, “Well, I’m pretty sure he’s pretty much happy with the fact that I’m over here trying to accomplish something that we both need.”

Multiple sources involved in unofficial talks with North Korea, according to the Washington Post, claim the Trump Administration is using Rodman as a back channel to North Korea, rather than the usual lineup of experts and policy makers. But it remains to be seen whether or not basketball can actually bridge the seemingly impassable divide between the two countries.

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 Dennis Rodman Heads to Favorite Vacation Spot, Again: North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

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 U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing at this time last year?

On June 8, 2016, exactly a year ago, The New York Times ran a front page story commemorating former secretary of state Hillary Clinton reaching the threshold of delegates and superdelegates needed to secure the Democratic Party nomination. This made Clinton the first woman to lead the presidential ticket for a major political party.

The front page #OTD in 2016. Hillary Clinton claims the Democratic nomination. #nytimes pic.twitter.com/IDHWQzIrK7

— New York Times OTD (@OnThisDayNYT) June 8, 2017

At this point, plenty of people had high hopes of seeing America’s first female president. Many experts doubted that Clinton, an experienced politician, would lose to real estate mogul Donald Trump, who was nearing his own nomination.

As we all know now, much has changed in the year since that front page ran. National mood has ebbed and flowed, and the feeling that it’s been a long year is pervasive across America on social media and in casual conversation. The country has undergone a serious transformation in the past year in part because of the election and in part because of current events which have stricken fear in many.

As a baseline, Trump secured the Republican nomination and fought hard against Clinton in the campaign before pulling off the upset and winning the 2016 election. But throughout the campaign there were numerous important events that continuously shocked the nation, often to no avail. There was the tape of him with Billy Bush boasting about groping women without consent. There was Trump’s defense of his gross behavior surrounding Miss Universe models, specifically 1996 winner Alicia Machado. And there was his endorsement from KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

And since Trump’s inauguration in January, the political climate in America has been drastically altered. Trump has regularly embroiled himself in controversy, whether it was his executive orders restricting travel from mainly Muslim countries or his choice to fire FBI director James Comey. And don’t forget when Trump fired Attorney General Sally Yates after she didn’t defend his travel ban. Not to mention all of the times he’s taken to Twitter to spout baseless accusations against former President Barack Obama, the media, and other global leaders.

Most notably, since The New York Times ran that front page story the political, racial, and cultural divide has widened across America. From any vantage point, American society is different than it was when Clinton secured the nomination last June.

Polarization on the political spectrum has become more evident. It has become increasingly clear that Republicans and Democrats alike mostly discuss politics with those who agree with them, the Pew Research Center concluded.

That polarization has, at least in part, led to violence across America. Violence has broken out at numerous protests since Trump’s inauguration, including the Portland protests just this past weekend. Nationwide, racially motivated hate crimes have become a more pressing issue. After researching nine major metropolitan areas including New York City and Chicago, the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University found that hate crimes rose more than 20 percent in those areas. Hate crimes in New York City increased 24 percent from 2015 while Washington, D.C. had the largest increase at 62 percent. These hate crimes vary from racial threats to religious attacks against Jews or Muslims.

Additionally, people have become more skeptical of polling and poll analysis after pollsters’ failure to correctly predict the election. 538, an analysis site led by Nate Silver, is one of the organizations greatly criticized in the past year.

The truth is that it’s been a long year, particularly in the political realm. Many of the events that happened over this year have contributed to a feeling of despair, whether the events are related to terrorism, crime, or international affairs.

Part of this seismic shift has been the impactful global events that portray the changes over the past year. These events have shaped the past year and contributed to exhaustion of the American public. Here are some of the most notable:

• June 12: A lone gunman opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 in one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
• July 6: African-American men Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in New Orleans and St. Paul, respectively. Both deaths were caught on camera.
• July 15: An attempted military coup in Turkey failed and nearly 6,000 were arrested
• October 18: The White House said it was “confident” that Russia was behind the recent DNC email hacking in an attempt to influence the American election.
• November 4: The Paris Agreement on climate change went into effect. Trump recently announced he would be pulling the United States out of the agreement, provoking plenty of backlash.
• December 2: Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. This broke from traditional American “One China” policy that was put into place by President Richard Nixon in 1972.
• December 19: Andrey Karlov, Russian ambassador to Turkey, was assassinated as the lone gunman screamed “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”
• January 21: Over 2 million people worldwide participated in a “Women’s March,” protesting newly inaugurated President Trump.

While Trump’s rise to prominence has had ripple effects, it’s no doubt that so have these events and Trump’s response to them. With a rise in hate crimes, polarization, and controversy, the past year has been one of the most unique and unpredictable in recent history. Whether the current state of affairs continues or not is unknown. After a hectic and stressful year, many are hoping things slow down, but there’s no way to predict what Trump, or anyone else, will do next.

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 It Has Been a Long Year Since Hillary Clinton Was Nominated appeared first on Law Street.

For most countries, health care is often a costly component of national budgets. That being said, the sheer volume of federal money spent on a nation’s health care system does not necessarily predict its efficacy. For example, the American health care system–with its rising premiums, drug costs, and glaring loopholes–could certainly be more efficient. The U.S. system has consistently ranked poorly among other industrialized nations, despite having the most expensive health care system in the world–17 percent of its GDP. As the White House grapples with how to handle health care under the new Trump Administration, American politicians may look to other countries for guidance.

One such country potentially worth emulating is the Netherlands. According to the global Prosperity Index, the Netherlands has one of the best health care systems in the world based on the country’s basic mental and physical health, health infrastructure, and availability of preventative care. Could this country’s critical health care reform and system structure be advantageous for the U.S.?

Netherlands Health Care Reform

In 1941, the Netherlands introduced a mandatory health insurance plan for low and middle income citizens. It provided most of the country’s population with basic health insurance, while wealthier citizens purchased private plans. But as the program grew, so did spending. In an effort to protect access to health care, the government passed the Health Care Prices Act in 1982 to control physician fees and revenues. Over the following decades, the Dutch started working toward creating a system that merged competition with universal access to health care.

Then, in 2006, the Netherlands passed the Health Insurance Act of 2006. This broad health reform law was intended to improve the health care system’s quality and efficiency by introducing uniform health insurance. Prior to the 2006 health insurance reform, the Netherlands health care system was comprised of four parts: long-term care insurance, supplementary private health insurance, social health insurance, and alternative private health insurance. After the reform, a new universal “private” social health insurance emerged, and long-term care and supplementary private insurance were maintained.

“Holland” Courtesy of Moyan Brenn : License (CC BY 2.0)

All people who legally live and work in the Netherlands are mandated to buy health insurance from a private insurance company. All insurers are required to accept each applicant, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Moreover, the plan is financed with individuals’ annual income-based contributions. Over half of all Dutch households also receive a subsidy from the government based on income. Since the system relies solely on a flat tax related to salary, the Dutch government does not have to shell out many resources to provide individuals with subsidies.

Today, the health insurance system appears to have more transparency than before. Consumers also have unrestricted choice between all insurance companies on the market. Interestingly, the Dutch approach is not a single-payer system. Instead, it combines mandatory universal health insurance with competition amongst private health insurers, creating more of a “risk equalization” system

Netherlands Health Care Structure

The Dutch do not aggressively regulate health care prices; instead, they’ve chosen to hone in on risk selection and primary care.  By tracking a myriad of factors such as: age, sex, pharmaceutical history, and hospital use, the government is able to determine which individuals are more risky to insure and how much it will potentially cost to cover them in the future. The government then pays more money to insurance companies taking on sicker patients. In an effort to offset these costs, each citizen is required to sign up for a general practitioner who acts as a “gatekeeper” to more expensive care and services. This allows the Dutch to cut back on unnecessary–and often costly–visits to specialized doctors. Individuals who are unhappy with their care have the option to change their insurance policy each year.

Insurers are also mandated to place all profits into a shared fund. That money is then distributed to other insurance companies whose patients are sicker than anticipated. Essentially, the Dutch have made insuring only the healthy a less viable and effective business strategy for insurance companies. The government has also set aside a health care budget, and still sets the price on most services. Since physicians are paid a lump sum each year–rather than fee-for-services–there is less incentive for them to overprescribe medications.

But no health care system is completely free from flaws. Cost-related access problems–not filling prescriptions, skipping recommended tests or treatments, or not visiting a doctor because of cost issues–still plague the Netherlands. However, timely access to health care, including elective or non-emergency surgeries, is much easier to receive in the Netherlands.

In many ways, the Dutch health care system is now an efficient “managed competition.” According to the United Nations’ 2017 World Happiness Report, the Netherlands ranked an impressive sixth out of more than 150 countries. While many factors were considered, health care coverage and life expectancy were integral in determining the overall happiness rankings.

What Can the U.S. Do?

In 2008, researchers noted that implementing a Dutch-like system in the U.S. could be attractive to many American citizens in an article entitled “Universal Mandatory Health Insurance In The Netherlands: A Model For The United States?” Consumer choice, in particular, is an aspect of the Netherlands’ health care overhaul that is incredibly desirable to Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have been the U.S.’ first step toward implementing a health care system similar to the Dutch (insurance policy choices for consumers, attempts to insure more of the population, and coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions), but the system still has its glaring issues.

In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund produced a report that ranked the U.S. third out of 11 wealthy nations in timelines of care and effective care overall.  The Dutch, on the other hand, can provide universal coverage with very low out-of-pocket costs, while still maintaining speedy access to services. According to the study, the U.S. also ranked last on measures of equity; Americans with low incomes are far more likely than counterparts in other countries to not visit a physician when ill. Poor rankings in equity, efficiency, healthy lives, and cost-related access problems contributed to the U.S. ultimately ranking last overall in the study for the fifth time.

While the Dutch have managed to create an institutional framework to deliver universal access to health care along with market competition and consumer choice, the researchers found that the system still struggles to provide the most high-quality care. Meanwhile, the U.S. has integrated many high-caliber delivery systems, but fails to provide universal access to basic health insurance at an affordable rate. U.S. health care still remains the most expensive in the world, and yet it manages to underperform relative to other countries.

The U.S. and the Netherlands are perhaps most divided in the regulation of insurance companies. The ACA left a significant amount of diversity in the insurance marketplace, making it nearly impossible for the program to be fully transparent and simplified with the vast amount of choices. Obamacare offers four different varieties of insurance packages, while the Dutch program offers only one–which is probably most comparable to the Obamacare silver plans. Insurers in the U.S. are able to charge older customers up to three times as much as younger ones, adding even more complexity to the American system. Other researchers note that America’s “spend more, get less” model is tied to other issues–safe, affordable housing; employment prospects; reliable transportation; and consistent, well-balanced meals–that may be even more important to a population’s overall health than just specific medical care.

Conclusion

Building a perfect health care system is downright difficult, regardless of the country or government structure. However, the efficacy and success of the Netherlands’ universal system may be something the U.S. can learn from, and perhaps even integrate into its own system. While there is a lot of support for single-payer (“Medicare for all”), the Dutch system of health care isn’t too far removed from what President Barack Obama attempted to implement through the ACA. With more efficiency and management of the health insurance market, it’s possible the U.S. could save billions of dollars following a more Dutch-like system of health care.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could America Learn a Thing or Two From the Netherlands’ Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump has spent his first week advancing his hardline campaign promises by signing a slew of executive orders. On Wednesday, the president made his way to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where he signed two executive orders specifically related to immigration.

The first ordered the construction of his infamous wall along the southern border. The second order demanded federal agents implement more aggressive deportation practices, calls on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire 10,000 new agents, allows local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers, and, finally, block federal grants to so-called “sanctuary cities.” In spite of these developments, officials in sanctuary cities and jurisdictions are already standing in defiance.

According to the New York Times, four states, 364 counties, and 39 cities have laws on their books that limit the ability of local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE and/or forbids local authorities from inquiring into one’s immigration status. When local authorities arrest someone, they fingerprint them and share the information with ICE. If ICE finds the detainee is undocumented, they ask local authorities to hold the person for 48 hours longer than they normally would. However, DHS has stated these detainer requests are optional as jailing an individual without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. It seems the president, or more likely his advisors, are aware that they cannot legally force local jurisdictions to comply but that they can possibly coerce local jurisdictions into cooperation by imposing economic sanctions.

Executive orders are not policies in a typical sense and were traditionally implemented as a means of guiding existing laws rather than fabricating new, broad-sweeping ones. While President Trump’s orders are strong statements of intent, they are decidedly vague. There is no telling how much funding and what kinds of grants President Trump intends to deny to sanctuary jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government can restrict funding to indirectly achieve federal objectives, but those mandates cannot be “unduly coercive.” While this may prevent the Trump administration from halting all funding, defiant jurisdictions risk massive and unexpected cuts.

Concerned officials in Washington, D.C. warned that, depending on what the Trump administration decides is constitutionally “reasonable,” the city’s budget could be slashed considerably. Due to its unique status, the District has perhaps the most to lose. Nevertheless, the president’s coercive anti-immigrant order will gravely affect any and every sanctuary jurisdiction.

The president claims that the damage he intends to inflict on communities across the country is in defense of the country at large. Since the campaign, it is clear that President Trump’s anti-immigrant stand is grounded in a long-standing stereotype that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, bring crime. In his speech at DHS headquarters, President Trump stood in front of a crowd that included the family members of people killed by undocumented immigrants to whom he gestured while claiming his measures would save “thousands and thousands of lives.” Additionally, the preamble of his executive order states that sanctuary jurisdictions “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” However, the “harm” caused by sanctuary cities and undocumented immigrants can be, and has been, measured.

Political scientists at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found that sanctuary jurisdictions saw no statistically significant change in crime following the passage of sanctuary laws. Furthermore, a study by the American Immigration Council found that “immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.” And these facts do not even consider discrimination in the American criminal justice system. A large body of research has shown that Latinos, and people of color in general, are disproportionately arrested and convicted. Moreover, once convicted, people of color face longer sentences than white people found guilty of the same crimes.

President Trump’s attack on sanctuaries has already met resistance, and so it is possible that funding for hundreds of communities will drastically diminish. These sanctions will place a huge strain on communities throughout the country for no good reason at all. President Trump is well aware that these communities provide a safer environment for undocumented people. Perhaps he’s forgotten that they are also home to Americans he promised to “never let down.”

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 President Trump’s Order to Sanction Sanctuary Cities is Met with Resistance appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of those weird days in between Christmas and New Year’s when you don’t really know what you’re supposed to be doing. Work or chill? Whatever your choice is, take a few minutes and enjoy our rants of the day! 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:

Turkey’s President Claims to Have Evidence That the U.S. Backed ISIS

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed yesterday to have evidence that U.S. coalition forces have helped terrorists in Syria—including ISIS. “They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State]. Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It’s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos,” Erdogan said at a news conference. He also urged Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Turkey’s meeting with Russia and Iran to talk about peace efforts in Syria.

For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Now, Erdogan says it’s truehttps://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

American troops have fought alongside Syrian rebels against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces but have tried to avoid indirectly helping radical Islamist groups. No hard proof of Erdogan’s claims has been made public yet and the U.S. State Department denied everything Erdogan said, calling it “ludicrous.” Spokesman Mark Toner said there was no basis for the accusation.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A new report released last week found that the U.S. ranked first again in global arms sales, selling $40 billion worth of weapons in 2015–about half of all arms agreements worldwide.

With $15 billion worth of signed contracts, France was the second most lucrative seller. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, revealed its findings to Congress last week.

According to the author of the review, Catherine Theohary, the report is meant to “assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests.”

“Knowing the extent to which foreign government arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront,” wrote Theohary.

The U.S. and France both sold more weapons contracts than they did in 2014; the U.S. by about $4 billion  and France by more than $9 billion. Despite this, overall trade was down in 2015.

Total global arms trades dropped from $89 billion in 2014 to $79.9 billion in 2015. Russia was another big player on the production side, selling $11.1 billion worth of arms in 2015. 

So who is buying these weapons? Developing nations–Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia–are the primary consumers of weapons pouring out of places like the U.S., Europe, and China.

Last year, developing nations purchased roughly $65 billion in arms worldwide, with Qatar ($17 billion), Egypt ($12 billion), and Saudi Arabia (over $8 billion) as the largest customers. One of America’s biggest buyers, Saudi Arabia, is embroiled in a civil war in Yemen. Critics say it is using U.S.-supplied munitions to indiscriminately bomb cities and towns.

“The larger valued arms transfer agreements with the United States in 2015 with developing nations included multiple agreements with Saudi Arabia to provide, among other things, munitions and associated accessories and Patriot PAC-3 missiles for over $7 billion,” the report found.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government blocked defense contractor Raytheon from selling 16,000 munitions to Saudi Arabia. The contract was valued at $350 million. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at the time that the Obama administration “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” inflicted by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

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. Topped 2015 Arms Market With $40 Billion in Weapons Deals appeared first on Law Street.

Alaska is the most dangerous state based on its violent crime rate for the third year in a row, according to the latest crime statistics from the FBI. The rate of violent crime increased significantly in Alaska last year–going from 636 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2014 to 730 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2015. Following Alaska is Nevada (696 violent crimes per 100,000 people) and New Mexico (656 violent crimes per 100,000 people).

Law Street’s annual slideshow of the Safest and Most Dangerous States ranks all 50 states based on their violent crime rates. Each slide details the violent crime statistics for every city in the country with available data and a population of 25,000 or more. The qualifying cities are listed from highest to lowest rate of violent crime per 100,000 residents for each state. The category of violent crime is comprised of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

GO DIRECTLY TO YOUR STATE:

AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | DC | FL | GA | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Alaska: #1 Most Dangerous State | 730 Violent Crimes/100,000 People

“Alaska” courtesy of Ryan Schreiber; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Source:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2015.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

Ahmed al-Menhali came to the U.S. from the United Arab Emirates for a medical procedure. What he didn’t expect was police officers approaching him, guns in the lobby of his hotel, forcing him to the ground. Now officials in Avon, Ohio, where the incident took place, have apologized.

A hotel clerk saw Menhali and thought he was a terrorist because he was wearing traditional clothing and talking on the phone in Arabic. She texted her sister and father that she was panicking, and both of them called 911. In a phone call that is posted on YouTube, the sister says the man was “pledging his allegiance or something to ISIS.”

The officers were wearing body cameras, and in one of the videos they are heard yelling aggressively to Menhali to lie down, before approaching and handcuffing him. However, when they searched Menhali and found nothing, it was brushed off as a misunderstanding. But the shock of being held at gunpoint and accused of being a terrorist caused the man to suffer a light stroke. A paramedic was at the scene to treat the hotel clerk for a “panic attack,” and made sure Menhali got to the hospital.

Xenophobia and racism have reached new levels if a tourist can’t even wear his own clothes and speak in his own language without being forced to the ground at gunpoint. The event caught the attention of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“This near hysteria [against Muslims] has been created by political candidates. It’s irresponsible and dangerous,” said Julia Shearson, director of the Cleveland chapter of CAIR to Al-Jazeera.

The incident caused many reactions on social media.

The ignorant worker and her sister should have apologized to Ahmed Al Menhali and the desk clerk should be terminated. @MarriottIntl

— Shea (@Sheaa_) July 5, 2016

Can the world advise Americans not to wear white socks in black sandals? Asking for a friend https://t.co/DP80LXOQOG

— Lexi Alexander (@Lexialex) July 4, 2016

The United Arab Emirates demanded an apology and even warned their citizens to not wear traditional clothing if they visit the United States. The police chief and Avon Mayor Bryan K. Jensen met with Menhali to apologize on Saturday and said in a statement that there might be criminal charges against the clerk that notified 911.

Menhali told Arabic newspaper Al Arabiya that the police hurt his back and threw his phone on the ground. He also pointed out: “The policemen who humiliated and insulted me arrived at [the hotel] without explosives experts or counter-terrorism forces because they knew I’m not a terrorist.”

Menhali said that he appreciated the apology, but also wants the people who called 911 to be held responsible, and that the authorities should use this experience for cross-cultural education purposes. That is a high-minded response from someone who was treated wrongly, and is educational itself.

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 Ohio Police Apologize to Muslim Tourist After Mistaking Him as Terrorist appeared first on Law Street.

A death was confirmed and a new leader appointed on Wednesday by the Taliban, the Afghanistan based Islamic terrorist group, according to an official statement from the group. The death: Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the former leader who was killed in an American drone strike last week in Baluchistan province in western Pakistan. The promotion: Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a fifty-something judicial leader and spiritual authority who was chosen to succeed Mansour.

“All the shura members have pledged allegiance to Sheikh Haibatullah in a safe place in Afghanistan,” the Taliban issued in a statement to the media. “All people are required to obey the new Emir-al-Momineen [commander of the faithful].”

Akhundzada is notable because of his relative anonymity within Taliban ranks and his lack of battlefield experience. He served as a deputy to Mansour, and was the lead justice when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from the mid ’90s to the early ’00s, when U.S. forces invaded the country and toppled the group. He was selected over two presumptive front runners, an operations leader and the son of the group’s founder, Mullah Muhammad Omar, who died of tuberculosis in 2013. Instead, the two men were selected as deputies under Akhundzada.

Not all factions within the Taliban agree with the new appointment. Some members of the Noorzai tribe–to which Akhundzada belongs–are unhappy with not being consulted on the matter, even though Akhundzada is a fellow Noorzai. A spokesman for the breakaway Noorzais anticipates a revolt in response to the decision which, he said, was made by a small contingent of elders rather than the usual few hundred group members.

While solidarity within the group seems elusive at the moment, the Taliban making peace with local governments is a hope the U.S. has held for years, and continues to work toward. The killing of Mansour signaled a shift in the U.S.’s patience with Pakistan–which has been accused of providing safe passage and relative safety for terrorist groups–when making battlefield decisions against the Taliban. Pakistan was to play interlocutor between the Afghan government and the Taliban in peace negotiations, though under the leadership of Mansour, that seemed like a fledgling reality. It remains to be seen whether Akhundzada is a more moveable negotiator.

In the meantime, the Taliban wasted no time in carrying out its deadly public strikes, as a van carrying government officials in Afghanistan was attacked on Wednesday. At least eleven people were killed and four injured.

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 Taliban Appoints New Leader, Kills Eleven in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

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 Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

In the latest action taken by the U.S. government against what it deems as unfair trade practices by China, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman announced on Tuesday the U.S. intends to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization against high poultry tariffs imposed by China.

Calling China’s heavy duties on poultry imports from the U.S. “unfair” and “unjustified,” Froman reiterated the Obama administration’s support of U.S. farmers against Chinese actions: “American farmers deserve a fair shot to compete and win in the global economy and this Administration will continue to hold China responsible when they attempt to disadvantage our farmers, businesses and workers,” he said.

Trade between the world’s two largest economies has long been a point of contention. This would be the 12th action the administration has brought to the WTO in regards to Chinese trade policy. The U.S. has won all previous cases.

The most recent WTO complaint brought by the U.S. came in 2013, when it won the international trade body’s support in enforcing a ruling that required China to halt its average of 64.5 percent duties on U.S. poultry producers, which forced the U.S. to cut its exports to the Asian power by 80 percent. 

In an email sent by Tyson Foods to Law Street Media, the processed poultry giant expressed support for the ongoing fight for freer markets in China:

“We believe in open trade and hope that our government’s latest action will result in a resolution of this issue soon,” a spokesperson from the company wrote.  

Following an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in December 2014, a handful of top importers of U.S. poultry–including mainland China, the country’s sixth most lucrative poultry market to which $153 million worth of chicken meat and eggs were sold in 2014–announced bans or restrictions on U.S. bred meat and eggs. Despite requests from the U.S. for China to lift the ban, and WTO-backed calls to lower poultry tariffs, China has yet to comply with either.

China’s import ban of U.S. bred chicken broiler parts–frozen thighs, breasts, and wings–would need to be lifted before any action taken by the WTO to force China to lower their anti-dumping and countervailing duties would have an effect. As Hong Kong interacts with international trading partners on its own, the trading decisions of Beijing only affect the mainland. 

Toby Moore, Vice President of Communications with the USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, an advocacy body for U.S. poultry exports, expects the ban to be lifted in the near future.

“Its been a long term issue and I think once China gets its economic issues straightened out I think [U.S.-China trade relations] will be a little better,” he told Law Street Media during a phone interview on Tuesday. “China tends to be a country that links trade issues with unrelated issues.”

Calling the U.S. and China trade relationship “tenuous,” Moore claims that historically, China’s stricter trade stances reflected unrelated domestic troubles, or a response to an unrelated action taken by the U.S. He speculated that China might respond to a threatening U.S. action–meeting with the Dalai Lama, for instance, or acting on China’s island building in the South China Sea–with an aggressive new trade measure.

However as the newest wrinkle in the tit-for-tat world of U.S. and Chinese trade turns out, Tuesday’s announcement came with a flurry of bi-partisan support from Senate members:

“Today’s announcement sends a clear message that the United States will continue to hold China’s feet to the fire until it plays by the rules and opens up its market to our poultry,” said Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware and a co-chairman of the Senate Chicken Caucus.

“Trade works when the rules are followed, and it is imperative that China—the world’s second largest economy—lives up to the rules it agreed to when it joined the WTO in 2001,” said Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA).

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. Complains: China’s Tariffs on Imported Poultry Too High appeared first on Law Street.

Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank defaulted on $422 million in debt on Monday, a small but important portion of the island’s $72 billion debt. This isn’t the first time Puerto Rico has failed to pay its debt; the country has been in dire financial trouble for a long time and its governor announced last June that the island’s debts were not payable. But Monday’s default marks the first time that Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank will not be able to make a payment, a signal that the crisis in Puerto Rico is worsening by the day.

As the island continues to default, Peurto Rico faces increasing economic turmoil and may eventually fail to pay for the debt on its general obligation bonds, which are actually guaranteed by its constitution. The government in Puerto Rico has already taken harsh measures to cut spending and make some payments on outstanding debt. But as it reduces public services it threatens to weaken its economy even further.

Read on to learn how we got here and what’s in store for Puerto Rico’s future.

What Happened on Monday?

The entirety of Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt is not due all at once, and on Monday, it only failed to pay most of the $422 million that it owed. Puerto Rico is a unique case in that there is not a single entity responsible for issuing all of its bonds, but the Government Development Bank is the commonwealth’s largest bond issuer–meaning its default is particularly significant.

The GDB did manage to make an agreement with credit unions to push back $33 million of its debt for another year, though much of the outstanding debt remains. In early April, Peurto Rican lawmakers passed a bill issuing a moratorium on debt payments, effectively allowing the government to stop paying its debts until 2017, though bondholders quickly took the issue to the courts. The island will continue to negotiate with its bondholders to the extent that it can, but because Puerto Rico cannot declare bankruptcy, there is no established process for doing so.

While the commonwealth has already defaulted on some of its debt, it has, so far,  managed to stay current on its general obligation debt–which it is constitutionally required to pay (there are several different types of bonds issued by Puerto Rico, but the general obligation bonds are considered to be particularly important). As the government continues to default, staying current on its general obligation payments will become increasingly less likely. Notably, the government will need to pay more than $800 billion in general obligation debt on June 1, which many consider the deadline to work out a resolution before the crisis peaks.

How did we get here?

Economic woes in Puerto Rico largely began after a 1996 law removed tax incentives for companies located in Puerto Rico. That law began a 10-year phase out of section 936 of the tax code, which had previously given significant tax benefits to companies with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Since then, the island has been in the throws of economic contraction and large numbers of Puerto Ricans have fled to the U.S. mainland.

The island has been in a recession for nearly 10 years, which has increased the local government’s cost of borrowing money. As a result, Puerto Rico has had to raise taxes and cut back on services to pay its bondholders. In 2014, Puerto Rico managed to strike a deal with several hedge funds to provide much-needed funding to keep the commonwealth solvent. But it was forced to take on short-term debt at a high interest rate, making its current situation even worse.

Underneath its current fiscal concerns, Puerto Rico has been dealing with ongoing economic contraction. A report commissioned by the government outlines many of the current challenges–from laws like the Jones Act, which inflates the cost of goods on the island by requiring all shipments to be made with U.S. boats; the federal minimum wage, which particularly high relative to the average income on the island and can prevent companies from hiring; and mismatching welfare needs relative to the mainland United States–that limit the island’s economic prospects. These problems have also caused many to leave the island altogether.

This chart from the Pew Research Center illustrates how the rate of population decline in Puerto Rico has been increasing in recent years:

Hope that Puerto Rico will one day be able to pay off its more than $70 billion debt is leaving the island as quickly as its residents. As the commonwealth’s population dwindles so too does its tax base, which is a crucial factor in the local government’s ability to increase its revenue and pay of future debt.

What about Wall Street?

Some argue that hedge funds exploited the situation in Puerto Rico by purchasing large amounts of government debt at very low prices. Economic troubles pushed interest rates on Puerto Rican bonds to over eight percent, which combined with significant tax advantages, made the island’s debt particularly appealing. Puerto Rico is able to issue triple tax-exempt bonds because Congress made the government and its public corporations’ debt exempt from federal, state, and local taxes.

That, combined with the constitutional guarantee–the general obligation bonds take precedence over all other public expenses–made Puerto Rican debt look particularly attractive to large investors. The New York Times summed this point up in an in-depth look at the situation last December:

There were plenty of reasons for the hedge funds to like the deal: They would be earning, in effect, a 20 percent return. And under the island’s Constitution, Puerto Rico was required to pay back its debt before almost any other bills, whether for retirees’ health care or teachers’ salaries.

Critics note that hedge funds have been taking advantage of attractive bonds issued by Puerto Rico and are now turning to the courts to ensure that they are paid the full price for bonds that they bought at a discount.

Is there a solution?

In light of Puerto Rico’s dire situation, the commonwealth’s fate lies almost exclusively in the hands of Congress. In light of its ongoing economic contraction and population decline, Puerto Rico will almost certainly be unable to stay current on its debt. Congress is now tasked with deciding if and how it will help the Puerto Rican government deal with the crisis.

The government in Puerto Rico is currently asking Congress to allow it to restructure its debts using the formal Chapter 9 bankruptcy process or something similar. Currently, Puerto Rico is unable to go bankrupt and has very little ability to negotiate with its creditors. Going bankrupt would allow the commonwealth to negotiate a plan to pay all or part of its debt over on a new time frame with different interest rates. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew argues that if Congress doesn’t act now and allow Puerto Rico to restructure its debts a bailout may actually be needed in the future.

Republicans in Congress have proposed a slightly more hands-on approach–creating a panel to manage and restructure the island’s debt obligations. The fiscal control board would allow the island to restructure its debts but would have a guiding authority to handle the politically difficult decisions involved with cutting back services and negotiating with bondholders. But that plan has faced opposition on both sides of the aisle.

Many conservatives have been wary of granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debts, arguing that doing so could create a dangerous precedent and may amount to a bailout. It would not, in fact, be a bailout–debt restructuring would not involve any government funding–restructuring would merely allow the Puerto Rican government to renegotiate with bondholders without any taxpayer funds. Democrats argue that creating a control board would put too much control in the hands of an undemocratic entity. Puerto Ricans are also particularly wary of giving up control over their finances to a board of people installed by Congress.

While disagreements over how to deal with Puerto Rico’s imminent default persist, it’s important to note that such measures would only go so far in solving the island’s fiscal crisis. Even if it manages to renegotiate its debts, the commonwealth will need to rebuild its economy in the face of consistent population loss. As further cuts to public services are necessary to meet its debt obligations, the island will have an increasingly difficult time bringing money in to make future payments.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Puerto Rico is Defaulting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change worsens, melting ice from earth’s glacier sheet combined with the expansion of warming sea water has caused the world’s oceans to rise dramatically. There are a number of organizations dedicated to recording the rise in sea levels, including the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services–a part of the NOAA that collects data on changing sea levels with numerous tide stations–and NASA, which use satellites to gather the same data from a different perspective. Currently, there are about 150 years of data gathered on changes in the Mean Sea Level (MSL) over time and the current scientific consensus is that sea levels have been rising at a rate of 3.42 mm annually over the last 20 years, which will lead to a total rise of between 1-2 meters by 2100.

Rising sea levels pose a very serious threat to many populous cities throughout the world, particularly those that have developed as coastal trade centers. As sea levels continue to rise, many of these coastal cities will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding, especially in the geographically low-lying areas of the earth. Flooding is a unique consequence of climate change in that it affects people both from the richest and the poorest parts of the world, and while everywhere has their own local approach to flood mitigation, there are generally two major ways to address the issue politically. The first and most popular approach is to develop coastal protection systems to prevent rising tides from impacting coastal zones. The second technique is to commit to renewable energy in order to directly address the problem of global warming and rising sea levels. The larger the country, the greater its personal commitment to fossil fuel divestment matters. Unfortunately, many of the largest countries which have the greatest carbon footprint generally make very low levels commitments to renewables, which makes the commitments of many of the smallest, most flood-vulnerable countries less significant.

Read on to learn more about how the different areas of earth are dealing with rising sea levels.

“Flood” courtesy of ddqhu via Flickr

The United States

The United States is an interesting case of flood politics because it’s one of the world’s wealthiest countries and thus most capable of handling flooding. However, there’s very little political consensus on the scientific validity of climate change in Congress and rising sea levels are rarely if ever mentioned in policy debates at the federal level. The government provides disaster relief funds for the areas that have been most severely affected by rising sea levels, but actual policy changes generally must happen at the individual, state, or even city level. Several areas throughout the United States face a high risk of flood inundation, including New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Boston; Miami; New Orleans; and the entire state of Hawaii.

Hawaii 

Hawaii is relatively low-lying compared to the rest of the U.S. mainland and a sea level rise of 1-2 meters would absolutely devastate the state. Furthermore, each island is so small that there’s very little inland area, meaning that few people would be safe from flooding. It’s no coincidence that Hawaii leads the United States in addressing climate change and is the very first state to commit to getting 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources. This also makes sense from a business perspective because it’s very expensive to ship oil and gas to Hawaii and the state is geographically blessed with ample renewable resources. However, the decision to commit to renewables was made largely out of necessity, as Hawaii’s community, as well as its primary source of revenue, the tourism industry, would suffer immensely from the effects of flooding. Of course, Hawaii’s commitment is a drop in the bucket compared to all U.S. emissions. However, its decision allows the state to lead policy by example and proves that 100 percent renewables are an attainable goal. For a real impact to take place, the other states must follow suit, along with many of the world’s countries.

Cities: New Orleans, New York, and Miami 

None of the other states are as universally vulnerable to flooding as the state of Hawaii, but several have been forced to take measures to protect their largest population centers. Cities like New Orleans and New York City are at particularly high risk not only because they are located on high-risk coasts but also because they’re located in areas that are extremely vulnerable to severe weather events, as seen with hurricanes Sandy and Katrina. New York has made its own commitment to 50 percent renewables by 2030 and has also tried to take more immediate action to prevent Sandy-level flooding from happening again. The current plan is to allocate $100 million of Sandy’s relief funds to the construction of a wall to protect the city as well as apply for an additional $500 million dollars of Federal Housing and Urban Development Funds. The project will be very expensive and require a huge amount of resources, but without flood protection, New York’s electric grid and underground subway system could be completely dismantled, crippling an economic center of the nation and costing billions of dollars in restoration funds.

“Coastal Flooding in Washington DC” courtesy of Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuño via Flickr

New Orleans suffered an even greater extent of damage from Hurricane Katrina than New York did from Hurricane Sandy and has also bounced back at a considerably slower rate. Unlike New York, New Orleans is a relatively poor city and was largely at the mercy of how the federal government decided to handle the situation. Congress allocated a massive $14.5 billion relief package to construct an upgraded levy system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The new and improved system will be much better equipped to protect against flooding, but the upgrade has met some serious criticism. Even the Army Corps of Engineers has warned that there’s a limit to what it can do based on New Orleans’ geography. The area is uniquely low-lying and most of the natural marshes that have historically acted as flood barriers have disappeared over the years, stripping the city of its natural protection.

The political context of different vulnerable areas also heavily influences the way decisions are made. Miami, for instance, is also only 4 to 5 feet above sea level and the entire beach may disappear within the century if sea levels continue to rise. While the state has sunk hundreds of millions into flood prevention, Florida has almost no renewable power at all and has made few steps towards achieving its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 20 percent by 2020. The difference between New Orleans, Miami, and New York’s approaches to their vulnerability represents how wealth, political nature, and geographical position strongly influence what is and what can be done to address the risks of flooding. While commitments to renewable energy address the larger problem of global warming and sea level rise, they do little to directly impact an area’s vulnerability to flooding. This generally means that if renewables aren’t cost effective and receive political opposition, then they will rarely be considered as a valid policy option.

The European Union

The areas of Europe that face the highest risk of flooding are the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Northern Germany because of their flat geography and proximity to the rapidly melting Greenland Ice Sheet. Flood prevention has become a serious issue in the European Union, not only because these areas are at high risk from sea level rise but also because Central and Eastern Europe have experienced rising levels of river flooding from severe weather events. In response to these changes, the European Union made one of the European Regional Development Fund’s duties to establish structural funds for flood mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, every member of the European Union has their own Renewable Energy Target, which varies widely depending on the location.

However, in a parallel that runs somewhat similar to how only a select set of vulnerable U.S. states address flood risk aggressively, only a handful of European states have serious flood policies. While the overarching body of the E.U. provides structural adaptation funds in the same way the U.S. provides federal disaster relief funds, flood control is only a highly salient issue in the northernmost parts of the continent. The most dramatic example of this is the Netherlands, which is an incredibly low-lying nation that also has an extensive canal system that runs a high risk of flooding. The sea surrounding the Netherlands was originally projected to rise about 1.05 meters within the century, but newer models project a 26 percent chance that the sea will actually rise to 1.8 meters, making it the most vulnerable European nation. England is not far behind, with a renewed projection that there’s a 27 percent chance of sea level in the surrounding areas by 1.75 meters. Both countries have extensive coastal protection policies in the form of barriers, dikes and sluice gates, but many scientists fear that this will not be enough to protect them from flash floods in the future.

The World’s Most Vulnerable Areas

As with many serious environmental issues, the developing world faces some of the greatest risks from these problems but has the least resources dedicated to addressing them. While the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is generally (and accurately) characterized as being an incredibly dry and hot region, the coastal areas between the two continents face serious risks from flooding. If sea levels rise between 0.1 and 0.3 meters by 2050 as predicted, the coastal regions of Libya, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Kuwait could be exposed to severe flooding. A temperature rise of 1 to 3 degrees would exacerbate sea level rise to the point where it would critically endanger urban coastal areas, and could expose six to 25 million people in Northern Africa to flooding.

Many of these areas, including Algeria, Morocco, Djibouti, Lebanon, and Yemen have designed Disaster Risk Management Plans to increase resilience in their cities in preparation for oncoming natural disasters. However, many of the MENA countries are actively involved in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) whose economies are heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry. The leaders of OPEC generally admit that climate change is real but are quick to dismiss efforts to regulate fossil fuels. They view the push against oil in international negotiations as an unfair handicap against their industries and generally fight against any attempt to regulate or shrink the fossil fuel market. Despite the fact that MENA will suffer some of the worst effects of climate change (taking into account desertification as well as flooding), it seems unlikely that the area will diverge from fossil fuels at any point in the foreseeable future.

Many parts of South America, including Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil along with almost every country in Southeast Asia, are also at some of the highest risks of flooding in the world. Unlike the MENA region, few of these countries fight with the same vigor to support the fossil fuel industry, with the exception of Venezuela, the only non-MENA member of OPEC. However, many will still fight for their personal rights to use fossil fuel projects in the name of internal development since the majority of the burden of climate change was caused by the developed world. The issue of flooding is further exacerbated by the fact that several of the countries in these regions have resource extraction economies that rely on deforestation, which steadily shrinks their natural riparian protection from rising sea levels.

Perhaps the worst example of a disenfranchised flood-vulnerable country is the Maldives, both one of the poorest and the lowest lying island nations in the world. As sea levels continue to rise, the Maldives will be one of the first countries to become completely inundated, despite the fact that as a developing country it has contributed a very small percentage of the emissions that have contributed to climate change. The Maldives’ first ever democratically elected leader, Mohamed Nasheed, committed his country to achieving 100 percent renewable energy and made the Maldives the very first country to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. He encouraged a massive reforestation program along the beaches to prevent soil erosion and act as a riparian barrier from flooding. He also initiated litter cleanup programs and special protection for the coastal reefs that protect the nation’s boundaries.

The actions of a small country like the Maldives will help give it better protection but will do little to fight climate change without the commitment of larger nations in North America and the European Union to reduce emissions. While the Maldives’ commitment to clean energy would have had a small impact on global emissions, they stood as an important symbol of forward progress, especially to other vulnerable island states. However, in January, Mohammed Nasheed was overthrown and imprisoned after allegedly ordering the arrest of a judge. The brother of the previous dictator rose to power and has undone all of Nasheed’s efforts, promising to tear up every tree he had planted. The Maldives’ high level of vulnerability combined with its new lack of a flood adaptation policies places it at extreme risk from sea level rise and within 100 years the island is projected to be uninhabitable.

Conclusion

Rising sea levels are a problem that will affect countless areas, both in the developing and the developed world. The exact decisions that governments will make heavily depend upon their political affiliation, what is geographically possible, and how much funding they can reasonably allocate to combating flooding. Much of this means that the poorest areas of the world are disproportionately affected because they neither have the resources nor the political organization needed to address these problems. Furthermore, they may have economies based on resource extraction industries, which further exacerbate their vulnerability.

Globally, considerable resources have been dedicated to flood prevention, but little commitment has been made to abating fossil fuels in the name of halting sea level rise. This is largely because it’s extremely difficult to establish federal and international policy on climate change, so often policy changes happen on a more local level. Because these decisions are made by smaller, more vulnerable entities instead of larger international organizations, these areas will often settle for mitigation policy instead of prevention based, emissions reductions policy. However, as long as climate change continues, then the root of the problem will continue to exist and sea levels will continue to rise. At the current rate, several areas around the world, including the Maldives, will inevitably become uninhabitable and unless large-scale changes in global emissions are made, more and more countries will suffer the same fate.

Resources

The Atlantic: Is Miami Beach Doomed?

BBC: Former President Mohammed Nasheed Allowed Foreign Trip

BBC: Maldives: Paradise Soon to be Lost

Climate Central: New Analysis Shows Global Exposure to Sea Level Rise

Daily News: New York will fund $100M Flood Protection Project to Shield Lower Manhattan from Major Storms

Energy Information Administration: Florida Profile Overview

European Commission: Flood Risk in Europe: Analysis of Exposure in 13 Countries

Floodlist: Thousands Displaced by Flooding Rivers in Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina

Florida State University: Florida’s Renewable Energy Future Depends on Incentives for Renewables

Green Biz: New York’s Plan to Reach 50 percent Renewable Energy

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: European Flood Risk Could Double by 2050

Karen and Clark Company: Most Vulnerable Cities to Storm Surge Flooding

The Lens: New Orleans Flood Protection System: Stronger than Ever, Weaker than it was Supposed to be

Live Science: The 20 Cities Most Vulnerable to Flooding

Nation of Change: Hawaii Enacts Nation’s First 100 Percent Renewable Energy Standard

NASA: Global Climate Change: Sea Level Rise

Nature World News: Climate Change and Sea Level: England, Europe at Risk of Major Sea Level Rise

NCBI: Floods in Southeast Asia: A Health Priority 

The New Yorker: The Siege of Miami

Niels Bohr Institute: Risk of Major Sea Level Rise in Northern Europe

NOLA: Upgraded Metro New Orleans Levees will Greatly Reduce Flooding, Even in 500-Year Storms

NOAA: Tides and Currents

Renewable Energy Action Coalition of Hawaii: Planning Hawaii’s 100 percent Renewable Energy Future

Tech Insider: Hawaii is Harnessing 100 percent Renewable Energy 0 with Active Volcanoes

Time: Why New York City will Be Flooded More Often

USA Today: One Year After Sandy, 9 Devastating Facts

World Bank: Adaptation to Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa Region

World Bank: Water in the Arab World: From Droughts to floods: Building Resilience Against Extremes

Yale Environment 360: A Plague of Deforestation Sweeps Across Southeast Asia

ZME Science: New Study Highlights Vulnerability of Low Lying Hawaiian Islands

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rising Tide of Flood Prevention Politics appeared first on Law Street.

A new study confirms the fears of those who criticize the United States’ education system–we’re lagging behind. A Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) study by the Department of Education compares workers’ skills in various developed countries to the U.S., and discovered that Americans perform particularly poorly in basic reading, math, and technology skills. In fact, in some cases the results of our high school graduates were about on par with peer nations’ high school dropouts.

The PIACC tests adults’ skills over four areas. According to the report:

PIAAC defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills that are seen as key to facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies: literacy, reading components, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments.

In the U.S., literacy skills overall were average, compared to other nations. But young people with a high school diploma or less scored well below average. Similar results held true on math tests–Americans who had high school diplomas were about on par with  high school dropouts in other nations. When technology skills were tested–things like using an email, naming a file on a computer, or buying and returning things online–Americans came in dead last.

Japan and Finland scored in the number one and number two spots in all three measures. Other nations consistently topping the charts included the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Belgium.

The fact that Americans who only had high school diplomas or less fared so poorly in comparison to individuals from other nations is particularly troubling given how expensive a college education is today. Students who aren’t able to afford college, or do not wish to go to college, should still be able to depend on their required 12 years of schooling to help them acquire the skills needed to be an active part of the American workforce. But according to the PIAAC, that simply does not appear to be the case. As Peggy Carr, the acting commissioner of the government’s National Center for Education Statistics, stated: “clearly, we have some work to do in this country.”

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 Americans with High School Diplomas Don’t Have Same Level of Skills as International Peers appeared first on Law Street.

Early in the morning on January 8, the notorious cartel leader Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, was captured, yet again, by Mexican authorities following a heated gun battle at his hideout. While Guzman’s story has a number of interesting subplots, including his multiple previous escapes and an interview with Sean Penn, it also points to something: the ongoing war on drugs taking place with its epicenter in Mexico. However, this has not always been the state of things, as South America, particularly Colombia, was once home to the heart of drug trafficking and its most infamous leader Pablo Escobar. But the recent arrest highlights how that center has moved north and, not coincidently, much closer to the U.S. border. Read on to see how the heart of the drug trade has shifted in recent years, what impact that has had in Mexico, the role of the United States, and if capturing El Chapo really makes any difference in the larger war on drugs.

It Started in South America Now it’s Here

To understand the importance of capturing someone like El Chapo, or even the Mexican drug trafficking industry in general, it is necessary to travel one step backward to Colombia. The Colombian drug trade really took off in the 1970s when marijuana traffickers began trading in cocaine because of increased American demand for the drug. Trafficking cocaine was considerably more profitable than marijuana and the growth in profits caused a dramatic increase in the scale of smuggling.

The amount of money in this industry led to the formation of two incredibly powerful competing cartels, the Medellin and the Cali Cartels. The Medellin Cartel, known for its ruthlessness and use of violence, was epitomized by its leader, the notorious Pablo Escobar. The Cali cartel, on the other hand, was much more inconspicuous, reinvesting profits in legitimate businesses and using bribery instead of violence to get its way. The competition between these two groups turned violent, eventually involving the Colombian government and even the United States.

In the 1990s, these two groups were finally undone by concerted efforts between the local Colombian government and U.S. advisors that led to their leaders being either imprisoned or killed. Since their peak, these empires have fragmented, as smaller groups took control over various parts of the cocaine-producing process. While the violence in Colombia has decreased, though not disappeared altogether, the dominant player in the drug trafficking world has shifted to Mexico.

Going North

Mexico had originally been the final corridor through which Colombian cocaine passed before entering the United States. Before Mexico, cocaine had been smuggled through the Caribbean to cities like Miami. Ultimately, though, those routes were shut down by the United States. During the peak years of operation in Colombia, Mexico was little more than a path into the United States. However, this began to change with the demise of the Cali and Medellin cartels, coupled with continued American pressure and aid packages to help the Colombian government fight the local drug trade. Due to fragmentation and weakening Colombian cartels, the center of the drug trade shifted north in Mexico. Mexico served as a natural hub due to its earlier involvement in distributing the drugs produced in Colombia.

While the Mexican cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade, their rise preceded the actual demise of their Colombian brethren. Much of the history of modern cartels in Mexico can be traced back to one man, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo. Gallardo was responsible for creating and maintaining the smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States. When he was arrested, his network splintered into several parts, laying the groundwork for many of the cartel divisions that exist today. The first major successor was the AFO or Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization. However, its status was usurped by the Sinaloa Cartel under El Chapo’s control.

The Sinaloa Cartel is believed to control between 40 and 60 percent of the drug trade in Mexico with that translating into annual profits of up to $3 billion, but it is only one of nine that currently dominate Mexico. The activities of these cartels have also expanded as they are now involved in other criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, theft, human trafficking, as well as smuggling new drugs to the United States.

The rise of the Mexican cartels can be attributed to other factors aside from the demise of the Colombian groups. One such factor was the role of the Mexican government. During the important period of their ascendancy, the cartels were largely left alone by the Mexican government, which was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for 71 years. When the PRI’s grip on power finally loosened, the alliance with the cartels also shredded.

The growth of the Mexican cartels may also have been the result of economic problems in the United States. Stagflation in the United States led to higher interest rates on loans, which Mexico could not pay. In order to avert an economic crisis, several international institutions stepped in to bail Mexico out, which shifted the government’s focus from its economy to repaying debt. As a result of aggressive policies directed toward Mexican workers and because of the deleterious effects of the NAFTA treaty, there was a dramatic loss of jobs and a shift to a more urban population.

In this new setting, there were few opportunities available, making positions with drug cartels one of the few lucrative options along with growing the crops like poppy, which is used to create the drugs themselves. According to farmers interviewed by the Guardian, growing poppy is the only way for them to guarantee a “cash income.” An increase in the availability of firearms and other weapons smuggled south from the United States only added to the violence and chaos. The video below depicts the history of the Mexican drug trade:

Impact on Mexico

These endless wars for control between cartels in Mexico have taken a significant toll on the country. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, 164,000 people were killed in America’s southern neighbor. While not all those murders are drug-related, some estimates suggest 34 to 55 percent of homicides involve the drug war, a rate that is still incredibly high.

Aside from the number of deaths, all of the violence has influenced the Mexican people’s trust in the government as a whole. That lack of faith may be well founded as the weaknesses of the judicial and police forces are widely known. When the PRI was the single ruling party, it had effectively served as patrons to the drug cartels where an understanding was essentially worked out between the two. When the PRI lost its grip on power, this de-facto alliance between the government and the cartels also splintered. Without centralized consent, individuals at all levels of government as well as in the judiciary and police became susceptible to bribes from the various cartels.  In fact, many were often presented with the choice of either going along with the cartels in exchange for money or being harmed if they resisted. The corruption and subsequent lack of trust in authorities have gotten so bad that some citizens are forming militias of their own to combat the cartels.

Role of the United States

In addition to the impact that the U.S. economy has in terms of job opportunities, particularly since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has had a major impact on the drug trade in two other ways. First are the U.S. efforts to curb the supply of drugs, which were organized as part of the overall war on drugs. While the United States has had a variety of drug laws on the books, it was not until after the 1960s that the government took direct aim at eliminating illicit substances. In 1971, President Nixon formally launched a “war on drugs,” taking an aggressive stance implementing laws like mandatory minimum sentencing and labeling marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made it equivalent to substances like heroin in the eyes of the law.

This emphasis on drug laws only intensified under President Reagan, whose persistence in prosecuting drug crimes led to a large increase in the prison population. During Reagan’s presidency, Congress also passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, which forced countries receiving U.S. aid to adhere to its drug laws or lose their assistance packages. These policies more or less continued for decades, often with more and more money being set aside to increase enforcement. Only in recent years has President Barack Obama offered much of a change as he has overseen modifications in sentencing and the perception of medical marijuana laws.

This focus on supply extends beyond the U.S. border as well. First, in Colombia, the United States repeatedly put pressure on the Colombian government to fight the drug traffickers. With these efforts still ineffective and with violence mounting, the United States again poured money into the country, helping to finance needed reforms in the Colombian security forces and for other things like crop eradication. In Mexico, a similar approach followed as a series of presidents, beginning in the 1980s, took on much more combative roles against the cartels with the approval and support of the United States. The United States helped support an armed forces overhaul to combat the traffickers and root out corruption within the Mexican armed forces, which had begun to permeate as a result of low wages. In Mexico, successive governments even went so far as to send the military into cartel-dominated cities and engage in assaults. While Presidents Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon sent in troops and met with some immediate success, in the long term it led to mass army defections, greater awareness of the reach of the drug economy, and ultimately other cartels filling the void where government forces were successful.

Since the inception of the drug war, the United States has spent an estimated $1 trillion. Primarily what the United States has to show for this is a number of unintended consequences such as the highest incarceration rates in the world. Another is one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDs of any Western nation fueled, in part, by the use of dirty syringes among drug users.

The problem is that for all its efforts to eliminate supply, the United States has done much less about demand, its other contribution to the drug trade. In fact, the United States is widely regarded as the number one market in the world for illegal drugs. To address demand instead of concentrating on supply, the United States could shift more of its focus to programs that educate or offer rehabilitation to drug users, which have been shown to be effective in small scale efforts.  Certain states have begun to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, a step which will certainly reduce the number of inmates and may also reduce levels of drug-related violence. Yet there is no single way to outright reduce the demand for drugs and some view decriminalization as actually fueling the problem. The following video provides an overview of the resources invested into the United Stats’ war on drugs:

The Importance of Capturing El Chapo

Considering all of the resources and efforts put in place, it is important to consider how much of an impact El Chapo’s arrest will actually have. Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is not much, if any at all. In fact, even El Chapo himself weighed in on his arrest’s effects on the drug trade, telling Sean Penn in an interview, “the day I don’t exist, it’s not going to decrease in any way at all.” El Chapo’s point is clearly illustrated through the number of drug seizures at the border. While exact amounts fluctuate, nearly 700,000 more pounds of marijuana were seized in 2011 than in 2005. The amount of heroin and amphetamines seized has also gone up as well.

The following video details El Chapo’s most recent capture:

His most recent arrest was actually his third; the first two times he escaped from maximum security prisons in stylish fashions, which is one of the reasons that U.S. authorities want Mexico to extradite him. Regardless of where he is ultimately held, since his first arrest in 1993 the drug trade has not suffered when he or any other cartel leader was captured or killed, nor has it suffered from the growth in seizures.

In fact, one of the major points of collaboration between Mexican and U.S. authorities has been on targeting, capturing, or killing of the kingpins of these cartels. While these operations have been successful in apprehending individuals, what they really result in is the further fragmentation of the drug trade. While some may argue that detaining top leaders and fragmenting the centralized drug trade is a mark of success, evidence suggests this is not so.

Conclusion

Aside from relocating the hub of the drug trade to Mexico, the war on drugs has had several other unintended consequences such as high civilian deaths, persistently high rates of HIV infection, and massive levels of incarceration to name a few. While the United States has had some success targeting suppliers and traffickers, it has been unable to reduce demand domestically.

Those involved in Mexico faced a similar conundrum. Not only do citizens in Mexico not trust their government, many of them have become dependent on the drug trade and shutting it down could actually hurt the economic prospects of many citizens.

While El Chapo’s most recent capture has the potential to provide the government with some credibility, it still may not mean much. Even if he is prevented from escaping again or running his old empire from jail, someone will likely take his place. That is because the drug trade does not rely on individuals but on demand and profits. Until these issues are addressed and Mexican citizens have legitimate alternatives to joining cartels, it does not matter how many cartel leaders are arrested, the situation will remain the same.

Resources

CNN: ‘Mission Accomplished’: Mexican President Says ‘El Chapo’ Caught

Frontline: The Colombian Cartels

Borderland Beat: The Story of Drug Trafficking in Latin America

Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations

Jacobin: How the Cartels Were Born

Frontline: The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War

Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Drug War

Drug Policy Alliance: A Brief History of the Drug War

Matador Network: 10 Facts About America’s War On Drugs That Will Shock You

The Washington Post: Latin American Leaders Assail U.S. Drug ‘Market’

The Huffington Post: Why The Capture of ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Won’t Stop His Cartel

The Guardian: Mexican Farmers Turn to Opium Poppies to Meet Surge in US Heroin Demand

CIR: Drug Seizures Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Finding El Chapo: What his Arrest Means for Mexico and the Drug Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we cover the big issues that matter to our readers–from entertainment, to politics, to the law. ICYMI, check out our top issue briefs of the last year, and make sure you start 2016 just as informed as you were in 2015.

#1 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Image courtesy of eric pakurar via Flickr

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem? Read more here.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Issues of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

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 More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

One effect of increasingly normalized relations between the United States and Cuba will be an ability to travel between the two nations. But not everyone is okay with this move. In fact, New Jersey Governor and Republican primary candidate Chris Christie is fighting back–he has urged the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reject proposed United flights between Newark Liberty International Airport and Havana.

Surprisingly, Christie’s argument for why we shouldn’t allow flights between Newark and Havana has relatively little to do with Cuba itself. Instead, he’s demanding that Cuba return fugitive Joanne Chesimard, a.k.a. Assata Shakur to U.S. custody. Shakur was a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. In 1973 she and two others were involved in a shootout with the police on the New Jersey Turnpike that left Trooper Werner Foerster dead and another officer wounded. While she was subsequently sentenced to life in prison, she escaped prison and ended up in Cuba. She has taken state-sanctioned political refuge there since 1984, and is still wanted in the United States.

But, in Cuba, she has taken on a strange almost-folk hero status. Now 67, she’s viewed as a victim of American oppression and many believe she was wrongly prosecuted.

In his letter to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Chairman John Degnan, Christie urged him to reject the proposed flights unless Shakur is extradited to the United States. In the letter, he stated:

I understand that the Port Authority is considering a request to open regular flights between Cuba and Newark Liberty International Airport. It is unacceptable to me as governor to have any flights between New Jersey and Cuba until, and unless, convicted cop-killer and escaped fugitive Joanne Chesimard [Assata Shakur] is returned to New Jersey to face justice.

This isn’t the first time that Christie has brought up Shakur when disagreeing with a move toward more open relations with Cuba. Last December, Christie wrote a letter to President Obama that also echoed this sentiment. He wrote:

Cuba’s provision of safe harbor to Chesimard by providing political asylum to a convicted cop killer . . . is an affront to every resident of our state, our country, and in particular, the men and women of the New Jersey State Police.

RT If you agree that President Obama should demand the return of Chesimard from Cuba to the US to finish her sentence pic.twitter.com/tztku57vf1

— Governor Christie (@GovChristie) December 21, 2014

On the other hand, the Obama administration has been very clear that while the U.S. will continue to push for the return of American fugitives, it won’t hamper the broadening of relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

Whether or not Degnan will heed Christie’s advice remains to be seen. But, based on Christie’s urging, Degan has said that the Port Authority board is going to dig into the request from United and conduct an immediate review. So, don’t hop on United and book your flight to Havana yet–a decades-old fugitive hunt may hamper the introduction of these new flights.

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 Chris Christie Urges Port Authority Not to Approve Havana-Newark Flights appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.

Winona, Minnesota native Thomas R. Page was charged last Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in St. Paul with illicit sexual conduct while overseas. For the past 25 years, Page has been a teacher in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan and Togo. Homeland security started investigating Page in June 2012 in Togo, and discovered that he had assaulted young men while teaching in these countries.

According to the charging document, Page admitted to sexually assaulting two boys while in Cameroon during a 2012 interview with U.S. investigators. In the report, Page described knowing children from the beach and some would visit his house, often staying overnight. He added that he would swim with the children and have them sit on his lap. He also mentioned that he gave the children money, buying them food and paying for school as well. When authorities questioned Page about charges against him in Cameroon, he admitted to having oral sex with two boys and giving money to the boys’ family.

Often cases of sexual assault involving Americans abroad are talked about in the context of a consistent stereotype: a do-gooder or academic Western woman goes to a developing country and is tragically targeted and taken advantage of by a resident of that country, like the case of the American raped in India in 2013. While cases like these are a reality and deserve mass media coverage to spark important conversations, there are many other rape and sexual assault cases that occur abroad that are of equal importance in which the Western party is not the victim. Cases like Page’s are rarely covered in the media, although it is a significant issue in developing countries. Just a couple years ago, an American teacher was arrested in Japan, admitting to similar inappropriate relationships as Page. The nature of the relationship between Western volunteer teachers and their pupils can cause inappropriate situations like this to happen. The pupils often idolize their teachers and are mesmerized by their appearance, knowledge and kindness. Because of this dynamic and the lack of conversations in certain parts of the world about sexual assault in schools, it becomes easy for some predators to find victims.

Protection and education are the keys to remedying issues of sexual assault of children by these volunteer teachers. Educational philanthropic programs that send people abroad need to do just as extensive background checks and interview processes as they would for those applying to be teachers within this country. On the other end, rural schools abroad should be hesitant in accepting foreign teachers, and communicate to children what sexual assault is and means. Necessary action should be taken on both sides of this issue to protect children in developing countries around the world–Page’s case is just one of many.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Minnesota Native Charged with Committing Sexual Abuse While Overseas appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

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 The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week in Kansas City, Missouri Tyrone C. Brown went into a community auditorium expecting to hear a presentation from law enforcement officials to help end violence in his community. Instead, to his surprise, he watched a slide show of mug shots of people the police were cracking down on. Brown then saw a familiar face pop up on the screen–his own–linking him to a criminal group that had been implicated in a homicide. Brown, who relayed this story to the New York Times, described feeling “disturbed,” acknowledging that he has been involved in crime but has never been involved in a killing. But Brown’s reaction to this accusation is just what the authorities desired. Brown’s situation is an example of an experiment taking place in police departments around the country, in which authorities have started to use complex computer algorithms to try and pinpoint people most likely to be involved in violent crimes in the future. Unfortunately, this tool might end up being more harmful than helpful.

This strategy combines aspects of both traditional policing, like paying attention to “hot spot” areas or communities or close monitoring of parolees, and more technological data like social media activity and drug use statistics. The program applied to Brown’s case is referred to as the Kansas City No Violence Alliance, assuring Brown and others that “the next time they, or anyone in their crews, commit a violent act, the police will come after everyone in the group for whatever offense they can make stick, no matter how petty.”

Although the goal of this program, and similar programs, is to do everything possible to prevent crimes from happening and may be benevolent, this is not the way to achieve that goal. This program only perpetuates the enormity of our racial profiling problem. The nature of these programs are essentially spitting in the face of the Black Lives Matter movement and other related groups. These programs say they are using a “complex computer algorithms” to try and predict crime, meaning authorities will be relying on the very skewed and racist demographics of those who are charged with crime. The nature of these programs could forever put a halt to building more positive relationships between the police and those who are too often targeted and subsequently charged with crimes–people of color.

How can reform of the system and those involved in crime be possible when programs like Kansas City No Violence Alliance are spreading across the nation? This vicious cycle will only continue with police “pinpointing” individuals who live in poorer areas or who are people of color. Over the last few years, in the midst of infuriating tragedies like the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, there has been important outcry and work toward reforming flawed institutions. Sadly, programs like the one implemented in Kansas City and across the country are working against this positive progression. There is a way to both combat crime and to stop racial profiling, and these programs are not the answer. 

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post To Serve and Protect? New Police Program May Perpetuate Racial Profiling appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

It’s been a while but let’s jump right into what is going on in the news this week.

The Italian Court of Cassation (the top criminal court in Italy) has officially thrown out the guilty verdicts of Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend  Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian native.

On November 2, 2007 the body of 21-year-old UK citizen, Meredith Kercher, was found in the home that she shared with Amanda Knox in the college town of Perugia, Italy. Amanda Knox, her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede (from the Ivory Coast) were all prime suspects and were eventually tried and convicted of Kercher’s murder.

In the first trial in 2009, Amanda Knox was convicted of murder, sexual assault, and slander with an original sentence of 26 years in prison. Raffaele Sollecito was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Rudy Guede was later tried and convicted of murder with a 16 year sentence; he admitted to being inside the home when Kercher was murdered and his DNA was found all over her bedroom where her body was found.

In 2011, Knox and Sollecito appealed and the court throw out the original convictions, except for Knox’s slander charge which required only a year of prison time that was counted as served in the four years that Knox had already spent there. But in 2013, the high court in Italy reversed the acquittal and required another appeals trial. Then in 2014 the new appeals trial held the original 2009 conviction and ordered Amanda Knox to serve 28 1/2 years in prison (including the one year for slander) but kept Sollecito’s time to 25 years.

But finally, in March of this year the Italian high court found that Knox and Sollecito did not murder Kercher, and just a couple of days ago the court released its final statement and reasoning behind this decision.

The Court of Cassation wrote that there was an “absolute lack of biological traces” of Knox and Sollecito in Kercher’s bedroom or even on her body. The Court also noted that there was a plethora of omissions and poorly executed investigations into this case.

Case in point, the original prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was one piece of work. While he was prosecuting Amanda Knox, he was making his own court appearances for indictments starting in 2006 for “abuse of office power” and “abetting” in connection to another high profile case. So, essentially the prosecutor seemingly liked getting his way by any means necessary and encouraging others to break the law too.

Now, I have been following along with this case for quite sometime and I have a hard time distinguishing the truth. Sometimes I believe that Knox was not involved but then other times I have to wonder if she really was. Some of Knox’s actions are consistent of a scared 20-something living in a foreign country but then there are other things that scream she knew at least that something was going on. We may never know the truth, but this latest ruling by the court should put an end to the saga of Amanda Knox’s fate, and let the family of Meredith Kercher move on with their lives.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amanda Knox…Free at Last! appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday August 24, the main Chinese stock market, the Shanghai composite, fell 8.5 percent in one day. This massive drop set off losses worldwide, beginning in nearby Asian markets including Japan. However, the worry and lack of confidence quickly spread to Europe and to the United States. In the west, this led to massive sell-offs of stocks and the value of the American market dropping 10 percent below its record high, which was achieved only a few months earlier at the beginning of summer. While this was initially blamed on the volatility of the Chinese market and its slowing economic growth, the loss also revealed more issues in the other global markets. Read on to learn about the history of an up and down global stock market, the reasons for the recent crash, and what is expected in the future.

History of Volatility in the Global Stock Exchange

The recent stock market losses, while severe and brisk, are by no means the first and certainly not the worst that have occurred in history. Since ideas such as interconnected economies and even nations are relatively new concepts, to find the first major market crash one would only have to look back less than 400 years. This crash occurred in the Netherlands in 1637. Based on speculation, tulip prices in the country soared, leading many citizens to invest. But the prices eventually peaked and then plunged back to earth, causing many investors to lose everything.

Several more speculative bubbles grew and then burst over the ensuing years in economic powerhouses like Britain and France. The phenomenon would reach a head however, with the stock market crash in 1929 which ultimately led to the Great Depression. This stock market crash, like the ones before it, was the result primarily of speculation, which had been fueled by massive economic growth within the American economy during the 1920s.

However, when the economy began to stagnate, investors initiated a mass sell-off which caused the market to plummet. This was followed by a run on banks so severe that thousands were forced to close. The effects of this collapse spread beyond the borders of the United States to Europe, due to both places’ reliance on the gold standard. The Great Depression would play a major role in the lead up to WWII and it was not until after the war that the global economy recovered.

Despite the devastation of the 1929 collapse, major market meltdowns would continue to take place. In 1987 the U.S. market lost over a fifth of its value in just one day, a day known as Black Monday. The oldest bank in England, Barings Bank, was forced to close due to speculation. Meanwhile in Japan, following a thirty year growth spurt, the market collapsed beginning in 1989 and has left the country in a prolonged state of malaise ever since.

The two most recent crashes both originated in the United States. The first was at the turn of the millennium–the dot-com bubble. The bubble had built upon the belief that the internet was ushering in a new type of economy, which was not subject to the same issues as the past. This led to a number of unwise investments in companies mired in debt or with no value. The crash began in 2000 and continued into 2002. The bursting of this particular bubble cost the NASDAQ 80 percent of its value and led to a recession.

The most recent crash began in 2008.  From its pre-recession peak until the market bottomed out 18 months later in 2009, the Dow lost more than 50 percent of its value. This collapse was triggered by sub-prime mortgages, but spread to other industries such as automotives and was prolonged due to other connected issues globally, including the debt crisis in Europe. The economy was only saved and confidence only tentatively restored through massive bailouts.  The video below explains the 2008 crisis and the root of many of the stock market crashes:

Reasons for the Recent Crash

Like other crashes before it, the current crash is the result of a number of factors which have combined to cause speculation and panic on a global scale.

China

At the center of the most recent stock market crash is China. China had already been dealing with a declining market since at least June of this year. On June 12 the Chinese government stepped in to fill the void left by a bubble, which had been created by Chinese citizens investing money they did not have. While the government tried a variety of stop-gap measures, these appear to have had little effect. Compounding this problem more was China’s slowing growth. In fact, many of those who invested did so based on the prolonged growth of China’s economy for the last 20 years.

Additionally, confidence in China from the outside also appears to be faltering. This comes as a result of several recent events. The most glaring is the government’s inability to handle this current stock crisis. Even after intervening and devaluing the currency in an effort to make borrowing money cheaper, the market has continued to fall. Other events as well, such as the fiasco with a chemical plant explosion and China’s dubiously reported economic figures have caused foreign investors to lose confidence.

Commodities

Another area directly impacted by China’s recent crash is the commodities market. Commodities are things such as oil, gold, and copper. Many emerging markets, such as Brazil and Turkey, relied on selling commodities in order to build up their economies. However, with China losing vast tracts of wealth daily in its stock market, it can no longer buy as many commodities as in the past. This has resulted in less demand, which means reduced commodity prices and subsequent losses in the emerging markets reliant on them.

United States

Another area feeling a market correction, a loss of 10 or more percent, was the United States. Along with the news about China’s falling market, was the fear of the interest rate hikes in September, which would make borrowing money more expensive. While the United States is not the economic engine it once was, nor the borrower of last resort, it is still the world’s largest economy and any sudden crash in experiences would reverberate worldwide with even greater force than China.

Other Countries

Aside from the United States and emerging markets like Brazil, other places around the world also felt the crunch from China’s continued market crash. This included places like Europe, whose combined market had its worst losses since at least 2011. This also includes countries closer to home near China, such as Japan and Australia, each of whom saw sharp losses in the immediate wake of China’s loss. The accompanying video provides a thorough overlook of the recent Chinese Stock Market crash:

After the Drop

So with all the recent fluctuations in the stock exchange it bears asking, what is next for the world’s markets? The answer is seemingly more of the same. In the U.S. the Dow plummeted 588 points first on Monday, then another 204 points Tuesday. However, on Wednesday and Thursday the market rallied, gaining over 1,000 points in two days. The rally means that, for the week, the market is actually up. In fact the surge on Wednesday and Thursday marks the largest gain in any two-day period in the history of the American stock market.

Around the world, other markets were also experiencing a rebound on Thursday. In Europe and Japan, the stock market rose following dramatic losses earlier in the week. Even in China, the market rose more than five percent, ending a week of losses. In fact, even with all the recent losses, China’s market is still up 43 percent from a year ago.

However, even with markets quickly rebounding, China’s stock market crash cannot just be dismissed. The recent collapse has certainly shaken faith globally, for those who viewed China as the number one growth engine for the future. Furthermore, if this is unfortunately true, there is really no one to take China’s place. Emerging markets, such as Brazil, are overly dependent on commodities, Japan is still stuck in stagnation and Europe, as China’s largest trading partner, is too interconnected, especially as it still recovers from the 2008 crisis.

This leaves the U.S. as the world’s steadying force. While U.S. markets rebounded on the back of news that the GDP grew 3.7 percent in the second quarter, up from the original estimate of 2.3, and that jobless claims continued to fall, that status remains shaky.

Certainly, everything is not perfect in the American economy either. Following the recent market correction and due to the tumultuous world economy, the Federal Reserve has said it will probably not raise interest rates after all. This means that money can still be borrowed cheaply, however it also reveals the fear of weakness in the U.S. and global economies. This weakness is especially troubling because unlike before, when interest rates could be slashed, that option is no longer available. The following video looks at the future of the economy:

Conclusion

There is a saying that goes, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The history of the global stock market can offer many examples that attest to the validity of this sentiment. Throughout its history, the market has repeatedly surged and crashed, like waves against a beach. The recent case of China is just one more example of this situation. Luckily in this case though, the losses seem temporary and appear to offer no long-term threat to the global economy.

Nevertheless, the danger remains. This is due to the persistent existence of rampant speculation which falsely builds up the value of any market. When a market is then faced with stagnation or a correction, investors panic and begin selling off their shares or running on banks for cash. This cycle has repeated itself time and time again and shows no sign of stopping despite the numerous examples of markets failures and warning signs. This most recent crash again offers the opportunity to learn and stop repeating the same mistakes which have plagued people and nations as long as markets have existed.

Resources

Vox: The Global Stock Market Crash, Explained

The Economist: The Causes and Consequences of China’s Market Crash

Reuters: Markets Rebound from China Slump, Strong U.S. Data Helps

The Bubble Bubble: Historic Stock Market Crashes, Bubbles & Financial Crises

History: The Great Depression

About News: Stock Market Crash of 2008

International Business Times: China Stock Market Crash Explained in 90 Sseconds

The Wall Street Journal: China to Flood Economy with Cash as Global Markets Lose Faith

USA Today: Stock Leaps

The Guardian: China’s “Black Monday” Sends Markets Reeling Across the Globe

CNN Money: Dow sets a 2-day Record, Finishes up 369 Points

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Riding the Wave: The Tumultuous Global Stock Market appeared first on Law Street.

The South and East China Seas conflicts are suddenly dominating the news. Multiple countries are claiming ownership over a number of islands in the South and East China Seas–and the debate has gone international, even involving the U.S. But why does the United States even care who owns these islands? Read on to learn about why these islands and territories are so important, and why we should all be paying attention to this conflict.

A History of Conflict

What is under dispute?

The islands under question are located in the East and South China seas. China claims about 90 percent of the South China Sea, including those islands. But along with China, the Philippines and Vietnam both claim the Paracels and Spratley Islands. China and the Philippines both claim the Scarborough Shoal. And Malaysia and Brunei also claim disputed maritime territory in the South China Sea as well.

The East China Sea Conflict revolves around a group of five inhabited islets named the Diaoyu Islands according to China or the Senkaku Islands according to Japan. Taiwan, along with China and Japan, also claims these islands in the East China Sea, although China also claims Taiwan.

South China Sea 

China’s claims in the South China Sea base from ancient times. China documents territorial rights from the Xia and Han dynasties. China uses a map with a nine-dash line to chart its territories that include 291 islands and reefs in the area. The nine-dash line was formulated in China by the nationalist Kuomintang party in 1947 and is still used in China’s maps today.

But other countries don’t agree. Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all have a military presence on at least some of the islands in the region as well. But it is really in the last eighteen months that China’s massive construction has started to spark tensions higher than ever.

East China Sea

The beginning of the East China Sea Conflict can be dated back to the end of the first Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s, fought between China and Japan over Korea. In defeat, China ceded a number of territories to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China claims the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were a part of this cession, although there is no mention of the islands specifically in the treaty. Japan claims to have had them all along, since it discovered and annexed the lands in 1895. In 1937, Japan invaded China and fortified its military strength. This time period really honed the bad blood between Japan and China, as the Chinese people suffered gravely. After WWII, China demanded the islands back, even though China never actually controlled the islands and they were now under U.S. control. When the United States finally left the islands in 1972, post WWII, the Japanese government resumed control. Whether the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were ceded to Taiwan or considered part of Okinawa (remaining with Japan) remains a heated point of debate today.

What’s so special about these islands?

When it comes to the South China Sea, it all boils down to economics. The area is home to an abundance of natural resources, fertile fishing grounds, and “the world’s most dynamic economies.” The South China Sea holds vital global trade routes, especially for oil. The dominant country in the region, China, could control trade shipments from all over East and Southeast Asia and control foreign military access. The South China Sea conducts $5.3 trillion in total trade each year. There are 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic of feet of natural gas in the South China Sea. If that isn’t enough, 90 percent of Middle Eastern fossil fuel exports are expected to pass through Asia by 2035.

The conflict over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is a little more complicated. Presumed oil and gas reserves are important factors. But the conflict is also a bit more symbolic–China is now the big man on campus, and wants to show its strength. Nationalism and honor play big parts on this side of the maritime conflicts. Old wounds are not forgotten. “Maritime disputes suggest that China’s rise is not going to be without its frictions,” says Council on Foreign Relations Director for Asia Studies Elizabeth Economy, “That is many instances China feels that its economic throw weight really does give it a greater stance and a greater ability to assert its interests, in some cases to reform norms, and in some cases to upend them.”

Recent Developments

In recent news, the conflicts are heating up due to China’s major building. In the last eighteen months, China has created more “new island surface” than all the other countries involved combined, amassing to about 2,000 acres. Although China already started land reclamation in controversial areas close to the Spratly Islands last year, this recent action is on a whole other scale. China has placed military equipment such as military airfields and motorized artillery pieces on the man-made islands and plans to continue that action in the future.

China isn’t the only one building however. Similar actions have been taken by Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia on much smaller scales. For example, in 2008, Taiwan completed a 3,900 foot land strip on the Itu Aba, part of the Spratley Islands, fit for search and rescue missions and military aircrafts. In a more recent example, Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein announced a plan in 2013 to place a marine corps on a yet to be created naval base on Bintulu in Sarawak.

U.S. Involvement

The major concern for Americans is a conflict between the U.S. and China. Conflict amongst the Asia-Pacific countries can easily bring in the U.S. We have a stake in the trade markets and no interest in allowing China to control the region and our allies like Japan.

This month Secretary of State John Kerry met with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Malaysia. Kerry pressed for China to immediately halt “problematic actions” and expressed concern for the “militarization of features there.” After the meeting, Kerry was optimistic to other diplomats and called the conversation a “good meeting.” Kerry stated, “We want to ensure the security of critical sea lanes and fishing grounds, and we want to see that disputes in the area are managed peacefully and on the basis of international law.” Still points of contention remained. Although Wang promised to stop land reclamation, he did not promise China would vacate current projects .

This previous May, a U.S. surveillance plane flew over some of the contested waters. The flight was conducted in order to apparently “make clear the U.S. does not recognize China’s territorial claims.” The Chinese sent eight warning against the aircraft from an island over 600 miles away from the Chinese coast. The warning made clear that China considers the area its jurisdiction.

Kerry and Wang were in Malaysia for a meeting held by ASEAN, a 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. China and ASEAN previously agreed to negotiate a “code of conduct” regarding the disputed regions. But ASEAN secretary general, Le Luong Minh, is not happy with the progress. ASEAN calls for an earlier resolve of the “code of conduct” and for China to stop all building.

Conclusion

We haven’t seen the last of the arguments over the islands in the East and South China Seas. While the conflict may have served as a show of strength between the United States and China, it also involved many other nations that continue to have influence in the region. Moreover, given other extenuating factors like the Trans-Pacific Partnership debacle, the Chinese-American relationship may definitely be heading toward icy waters. Whether or not that will affect the disputes in the East and South China Sea will have to be seen.

Resources

CFR: China’s Maritime Disputes

Associated Press: ASEAN wants China to stop work in disputed sea

CNN: China Warns U.S. Surveillance Plane

The Economist: Who really owns the Senkaku islands? 

The New York Times: Kerry Urges Beijing to Halt Actions in South China Sea

Reuters: Everything you need to know about the South China Sea conflict

The Wall Street Journal: China to Build Military Facilities on South China Sea Islets

The Washington Post: China is not the only country reclaiming land in South China Sea

The Washington Post: Tension with China loom larger as Obama prepares to welcome Xi Jinping

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 The South and East China Seas: Conflict Continues appeared first on Law Street.

The relationship between the United States and Cuba has been slowly warming since December, when it was announced that leaders from the two formerly acrimonious nations were moving toward normalizing relations. One of the biggest steps toward that goal reached fruition on Friday, as the U.S. flag was just raised above the American embassy in Havana.

The scene at the American embassy Friday was a heavy one, rife in symbolism, as the same marines who took down the flag over 50 years ago were the ones who put it up.

Secretary of State John Kerry watched as Marines raised the flag at the US embassy in Havana http://t.co/KJrLRFOLuMpic.twitter.com/VkEZN6KbbD

— NYT Photo (@nytimesphoto) August 14, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been an instrumental player in this new era of relations with Cuba, presided over the ceremony, calling it a “historic moment.” Kerry is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Cuba since relations turned sour after former President Fidel Castro took power.

While the ceremonial re-opening of the embassy is certainly a big step, the fact that is just one step is important to recognize. Cuban-American relations been improving steadily, but slowly, since that fateful December announcement. For example, in April, the Obama administration removed Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The two governments conducted a series of talks that wrapped up in May. Most recently, on July 20, diplomatic relations were officially restored between the U.S. and Cuba. The Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. opened on July 20 as did the U.S. embassy in Havana, but the flag ceremony was only hosted at the Cuban Embassy on that day.

Cuban Flag Raised Outside Embassy in Washington #Cubahttp://t.co/YpcGMGNVolpic.twitter.com/MSRTpwdSaD — Cuba Pan Am 2015 (@CubaPanAm2015) July 21, 2015

The fact that the American-Cuban relationship has progressed in such steps really is representative of the fact that there is still a lot of work to do. One of the most contentious sticking points is the continued American trade embargo. Despite no longer serving as President, Fidel Castro has particularly criticized the United States over the continued embargo. Yesterday, he stated that the United States owes Cuba “many million of dollars” because of the loss in trade that resulted from the embargo. However, lifting it requires Congressional action, not executive, and the Republican Congress hasn’t particularly warmed to the idea.  There were also concerns over the fact that Cuban dissidents weren’t invited to the flag-raising ceremony; Kerry instead met with them separately. 

While there’s a lot to be done to reach fully normalized relations between the United States and Cuba, these steps in the right direction do bode well. It’s certainly a marked difference from even just a year ago–the coming years are almost guaranteed to bring more changes. 

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 Cuban-American Relations Continue to Crawl Forward appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

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

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces appeared first on Law Street.

With the United States losing to Jamaica in the semifinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup the final was projected to be Panama vs. Jamaica. The  regional soccer tournament between the countries in Central America, North America, and the Caribbean is held every two years and draws millions of viewers. However, the success of the Gold Cup this year may have been corrupted by the allegations of inappropriate refereeing to ensure that the final game featured Mexico.

The finals were scheduled to be played in Philadelphia, which is home to many Mexicans. For revenue purposes, it would have been ideal to host a final including Mexico rather than  a Panama-Jamaica final. With the U.S. losing in the semifinals, placing at least one soccer power house, most likely Mexico, in the final was imperative for TV viewership as well. It’s within this context that questionable referee calls took place in the quarterfinal against Costa Rica and  the semifinal against Panama which ultimately granted Mexico a spot in the finals. The head referee of the calls in the semifinals, Mark Geiger, along with CONCACAF, are receiving serious backlash, as many critics, soccer players, and countries feel that there were third member parties involved which made it possible for Mexico to win. Although Geiger apologized for his calls, and CONCACAF admitted mistakes were made, an investigation is pending to truly determine what went wrong.

There were two clear instances in which observers are claiming that the calls made on behalf of Mexico were amiss. The Mexican-Costa Rican semifinal game ended with a winning penalty kick for Mexico, yet the nature of the foul that led to the kick was very much disputed. Many feel that Mexico was given a clear advantage in that game and that the actions embodied by the ref showcased an ulterior motive. Then, the Mexico vs. Panama game shocked athletes and fans around the world. Panama lost a man after a foul call, then a second controversial call allowed Mexico to tie up the game. Mexico then moved onto the final game against Jamaica and won the Gold Cup.

In the moments following the Panama game, spectators and members of the Panamanian Soccer Federation alike were quick to accuse Mexico of fixing the game. Allegations were also made about third party members being involved and paying off the referees. Panama’s federation demanded the removal of CONCACAF’s referee selection panel after describing the officiating in the loss as “insulting and embarrassing.” The statement also accused the match officials of favoring Mexico in a “vulgar and shameless way.” While there may not be any clear answers for some time, if there was any cheating involved, it does not appear to involve the Mexican players. “I didn’t celebrate because that penalty call left me with a bad taste,” said Mexican player Andres Guardado after he scored the controversial penalty kick which ultimately propelled them into the final.

This isn’t the first time CONCACAF has been accused of shady behavior. There was recently a massive investigation which resulted in several lawsuits against individuals working with FIFA and the organization as a whole. Amidst the disaster, two former CONCACAF presidents Jack Warner and Jeffrey Webb were accused of bribery by the United States Justice Department. The United States Department of Justice alleged that for more than two decades, sports-marketing executives paid more than $150-million dollars in kickbacks and bribes to high-ranking soccer officials. The charges are an indication and direct representation of corrupt practices at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport; secret meetings, hidden cash, and bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands were discovered as part of the investigation.

Most recently, CONCACAF acting President Alfredo Hawit announced a review of the refereeing in the Gold Cup. This review will hopefully shed light on the events of the two controversial games. While it may have been more profitable to have Mexico in the finals, it’s important that the integrity of the game remains intact.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Calls: What Happened at the Gold Cup? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, a New Hampshire voter asked Hillary Clinton if she would sign a bill in favor of building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Clinton sidestepped the question. stating: “this is President Obama’s decision…if it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been on the forefront of American politics for quite some time now, and Clinton’s reply to the issue has been typical of her response to climate-related questions in general: avoidance. But one oil-related issue, the U.S. ban on crude oil and natural gas exports, is one that can’t be avoided any longer, although it’s certainly not something you really hear the presidential contenders talking about either.

Under American law, energy companies are not allowed to export crude oil, and companies can only export natural gas to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. The Energy Department can approve natural gas exports to other countries if it deems such sales to be in the public interest; currently, 46 out of 52 such applications have been approved. These policies have their roots in the 1970s energy crisis, a period in which interruptions in petroleum imports from the Middle East caused wild price fluctuations and supply shortages.

For 40 years, these policies made sense. With domestic production declining and the U.S. importing 60 percent of its oil as recently as 2005, the export ban served its function to protect the market from fluctuations and shortages.

The situation is not quite the same today. The increasing prevalence of fracking–a new more efficient method of extracting crude oil–has saturated the domestic market. There is an important distinction to be made between the “light oil” that we are producing in growing quantities and the heavier crude oil that we typically import. Many of our refineries are designed to process heavy oil, and running light oil through these refineries decreases output capacity and revenue due to the incompatibility of light oil with equipment. Consequently, refiners demand significantly lower prices for domestic light oil and the export ban forces suppliers to accept these low prices.

Interestingly, the export ban does not include gasoline and other refined products, rendering the laws of supply and demand that dictate the value of goods in a capitalistic society irrelevant to domestic refiners. Instead, the ban creates an unfair system in which refiners purchase cheap oil in a domestic crude oil market saturated with supply, while their prices reflect the global refined oil market saturated with demand.

Lifting the export ban on crude oil and natural gas would force domestic refiners to compete with foreign refiners, raising the price of light oil and incentivizing suppliers to produce more. Increased production would require new jobs, and subsequent revenues would bolster the economy. Refiners would no longer be the main beneficiaries of cheap light oil. According to energy experts Daniel Yurgin and Kurt Barrow, lifting the export ban, combined with continuing progress in production technology, would lead to as much as 2.3 million barrels of additional production a day. Yurgin and Barrow estimate that this increased production would reduce gas prices by as much as 12 cents a gallon, saving US motorists $420 billion over 15 years.

There are diplomatic advantages to lifting the ban as well. Russia supplied 30 percent of Europe’s gas in 2014, regularly using gas as a diplomatic tool to threaten foreign economies. Last year, Russia declared that it would no longer sell gas at a discounted price to Ukraine, which gets 60 percent of its natural gas supply from Russia. In the Middle East, ISIS’s operations are funded heavily through pirated oil. According to Andy Karsner, former assistant energy secretary in the Bush administration, “We have one bullet that hits both of them: bring down the price of oil.”

At the very least, U.S. oil exports would stabilize the market and provide our allies with viable alternatives to OPEC or Russian energy–perhaps the Western response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine last year would have been stronger had there been a U.S. presence in the global oil market. Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield notes, “It’s hard to believe we’re asking the Japanese to stop taking Iranian crude, but we won’t ship them any crude ourselves.”

It is impossible to predict all the implications of lifting the export ban, of course. Foreign suppliers may reduce their oil exports to maintain the high global price of oil, or Russia could engage in predatory pricing to drive U.S. suppliers out of the market. Perhaps increased fracking regulations will reduce the supply of domestic oil, minimizing our influence in the market. Regardless, lifting the export ban gives our government another front to exert diplomatic influence, engage our enemies, and improve our economy. It’s economics and diplomacy 101. Let’s just hope members of Congress paid attention in class, and that our presidential candidates make an effort to address this essential issue.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lifting the Ban on Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exports: It’s Time to Make a Change appeared first on Law Street.

So far, 2015 has been the year of law firm mergers. According to Altman Weil MergerLine, the first six months of 2015 saw the most half-year mergers ever, with 48. One of these mergers was the biggest ever, as global law firm Dentons merged with China’s largest law firm Dacheng to form the largest law firm in the world by attorney head count, with more than 6,500 lawyers in 50 countries.

Even so, law is one of the few industries in which the market is not monopolized by a few top firms. Last year, the 200 highest-grossing law firms in the world earned $115.2 billion, according to data collected by ALM Legal Intelligence, but the global law market is roughly a $600 billion industry. By comparison, the Big Four audit firms Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG audit 99 percent of the companies in the FTSE 100, and 96 percent of the companies in the FTSE 250 Index. As of December 2014, the top four wireless telecommunications carriers in the U.S. controlled approximately 70 percent of the market based on service revenues. The top 25 health insurance companies account for nearly two-thirds of market share.

Restrictive conflict of interest laws, coupled with the notion that law is a national, not international practice, have prevented the legal market from consolidating to the extreme degree of other industries. Furthermore, law firms do not benefit from economies of scale the way firms in other industries do. In fact, bigger firms spend more, not less, on overhead on a per lawyer basis, according to Altman Weil. Law firm strategist Alan Hodgart said that consolidation is happening around types of legal work, rather than across the industry as a whole. For example, only a select few firms can handle the largest M&A deals, but that group cannot get much smaller because eight firms are needed for every major transaction, he said.

When it comes to law firm mergers, bigger is not always better. Altman Weil outlines two questions every law firm should ask itself before considering a merger: first, will the economics of the combined firm be substantially better than the economics of each firm currently? Second, will the firm’s financial indicators improve?

Of the 200 top law firms Altman Weil surveyed in 2005, almost two thirds had merged within the previous two years, and 90 percent of firms indicated that their experience with the merger was “very successful,” or “successful.” So then, law firm mergers are a proven business technique to improve revenues. The challenge is in finding the right fit.

Dentons and Dacheng are still working out the kinks of their merger. Six months after the announcement, Dentons and Dacheng have yet to roll out a joint-name or a combined website. Some of the problems are straightforward: things like translating and standardizing over 4,000 Chinese lawyers’ biographies. Other problems are deeper, stemming from the incorporation of two vastly different legal cultures, which could prove harder than combining teams of engineers, scientists, or doctors. Then there are the radically different rules governing protection of client information and regulations in various industries. It will be interesting to see how the merger turns out, and whether it will positively or negatively affect the recent trend of law firm mergers.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firm Mergers: Good Idea or a Fruitless Endeavor? appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

I know, I know. I shouldn’t be so gleeful that so many lesbians were OUT and about (see what I did there?) at the World Cup this year.

No, you don’t need to be super masculine to be amazing at sports. And no, you don’t need to be super masculine to be a lesbian (and yes, you can be super masculine and also somehow not be a lesbian). So no, I don’t want to celebrate just how much lesbiosity there was at this year’s World Cup because I don’t want to perpetuate this idea that masculinity = sports and masculinity = male, so male = sports, and if women are amazing at sports, then women must be masculine and must be lesbians (follow all that?!).

None of that is true. I know.

BUT I AM STILL SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS.

By this, of course, I mean the international platform that the World Cup has become for out lesbian players to advocate for genuine queer inclusion in professional sports.

I also mean–and I giggle gleefully each time I think about it or watch the video (now you can, too: scroll down!!)–Abby Wambach jogging over to the sidelines after winning the World Cup Sunday night and kissing her wife, Sarah Huffman.

But I’m still sad about it. I’m sad that it’s such a big deal.

To describe what I mean, I–the English PhD student and aspiring novelist–am going to have to turn to Tumblr (at least I don’t take myself too seriously, right?). Because really, carmillastakesmyheart hashtagged this post perfectly: When “Just Straight Things # 18” was deemed by the delightful and sadly accurate JustStraightThings blog to be “donating blood” (because we queers aren’t allowed to due to queerphobic and medically meaningless FDA regulations), carmillastakesmyheart reblogged the post with the hashtags #thismademelaugh and #thenmademereallysad (see below).

Which is exactly how I feel about the sensation that has become of Wambach and Huffman’s “Kiss Seen ‘Round the World.” Because it is not (just) an emblem of queer “progress”–the overwhelmingly supportive media response to it is an indication of how far we still need to go.

Because some media couldn’t even be bothered to acknowledge that Sarah is her wife.

The homophobia via erasing queerness doesn’t surprise me.

So yes, the kiss makes me laugh with happiness.

But then it makes me sad. Because it’s a big deal. It’s a huge, sensational, enormous deal.

And it really shouldn’t be at all.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bittersweet Lesbian Kisses at the World Cup appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

Laura, a 24-year-old woman without a terminal illnesses, is making headlines after she qualified for euthanasia in Belgium. Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve them from a form of suffering. Although Laura does not have a life-threatening sickness, she has qualified for this procedure due to the depression she has dealt with for several years. We typically do not hear of stories like this occurring in the U.S. because there are very few states that have legalized euthanasia and there are strict regulations, including that the patient has to be terminally ill. However that’s not the case everywhere, and while the date of Laura’s death has not been decided yet, her story has raised many questions about the ethics of euthanasia worldwide.

Laura’s argument is pretty straightforward. She has been a patient of a psychiatric institution for the past three years and stated that she has tried to kill herself on multiple occasions. During both her childhood and adult life she suffered from “suicidal thoughts.” She told journalists, “Death feels to me not as a choice. If I had a choice, I would choose a bearable life, but I have done everything and that was unsuccessful.”

Although most states in the U.S. have not legalized it, seven out of ten Americans back euthanasia. The U.S., and other developed countries, can learn from the proliferation of the practice in various European nations. In 2002 Belgium became only the second country to legalize euthanasia, following the Netherlands. This allowed Belgian doctors to help patients end their lives if they expressed a wish to die to relieve suffering. Any competent adults and emancipated minors can request this procedure if they feel that what they are dealing with is beyond any medical help. In February of 2014, the Belgian Parliament passed a bill also allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children, although any children must have parental concent. This makes Belgium the first in the world to have legalized euthanasia without an age limit.

The country has had a large increase in euthanasia cases over the past few years. In 2013, 1,807 deaths were recorded as opposed to 2012 when there were 1,432 deaths recorded. More than half of the patients were over the age of 70, but recently younger patients have been requesting this procedure more frequently due to depression. Dr Marc Van Hoey, a general practitioner and president of the Right to Die Association in northern Belgium, is an open supporter of the law. Van Hoey told the Independent newspaper that he believes that sometimes this procedure is the kindest option. He stated,

I’ve seen quite a lot of persons dying in – how do you say in proper English – agony?…I never saw that when I gave someone euthanasia he or she asked for.

Although euthanasia is considered acceptable to many, there are people who are not in favor of this law at all. Carine Brochier, a project manager with the Brussels-based European Institute of Bioethics, believes that this law is leading to too many young people in Belgium dying. “Euthanasia is not the answer to all human suffering,” Brochier says. “We need to develop better palliative care for people,” something she believes Belgium is not currently doing. Opinions on euthanasia vary, but majorities have been supporting the law for the past two decades.

Euthanasia should be legal, should be about quality of life not sanctity of life. It shouldn’t be illegal if you want to stop the suffering

— Mark Bowden (@markbowdn) May 26, 2015

Euthanasia should just be made legal, no one should have to suffer in their own bodies not being able to do anything about it

— michael cum thru (@hurrymgc) December 14, 2014

No, euthanasia should not be legal and God owns your life. Believer or not, it’s the truth #ontopictalkshow

— Sema. (@Sema187) May 31, 2015

In contrast, in the U.S. euthanasia is legal in four states. Montana requires those seeking the procedure to be a “terminally ill, competent patient.” Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have also legalized euthanasia but require patients requesting it to be 18 years old or older and a resident of the state. The patient must also be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for himself and have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.

This has been a particularly controversial debate because it’s impossible to truly analyze how someone is feeling. In a case like Laura’s, it seems to go against accepted norms to not work with her to treat her depression. Detractors from euthanasia worry that it gives the doctor too much power and romanticizes death. On the other hand, advocates argue that allowing euthanasia gives people control over their own lives. Whether or not we’ll see euthanasia become legalized in the U.S. to the same extent as Belgium any time soon is questionable, but Laura’s story certainly sparked many questions.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Euthanasia Without Terminal Illness: Should it Be Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

Najee Harmon is a 20-year-old man, and the primary suspect in the shooting of a Wauwatosa, WI detective on June 19. He’s been charged with three counts of attempted first degree intentional homicide and one count of felony possession of a firearm. After investigating a recent burglary, officers were on foot observing reported stolen vehicles, when Harmon fired several shots at Detective Jeffrey Griffin, injuring the officer. A manhunt took place for 24 hours, and he was finally found hiding in the basement of a long-time friend, Stephanie King.

But what struck me was what happened when King was interviewed; her comments raise a lot of questions about the “us vs. them” mentality that has begun to take hold between Black communities and the police.

While the focus from the media was on Harmon’s violent acts, King defended him saying, “To me he ain’t do no wrong, he just shot a cop. Everyone comes around when they shoot the cop. But when the cops shoot people, do they come around?”

While it’s never ok to shoot someone–particularly an innocent someone, what frustrates me so much about this interview is that she is partially right. Given recent events involving instances of police brutality many Black people are afraid for their lives. Recent events have proven that you can be the best looking, speaking, well-mannered, and respectful Black person and still be killed for the color of your skin. So, King’s logic makes some sense, although it certainly doesn’t make Harmon’s actions right. But you can’t fully blame her for this logic–this is what the newest frontier in the race war has come to look like in the United States. 

The tension between minority communities and the police is neither a small nor a dying issue. #BlackLivesMatter protests across the country have called for reforms and increased accountability surrounding police shootings and a reduction in the use of military equipment by local police departments.

“The system of policing has earned our mistrust,” said Opal Tometi, a New York-based activist and co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign.

It seems like every day you turn on the news and hear a story of yet another Black male who has died at the gun of a White police officer. There are tensions between communities and police officers, particularly when stories of corrupt police officers stealing drugs or money abound. Stigmas develop as these stories are passed throughout communities. This anger has built up to an all-time high. Black Americans are frustrated, sick of being mistreated, and it has gotten to the point where they believe the only solution is to take matters into their own hands. Black communities often feel like the people who are supposed to protect them are becoming those who victimize them instead. 

There are some understandable explanations for this. Police officers do not always understand the communities they are patrolling. Sometimes they enter these communities, and don’t know what they’re dealing with or how community members are feeling. There are many factors that can contribute to problems with the police, but this is a common problem with police officers in minority communities. This does not, of course, excuse genuine wrong they’ve done, but can be a starting point for a discussion about the issues they face as officers of the law.

On the other hand, in the defense of the police officers, their jobs require them to risk their lives regularly. In interviews with media outlets, officers often speak of being afraid during particular incidents and discharging their weapons because they feel it’s the best way to protect themselves. Granted, there are police officers who lie about this to cover something they’ve done, but  fear can certainly affect how a police officer does his job. It’s easy to forget that our police officers may genuinely be scared in some instances–after all we don’t want to picture our protectors fearful. But they’re certainly not perfect–just like the rest of us experience personal problems and pressures outside their jobs, they do too.

Arguably the biggest issue between minority communities and police officers is a lack of respect. Minority communities do not respect police officers, and because police officers know there is disrespect, they have the potential to act out of anger and frustration. So how can we improve this growing issue? One way is to advocate and speak up. For example, Black Lives Matter has given national attention to the growing mistreatment African-Americans face. People usually turn the other cheek because it’s not their problem, but this really is a problem for all of us. 

There is some potential for improvement–by investing in solutions like community policing, we can hope to build that mutual respect. Through partnerships with community organizations, community members can feel heard, respected, and empowered to help police control crime in their neighborhoods. Developing these relationships, while not a complete solution, is certainly a step in the right direction, and may break the us vs. them narrative. Harmon’s actions and King’s statements are just one example of the compelling need to fix this horrible division in American society. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Us Vs. Them Mentality Won’t Fix the Problem of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily Dalgo

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

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

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

Human trafficking is the second largest form of organized crime in the world behind the illegal drug trade. The industry affects 12.3 million people each year, and generates more than $32 billion worldwide, yet many Americans don’t necessarily expect it to take place close to home. Yet the two most common forms of human trafficking, sex trafficking and labor trafficking, are on the rise in many states such as Pennsylvania. In a horrifying example of this phenomenon, a Pennsylvania man named Paul Sewell was just sentenced to 23 years in prison for prostituting young teenagers and producing child pornography, illustrating the prevalence of the crime.

According to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it has become a source, destination, and pass-through state for human trafficking. Sewell, 49, of Reading, PA, ran a prostitution ring from his home and used the building next door as a brothel. He once ran a car dealership, a bail bond business, and even held a job as a school counselor with the Reading School District. Sewell, who often referred to himself as “God,” would bring in the girls, many of whom were minors, and have sex with them to “test them out.” He would then brand a chosen girl with a tattoo on the back of her neck stating “God” as well as a nickname he gave her. Sewell also advertised the women on his website, and emailed explicit pictures of them to potential clients. The business serviced eight to nine clients a day and Sewell kept 40 percent of the profits that the girls made. When girls no longer wanted to work for Sewell he would sometimes subject them to physical violence to force them to continue working. One of the prostituted children spoke up and stated,

It’s like I had given my soul away in exchange for money… . If it wasn’t for me having a child, I would have killed myself by now. I’m so disgusted with myself.

Sewell has been previously convicted for impersonating a police officer, resisting arrest, and making terroristic threats. Sewell applied to become a police officer in the 1980s but was dismissed from the academy after an altercation at the school’s pistol range. Sewell pleaded guilty in September 2011 to four counts of sex trafficking and three counts of producing child pornography. In addition to the 23-year sentence that he was given yesterday, he will be required to serve five years of supervised release and pay $52,000 in restitution.

Many trafficking victims enter this industry between the ages of 12-15. Not only can trafficking create serious physical harm, it can damage victims mentally and emotionally as well. It is scary to think that someone who was once a school counselor could also run a sex ring. While operating this business, Sewell allegedly had sexual relations with his 13-year-old niece and has fathered fourteen children with ten different women. Even more disturbingly, most of his children lived with him along with many of the women who worked as prostitutes. To think of children living with a man of this sort and being around such a disgusting crime is saddening.

Human trafficking is ruining the lives of countless girls, and it routinely happens right here in the United States. As these businesses continue to grow, the police need to continue to be vigilant. Sewell’s crime should not have gone unnoticed for so long.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Trafficking in the U.S.: Pennsylvania Man Sentenced for Horrifying Crime appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily Dalgo

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

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

With mass incarceration under scrutiny, questions arise about alternatives to the punitive practice. One such set of alternatives–a process called restorative justice–is on the rise across the country in youth courts and schools.

Restorative justice has been practiced around the world for quite some time, but how do these dialogue-based alternatives to incarceration operate within the United States’ criminal justice system? Is restorative justice a radical means to advance social justice in an age of mass incarceration, or is it merely another way to reinforce the power structures of the current system? Read on to learn more.

Retributive Versus Restorative Justice

In order to appreciate the differences in approach that restorative justice poses, it is important to first understand that the United States’ criminal justice system operates under a retributive justice approach. Retributive justice is based on the idea of punishment, and the theory behind it is that the state is the ultimate victim of crimes and thus has the power to punish people it deems criminals. This domination-based form of justice is one basis for punishing “victimless crimes” such as drug offenses so harshly. Under retributive justice theories, the state is positioned as the victim.

In other words, the current criminal justice system’s emphasis on retributive justice relies on the logic that:

Retributivism answers the question ‘why punish’ by saying that the offender deserves punishment, and as simple as this statement sounds, its underlying meaning contains a couple of important points about morality and law.  Retributivism as a theory of punishment requires retribution as a rationale for law.  A retributionist assumes that the law exists for a reason — a moral reason.  All crime, even victimless crime, involves a social harm — a moral harm.  In other words, violating the law not only offends against the law of the land, but the moral code of the land.

Restorative justice, however, is grounded in an entirely different logic, philosophy, and practice. Restorative justice is defined by restorative agencies such as the Insight Prison Project as:

A philosophy and a social movement which provides an entirely different way of thinking about crime and victimization.  Our current retributive justice system focuses on punishment, regarding the state as the primary victim of criminal acts and casting victims and prisoners in passive roles. Restorative Justice, by contrast, focuses on healing and rehabilitation… It assumes that the persons most affected by crime should have the opportunity to become involved in resolving the conflict.  The goals of restoring losses, allowing prisoners to take responsibility for their actions, and helping victims move beyond their sense of vulnerability stand in sharp contrast to the conventional focus on past criminal behavior and increasing levels of punishment.

By taking the ideals of community and individual accountability and upholding the goal of mutual understanding and healing, restorative justice processes ensure that police, prosecutors, and judges are not the only ones with power over deciding someone’s fate after a crime has been committed. When prosecutorial and/or judicial discretion is utilized to make restorative processes available to people, the power of deciding how to move forward shifts to the person accused of committing a crime and the people most closely impacted by that crime.

This power shift can involve processes such as victim-offender mediation, conferencing, service provision, and “victim” assistance, as applicable. In the most well-known and widely used forms of restorative justice–mediated community conferences and circles–the offender(s), victims(s), and other closely impacted community members will come together in a mediated dialogue to address the context and harm done by the crime. During this process, the offender is expected to accept responsibility and agree to the group consensus of how to move forward, whether through community service, rehab, or other options. In these types of processes, the offender must agree to following through on the agreement; failing to do so will trigger a return to a traditional, retributive justice approach that will likely result in jail time.

Restorative Justice in Action

Currently in the U.S., restorative justice is most often used in the context of youth offenders and the juvenile justice system. Especially due to the extremely high rates of recidivism in the juvenile justice system, restorative justice, which often produces extremely low recidivism rates, is becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to incarceration in many juvenile courts across the country.

Many schools are using restorative processes as a way to keep their youth out of the school-to-prison pipeline. By engaging in restorative processes of mediation, schools are doing the following:

Forging closer, franker relationships among students, teachers and administrators. It encourages young people to come up with meaningful reparations for their wrongdoing while challenging them to develop empathy for one another through “talking circles” led by facilitators.

These talking circles, a trademark of restorative processes, often serve as alternatives to the suspensions and expulsions that fuel the school-to-prison pipeline. By resisting racialized zero-tolerance policies that do not give students a chance to repair any harm they might have done–and that might have been done to them–restorative practices in schools give students, teachers, and administrators the opportunity to identify deeper causes of problems in schools that allow more holistic approaches to students acting out.

Schools from California to Colorado to New York are implementing and expanding their restorative justice programs in order to avoid shipping their students directly into the juvenile justice system. In New York City, restorative programming in schools is being used with increasing frequency and impact:

Over the past few years, the Department of Education has been building its capacity to implement restorative justice programs. The department has provided training to teachers from 55 middle and high schools through the Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, which will be training 45 more schools this July and plans to add another 45 in the fall.

At Flushing International High School, where students hail from over 40 countries, social worker Tania Romero said that restorative practices have decreased incidences of violence between students of different nationalities and allowed for deeper conversations on issues like racism. “All schools should be entitled to this,” she said.

While experts acknowledge that restorative justice does not offer a quick fix either to juvenile justice or to schooling issues, many schools are becoming committed to advocating for the kinds of structural and cultural changes that can make restorative justice processes even more effective.

In other cases, however, restorative processes resemble traditional court processes more than they do school-based conferencing or mediation. In Brownsville, New York, for example, where youth of color are particularly targeted by the criminal justice system and jailed at extremely high rates, the city has established a youth court system in which youth offenders try and sentence each other to various sanctions, including community service, essay-writing, and tutoring. In this program, youth are trained for 30 hours and take a 16-page bar exam to prepare for the responsibility of trying and sentencing their peers. Though some might be skeptical of the ability of youth to effectively diminish the crime rates of their peers, the youth going through these restorative processes have a 93 percent compliance rate, which indicates an extremely low recidivism rate–much lower than that produced by the traditional juvenile justice system.

What Are We Trying to Restore?

Despite its success at lowering recidivism rates, restorative justice is often the recipient of criticism. Because restorative justice is a process that relies on the actions of those in the criminal justice system–judges and prosecutors must refer defendants or people convicted of crimes to restorative processes, and reserve the right to re-enact retributive processes if restorative methods are deemed ineffective–many people and organizations criticize restorative justice for being powerless to truly change the criminal justice system from within.

The co-opting of restorative processes by the state actually risks reinforcing the power structures that shape the harm done by crimes to begin with. For example, state-mandated restorative processes may force mediation event participants like police and youth of color together, ignoring the extreme power differences between these individuals and therefore ignoring structural power dynamics and risking perpetuating harm upon people who may have committed a particular crime, but who are also targeted by state violence.

As such, it is crucial to note that restorative practices may be practiced in disproportionate ways that ignore societal power structures. One study shows that schools with more Black students are less likely to use restorative processes because of racialized assumptions about the student population. Further, some question whether restorative practices are accessible to people living with certain dis/abilities.

What then does restorative justice seek to restore? If structural inequality was the baseline condition under which a crime was committed, is restorative justice satisfied with restoring that unjust baseline? Critics of restorative justice and advocates of the more structurally minded transformative justice argue that restorative justice, by nature of working within the criminal justice system, can never truly address these issues of systemic oppression.

So What’s the Verdict?

Restorative justice–especially in the context of the juvenile justice system–has tremendous potential to offer alternatives to incarceration for people who would otherwise be targeted for mass incarceration. Recidivism rates decline and community involvement increases, and these are all impacts that critics of mass incarceration certainly applaud. However, while restorative justice is certainly an important move toward reforming the criminal justice system as is, its lack of emphasis on structural and systemic oppression that is the basis for mass incarceration to begin with makes it an inadequate means of truly transforming the criminal justice system.

Resources

Primary

Oakland Unified School District: Welcome to Restorative Justice

Additional

Conflict Solutions Center: Retributive vs. Restorative Justice

Conflict Solutions Center: What is Mediation?

Partnership for Safety and Justice: Restorative and Transformative Justice: A Comparison

Insight Prison Project: A Restorative Justice Agency

Restorative Justice Online: What is Restorative Justice?

The New York Times: Opening Up, Students Transform a Vicious Cycle

Chalkbeat New York: City Preparing to Expand Restorative Justice Programs

National Public Radio: An Alternative to Suspension and Explusion: ‘Circle Up!’

New York Daily News: Teens are Judge and Jury in Brownsville Youth Court, Delivering “Restorative Justice”

PBS Newshour: To Curb Conflict, A Colorado High School Replaces Punishment with Conversation

Eastern Mennonite University Center for Justice and Peacebuilding: How Effective is Restorative Justice?

Restorative Justice Online: Restorative Justice in Schools: The Influence of Race on Restorative Discipline

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can Restorative Justice Change the Criminal System? appeared first on Law Street.

Matthew Durham’s trial just began last week; he has been accused of sexual misconduct with children while volunteering at an orphanage in Kenya. The 20-year-old Oklahoma native has pleaded not guilty to 17 charges, including aggravated sexual abuse and engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. He faces life in prison if convicted. But these disturbing allegations against Durham raise many questions about the ethics of American volunteerism.

Durham has been accused of engaging in sexual acts with children between April and June of 2014 while working as a volunteer at the Upendo Children’s Home in Nairobi, Kenya, which specializes in assisting neglected children. Durham began volunteering for the orphanage in 2012. According to court records, officials claim Durham raped boys and girls between the ages of six and nine.

The jury was selected last Tuesday, and opening statements began on Wednesday. The prosecutor, Robert D. Gifford II, began his attack in a particularly disturbing manner, reading Durham’s hand-written confessions which included, “I would take her to the bathroom at night and would hold her down and rape her.” Quoting another that pertained to a boy at the Upendo Children’s Home in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, Gifford read: “at night I took him to the bathroom and had him perform oral sex on me.”

A court affidavit lists samples of Durham’s hand written and signed confessions of the alleged acts. They go into some detail of what sexual acts occurred. But when faced with these confessions, Durham now claims that he only confessed to the crimes because he was under duress. 

In fact, defense attorney Stephen Jones is arguing that the offenses never happened. During his opening statement he stated, “there is no demon, there are no multiple personalities, there are no crimes. That is the defense, it didn’t happen.” Jones claims that Durham was was coerced into confessing by orphanage officials who kept Durham in isolation and confiscated his passport.

“He’s in fear for his life,” Jones said. He described Durham as “an emotionally vulnerable teenager” who was struggling with his “sexual identity and development” as a devout Christian. Jones claims that when the orphanage learned of the allegations, they didn’t initially notify police, medical officials, or the U.S. Embassy. Others who lived in the Upendo home claimed to have never witnessed any wrongdoing.

But the manager and children’s care taker of the orphanage, Josphine Wambugu, made a number of allegations including that she witnessed Durham sleeping in one of the girls’ dormitory on June 12, 2014. Wambugu also claims to have questioned some of the girls about whether misconduct occurred, and several claimed to have had “bad manners” with Durham, a Kenyan phrase for sexual relations. Wambugu testified that when she confronted Durham, “He say: ‘Yes, I did it! Yes, I did it!'” She also claims that Durham told a group of Upendo officials that he had struggled with child pornography and homosexuality.

Whether or not Jones’ strategy of denying the incidents ever occurred will be successful will be up to the jury. But either way, this case creates some questions about the practice of sending young American students to volunteer abroad. It’s an incredibly common practice–there are so many alternative spring breaks, international volunteer abroad programs, and international service learning projects that provide options for students to volunteer. Both the programs that send students abroad and the organizations that accept them need to implement measures to make sure that the volunteers are properly supervised and vetted. Hopefully answers to some of those questions will arise out of this heartbreaking and disturbing trial. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Matthew Durham Trial: American Volunteerism at its Worst appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

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

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, United States officials revealed that they believe Chinese hackers were responsible for the May cyber attacks on U.S. federal agencies. The attacks compromised the personal information of more than four million current and former government workers. China responded by dismissing such accusations as “groundless” and “irresponsible,” stopping just short of ensuring that China does not condone cyber attacks. “We are very firm on this,” said China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei. This is just the latest incident in a back-and-forth saga between the U.S. and China when it comes to cyber crimes.

Lei’s statement may not have been completely truthful. In May 2014, Lei released a similar response to the Justice Department’s indictment of five Chinese hackers for cyber crimes against five U.S. companies and a labor union in the steel, solar, and nuclear-power industries. According to the Guardian, “China’s foreign ministry called the allegations preposterous and accused the U.S. of double standards.” But the accused in the 2014 case were members of China’s People’s Liberation Army. In other words, their attacks do represent China engaging the United States. It is evident that the U.S. must take a firm stand against China’s aggression. Nevertheless, there are numerous challenges and implications to consider on that front.

For one, China’s assertion that the U.S. resentment of Chinese attacks represents a double standard is justified. Edward Snowden’s release of NSA files unveiled a surveillance program that spanned numerous countries, including China. In March of last year, Snowden leaked another document exposing the NSA’s penetration into the networks of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies in search of evidence that the company was involved in espionage operations for Beijing. This complicates how far the U.S. can go to condemn China’s actions in the cyber sphere.

The potential costs of engaging China in cyber warfare are massive. Cyber attacks can threaten the control systems of dams, water-treatment plants, and power grids, compromise sensitive information stored on government networks, and access video surveillance cameras. Electronic door locks, elevators, and even life-sustaining medical devices are vulnerable to cyber attacks. While the U.S. rarely has to worry about war in its territory, in the cyber realm, physical boundaries are irrelevant. The statistics regarding the cost of cyber crimes are staggering. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the annual cost of cybercrime and economic espionage to the world economy at $375-575 billion. Telecommunications giant IBM claims that there were 1.5 million monitored cyber attacks in the United States in 2013 alone. In a “60 Minutes” interview, FBI Director James Comey said, “There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who’ve been hacked by the Chinese, and those who don’t know they’ve been hacked by the Chinese.”

Political action is fraught with challenges, too. China, with its massive population and rapidly developing economy, lends itself to lucrative opportunities for American corporations. Consequently, the Chinese and U.S. economies are closely intertwined. According to the CIA World Factbook, China ships 17 percent of its exports to the U.S. and is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bills, bonds, and notes. So, the government response to Chinese cyber attacks cannot deter China from doing business with American corporations. Germany’s cancellation of its longstanding contract with Verizon following Snowden’s NSA leaks serves as a cautionary tale, and the fact that most major Chinese corporations are government owned only further complicates the issue.

So, the U.S. government is left with few options. One thing it can do is encourage the development of cyber technology. The government should support programs such as the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge, a competition aimed towards creating an automated cyber defense system, and incentivize the best cyber experts to work with the government by providing resources and appropriate compensation.

More importantly, the government needs to send the message that attacks on American networks will not be tolerated. This could mean under-the-table threats of retaliation to avoid negative media attention. Fear of retaliation should deter Chinese attacks, and if attacks persist, the government can deny visas to Chinese citizens, limit military ties, or implement economic sanctions. It is important to keep the campaign low-key and ensure that economic sanctions do not incite an aggressive Chinese response.

Examples of the United States asserting itself following a breach of security are littered throughout history; the U.S. defeat of Japan following Pearl Harbor and the assassination of Osama bin Laden following 9/11 demonstrated that we are not afraid to track down and engage our enemies. It is time to assert our status as the world’s leading superpower once again.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Needs to Take a Firm Stand Against China on Cyber Attacks appeared first on Law Street.

In Colombia a violent conflict has been raging for more than 50 years. This conflict has pitted the nation’s government against a rebel–possibly terrorist–group known as FARC. With the struggle surpassing the half-century mark, both sides have been willing to return to the negotiating table to give peace yet another chance. However, the process is once again under the threat of unraveling due to a familiar cycle of FARC ambushes and government reprisals. Read on to learn about the conflict’s history, previous efforts at peace, other groups and issues in play, and whether this round of negotiations is likely to actually result in peace for the embattled nation.

History of the Conflict

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’s (FARC) earliest origins can be traced all the way back to the late 1940s and 50s. During this time, the two major political parties in Colombia–the Liberals and the Conservatives–were locked in a brutal civil war for control of the country. The conflict left more than 300,000 people dead. Following the end of the war, the Conservatives took control of the government and barred many of their Liberal opponents from participating, in effect marginalizing them. Several groups emerged as a reaction. One of these groups was led by Manuel Marulanda, who founded the FARC’s precursor, the Marquetalia Republic, and was the first leader of FARC as well. This group began arming and organizing in the mountains.

In 1964, the government launched an attack on this organization, quickly routing them. However, Marulanda escaped along with several followers. Before fleeing he and other group leaders agreed to the Agrarian Program of the Guerillas, basically FARC’s constitution, which created roles within the group and a common strategy. This was followed up every two or four years by congresses where the group’s members would meet to discuss new policies.

A seminal moment was reached at one such conference in 1982, when members became determined to solidify their control in the mountainous regions and also begin to expand their influence into cities with the ultimate goal of taking the capital. In the ensuing years, particularly from the 1990s to the early 2000s, the group engaged in several high profile and ostentatious attacks on police, soldiers, villagers, rival groups, and even a presidential inauguration.

Ideology and Perception

FARC was founded on a Marxist-Leninist ideology. The group claims to represent the lower class of the country, namely the poor and farmers, who it feels are being oppressed by the government. It also opposes the opening up of the country to foreign interests, particularly American corporations, which it views as imperialistic.

However, while FARC espouses a high-minded ideology, its actions are less than noble. In fact the group has been designated a terrorist organization by a number of countries including the U.S. This is due in part to the group’s tactics, ranging the whole violent gambit from murder to bombings. With its base in Colombia, as well as its presence in Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, Venezuela, and Peru, the group launches attacks usually within its own territory as well as outside raids to obtain supplies. These attacks generally target military personnel and foreigners, however a large number of civilians have been caught in the cross fire.

FARC’s Power Base

While its commitment to Marxist-Leninism is dubious, so too are the ways the group generates its funding. Much of the wealth created by FARC has been through practices such as kidnapping, extortion, and cocaine trafficking. In fact, estimates for the amount of money FARC earned from the cocaine trade range from $220 million to $3.5 billion. FARC has also, recently, added the ignominious task of illegal gold mining to this grim list.

Additionally, the group has allegedly received support from like minded and sympathetic governments in Venezuela and Ecuador. According to documents the Colombian military claims it seized in a raid against FARC in Ecuador in 2008, then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez had given the group $300 million. While Chavez denied the allegations, these countries have been open to FARC in response to U.S. support of the Colombian government.

So Close Yet So Far Away

The current peace negotiations between FARC and the Colombian government are not the first attempts at a détente. In fact they are far from it–attempts to broker peace between the two sides have gone on almost as long as the fighting. The first efforts came in 1984 when, as part of Uribe Accords, FARC agreed to stop the kidnappings and the government pushed the group to channel its energy into legitimate political movements. Although the ceasefire ultimately did not hold and the group continued fighting, it did lead to the Patriotic Union and the Colombian Communist Party. These were the legitimate government parties associated with the FARC, similar to Hamas in Palestine or Sinn Fein in Ireland.

These talks failed however, because FARC’s political candidates, though successful, were repeatedly murdered by right-wing paramilitary groups. Additionally no demands of a ceasefire were ever made on behalf of the government.

The next major effort came in 1998, when then-President Andres Pastrana once again agreed to provide FARC with a demilitarized zone from which to operate. However, this move backfired as FARC capitalized on the temporary weakness of the government to recollect itself militarily, launch attacks, grow coca, and kidnap officials. Nevertheless, this lack of commitment on behalf of FARC may have ushered in its own decline, as it led to a backlash in which the citizenry called for a tougher stand against the rebels. This was carried out by then-incoming President Álvaro Uribe.

The latest round of peace negotiations began secretly in Cuba. When preliminary agreements were reached, another round was proposed to be conducted in Norway, with final negotiations returning to Cuba. As part of this agreement, several reforms passed aimed at compensating victims and pardoning FARC members. The discussions themselves centered on six points. These points included rural development and land policy; the political participation of FARC; ending the conflict and reinserting FARC members back into civilian life; the end to cultivation of illicit crops and drug trafficking; reparations for victims; and lastly the implementation of these agreed-upon measures once the negotiations had concluded.

So far tentative agreements have been reached on three of the issues, although nothing is finalized until the whole process has been implemented. These three points were land redistribution, the role in civil society for demobilized FARC members, and putting an end to the illicit growing of crops used for the drug trade. However, the negotiations were temporarily put on hold when FARC kidnapped three high-ranking military officers. They were eventually released and talks resumed.

The discussions have once more been put under pressure, with the attacks on soldiers as well as a raid that killed one of the FARC negotiators. The ceasefire has also been lifted by the government and airstrikes against rebel positions have begun once more. Despite this pressure though, talks have continued in Cuba.

Other Players in Colombia

Along with FARC there are several other groups at work. These groups can be divided into left wing, of which FARC is one, and right wing, which generally oppose FARC at all levels.

Leftists

While FARC may be the largest and most infamous group in Colombia, it is far from the only one. Another Leftist group in the country is the ELN or National Liberation Army. The ELN formed at the same time as FARC, however its membership was comprised chiefly of students, Catholics, and intellectuals who were more focused on replicating a Castro-style revolution. While the groups have similar beginnings and ideologies, ELN is focused more in urban areas as opposed to the rural locations FARC dominates. Despite these similarities however, the groups have clashed directly. ELN, like FARC, is also listed as a terrorist organization, according to the U.S. State Department.

Both of these groups have operated under the larger Simon Bolivar Guerilla Coordinating Group, an umbrella organization for left-wing organizations. Along with FARC and ELN, M-19 and EPL also worked under this designation. M-19, or the April 19^th movement, was FARC’s attempt at an urban organization. However, this group ultimately broke away and became independent. EPL was another aggressive communist group that was eventually weakened by FARC attacks.

Leftist groups such as these both help and hurt FARC’s position. By existing and making similar demands they reveal to the government the reality of problems such as poverty, which can be more easily dismissed if they are only discussed by one group with a controversial past. On the other side, they can be harmful by splintering the potential support base for FARC and directly undermining the group when they engage in internal conflicts that can create more violence.

Right-Wing Paramilitaries

While leftist groups formed in reaction to the conservative government,right-wing groups formed in response to organizations such as FARC. These started out small in the 1960s as local self-defense groups authorized by Colombia’s Congress.

Eventually they consolidated into the AUC or United Self Defense Forces of Colombia. This was essentially a holding company paramilitary group, created and funded by rich farmers and narcotics traffickers to protect these people and their interests from FARC and like-minded organizations. This group was very strong and its membership ranged from 8,000 to 20,000 members. Additionally, while there was never any admitted connections between these groups and the government, it has been widely speculated that the administration often looked the other way or even funded the operations. Although the group was disbanded in 2006 and its leaders pardoned, many of its former members are suspected of continuing to operate in the drug trade and other criminal operations. This group was also considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government until 2014.

These right-wing para-military groups have a dual effect on FARC. On one side they show the violence perpetrated against the group, often at the behest of the government or powerful individuals, which can further justify FARC’s cause. Conversely they are actively trying to destroy FARC and have seen a certain degree of success. In either case, they have ratcheted up the violence and created a culture of fear and mistrust. They also make FARC less likely to come to the peace table because they are seen as the secret hand of the government.

Economics and Legacy

Decline of FARC

While securing peace with FARC is still an important goal, its importance has diminished over time. This is partly due to economics, as in 2012 a free trade agreement between Colombia and the U.S. went into effect, making the allies that much closer. Additionally, the economy of Colombia has continued to grow despite the fighting, averaging nearly 6 percent growth a year. In individual terms this has meant the average income per person has gone from $5800 dollars in 2000 to $10,000 in 2011.

The effect of this is two fold. For a government weary of fighting and eager to shine on the global stage, defeating or at least containing FARC would allow it to focus more on improving its economy and the well being of its citizens. Additionally, an improved standard of living would also seem to undermine the very existence of FARC as the group was originally supposedly founded on the idea of protecting and standing up for underrepresented groups, namely the peasants.

FARC also appears to be declining. In 2001, the group was believed to have as many as 16,000 members; that number has recently dwindled to as few as 6,000 to 8,000. This has been the result of an intensified campaign by former President Uribe, whose father was murdered by FARC in a kidnapping attempt. Aside from decreased membership, the leadership of FARC has also been hit hard. After its founder died of a heart attack in 2008, his second in command was subsequently killed in the raid in Ecuador. Other leaders have also been killed. Desertion has become a problem as well as some fighters, who were attracted by noble ideas, have become jaded by the drug trafficking and perpetual violence.

Legacy

So what legacy does FARC leave behind? In terms of numbers, over 220,000 people have been killed as a result of fighting between the group and the government since its inception. Additionally, much of the popular support once enjoyed by FARC has eroded, as people have become exhausted with the conflict and simply want a better life. Most of the territory once held by FARC has also been lost as a result of the increased military efforts on behalf of the government. Thus, FARC’s strength and importance has been greatly reduced. Still, an agreement between the group and the government would be a major step in rebuilding the war-torn nation.

Conclusion

The most recent round of talks between Colombia and FARC offer a glimmer of hope. But this hope can only be achieved if both sides stop committing the same perpetual violent acts that have spawned this conflict in the first place. Nevertheless, if the last few month’s actions are any indication, this is not going to happen.

This presents a challenge to both sides. On one side, FARC is a diminished organization that faces enemies on all sides and has few friends. The government, meanwhile, clearly wants to capitalize on economic growth and turn the page on the history of drug violence and terrorist insurgencies. Both of these goals can be accomplished, but the two sides have to come to terms and end a destructive conflict that has lasted for more than 50 years.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Peace Talks in Colombia

Additional

Stanford University: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army

Council on Foreign Relations: FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left Wing Guerillas

BBC News: Colombian FARC Negotiator Killed in Bombing Raid

Institute of the Americas: Colombia Pushes Back Cartels, Terrorists to Become Economic Powerhouse

Al Jazeera: Profile: The FARC

Ploughshares: Colombia

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post FARC: Preventing Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

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

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

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

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

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

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

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

European Film Industry

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

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

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

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

Film Industries Down Under

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

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

Rising Stars

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

India

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

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

Nigeria

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

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

South Korea

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

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

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

Culture

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

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

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

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

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

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

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

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

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

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

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short.

When it comes to health, concerns abound that we’re wasting money, time, and lives by spending too much on treatment and recovery and not enough on prevention. Public health interventions like smoking cessation programs and disaster preparedness initiatives save lives. The more we learn about the power of these interventions, the more experts call to keep them afloat with better funding. Spending a few dollars to get a person to quit smoking makes more sense than spending thousands of dollars to try to treat their lung cancer several years down the road. Preparing for a natural disaster beforehand is preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards.

So what is public health? It’s something that aims to keep you alive as long as possible. From preventing diseases to preparing for disasters, public health programs keep a wary eye out for threats and then help populations avoid or mitigate them. For example, if data shows a high diabetes risk for a certain population, public health programs will target that population with preventative messages about diet and exercise. Public health departments might also help local school systems prepare for potential natural disasters, like Florida does with its Children’s Disaster Preparedness Program.

Read on to learn about public health spending in the United States, and where we might need to invest some more time and money.

Where’s the money?

In April, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released its report Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding and Key Health Facts. The report highlights many ways America falls short on public health spending. They say America’s public health system “has been chronically underfunded for decades.” In Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health, author David Hemenway says this is because the benefits of public health spending today aren’t seen until potentially far in the future. Governments and politicians want to see the benefits of their investments in the present day, so they favor spending on medical treatment and other immediately fulfilling initiatives.

Here are some of the key findings:

Public Health Spending is Actually Shrinking

According to TFAH, when you adjust for inflation, public health spending in 2013 has sunk 10 percent from 2009. Many simply don’t see the benefits of spending on public health programs that yield intangible, future benefits when money could be spent on initiatives that produce immediate results like transportation or construction projects.

All States are Not Created Equal

States vary widely in what they spend on public health as funding is determined by the set-up of each state’s unique public health department. Indiana came in at a low of $15.14 per person, while Alaska spends $50.09 per person. This could be why health levels also vary widely from state to state.

Communities Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement Funding helps communities respond to natural disasters, epidemics, and outbreaks. It was backed by $919 million in 2005. In 2013, it was supported by just $643 million.

Hospitals Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) gives healthcare facilities funding to beef up their preparedness measures. Funding for this program has been slashed by almost half, dropping from $515 million in 2004 to $255 million in 2015.

It’s estimated that 2/3 of all deaths in the United States result from chronic diseases typically linked to behaviors like diet or substance abuse. These diseases could be prevented by well funded intervention programs to decrease the behaviors that eventually lead to chronic diseases. Public health spending could save Americans millions in treatments for preventable diseases. Likewise public health under-spending could be costing us more than we’re saving.

In this video, the American Public Health Association outlines financial returns on every dollar of public health spending for different activities:

The above video states that every dollar spent on fluoride in our water supply could save $40 in dental care costs and that a dollar spent on nutrition education could save $10 in health care costs. The main point? Public health programs make for a smart investment.

The Consequences of Meagre Public Health Budgets

So, America spends too much money on treatment and not enough on prevention. The results aren’t pretty. In Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System, authors Chernichovsky and Leibowitz write,

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has an inefficient and expensive health care system with poor outcomes and many citizens who are denied access.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010 report put the U.S. up against other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.), a program that advocates to improve economic and social outcomes. Since 1990, the U.S. has fallen in rankings for both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In 1990, the U.S. stood at the number 20 spot for life expectancy.  By 2010, it was down to number 27.  In 1990, the U.S. also enjoyed the number 14 spot for healthy life expectancy. The year 2010 found us in the 26th spot.

Under-spending in public health doesn’t just lead to generally poor health, it also impedes our ability to respond to emergencies. Assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Gautam Mukunda, referred to Ebola as a “wake-up call” for the state of U.S. health preparedness. In Ebola as a Wake-Up Call he wrote,

Ebola may serve as a badly needed wake-up call about something the public health and biosecurity community has been banging the drum about for years: the U.S. has massively underinvested in public health.

Mukunda says the Ebola situation highlighted the measly number of extreme disease cases our U.S. hospitals can handle. Hospitals have decreased their capacity for extreme cases to increase their efficiency, only to lose the ability to treat patients when rare diseases strike. Although the need for extreme treatments arises only occasionally, hospitals should always be prepared for them. But with limited funding, it’s hard to be prepared for the unlikely “worst case scenarios.”

How does the future look?

The good news: The Senate finally passed a joint budget resolution after a five year absence of agreement.

The bad news:  Their budget slahes non-defense government spending by about $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The budget cuts spell trouble for discretionary educational public health programs. From disease prevention to health care worker training, programs to promote good health may suffer across the board.

In an APHA press release opposing the measure, Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, says,

Simply put, our federal, state and local public health agencies will not be able to do their jobs to protect the health of the American people if these drastic cuts are enacted.

The budget would also annihilate the Affordable Care Act, including the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that focused on moving America towards a preventative health model by funding prevention communications, research, surveillance, immunizations, tobacco cessation programs, health-care training, and more.

The resolution isn’t yet a binding law, but indicates a set of collective and alarming priorities that steer America farther from the path of an integrated, preventative public health system. The Appropriations Committee still has to draft the spending bills, so there’s room for opposition. President Obama for one said he’ll veto bills following the restrictive budget.

Evidence to Inform the Future

According to the article, Evidence Links Increases In Public Health Spending To Declines In Preventable Deaths, published in Health Affairs, mortality rates fall anywhere from 1.1 – 6.9 percent for every 10 percent uptick in public health spend. The researchers made observations over thirteen years and found that the localities with the highest upsurges in public health spending had the most significant reductions in preventable deaths. The relationship held true in multiple causes of death and across different demographics. While the study is only a correlation, the linkage presents compelling evidence for the death-decreasing value of public health spending. The researchers believe a lack of substantial evidence for the ROI of public health campaigns may have hindered spending in the past, and their report takes one step towards getting that evidence.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) advocates for an America with increased core public health spending. They also recommend ways to spend the money correctly. They call for a solid public health foundation for all populations in all states so everyone can be healthy no matter where they live. After that’s established, they advise investing in strong, evidence-backed public health programs and efforts to fortify emergency preparedness. Finally, they believe public health expenditures should be completely transparent and accessible to the American public.

Experts at a recent forum of National Public Health Week looked past mere spending to consider the future of public health and consider novel ways of approaching health to make America a healthier nation. The speakers want to stretch health thinking beyond the doctor’s office to focus on environmental and lifestyle factors that promote well-being like employment, housing, education, and even racism.

These experts dream of an improved, 360 degree view of public health. But sadly, their dreams need funding to become reality. If we continue on this path, it will be very hard to become a more healthful nation.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Prevention and Public Health Fund

Additional

American Journal of Public Health: Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System

The New Yorker: Why America is Losing the Health Race

Harvard Business School: Ebola as a Wake Up Call

Public Health Newswire: NPHW Forum: Creating Healthiest Nation Requires Addressing Social Determinants of Health

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health

The Washington Post: Senate Passes Budget Even as Impasse on Spending Continues

Public Health Newswire: House Adopts ‘Devastating’ Budget Agreement

Public Health Newswire: Senate Passes Budget that Batters Public Health

American Public Health Association: APHA Calls Budget Agreement Devastating

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding & Key Health Facts

Health Affairs: Evidence Links Increases in Public Health Spending to Declines in Preventable Deaths

The National Priorities Project: Military Spending in the United States

New England Journal of Medicine: Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Spending Enough on Public Health? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday May 9^th a transformer fire broke out in New York. While this was a seemingly innocuous event, there was more to the incident than just a fire. It broke out at the site of a nuclear power plant, located only about 35 miles from Manhattan. While the fire never spread to the nuclear power plant itself and there was no immediate threat of a nuclear meltdown, the potential danger was concerning. Yet these risks are just part of the balancing act that is required to harness nuclear power for energy. Read on to learn about the development of nuclear energy, its risks, and its rewards.

History of Nuclear Power

Developing the Technology

The first notions of atoms can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who philosophized about tiny, unseen elements which combine to form the world around us. But the real work on nuclear energy essentially started in the early years of the 20th century. In the late 1930s, German scientists, following the previous example set by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, bombarded uranium with neutron, causing it to split. The experiment and subsequent efforts revealed that during the fission process some mass is converted into energy.

In 1942, Fermi took the next step by achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction underneath the University of Chicago’s athletic stadium. This step effectively ushered in the nuclear age. During WWII this field was mainly focused on harnessing the power of the fission reaction into some type of weapon. However, following the war focus returned to producing energy from the reaction, as part of the Atomic Energy Commission created by Congress in 1946. The first reactor to produce electricity was in Idaho on December 20, 1951. The first nuclear powered plant that created power for public use in the United States was in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957.

How do nuclear power plants work?

There are two types of nuclear power plants and they work in separate ways to generate power. In a pressurized water reactor, water is pressurized but not allowed to boil. The water is then streamed though pipes and turned in to steam which powers the generators. In this type of reactor, the water creating the steam and the water in the reactor do not mix.

The other type is known as a boiling water reactor. As the name implies, in this case the water is allowed to boil and turns into steam through fission. The steam, like in the pressurized reactors, turns the generators, which create electricity. In both systems, the water can also be reused once it has been reconverted from steam back into its liquid form.

The Nuclear Power Industry

Following the opening of the plant in Pennsylvania, the industry continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1960s as corporations across the U.S. saw the possibility of a power source that was viewed as a cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly than traditional sources, such as coal. However, this trend began to reverse in the 1970s and 80s as the popular opinion of nuclear power became negative and many of the strong selling points of nuclear energy became areas of concern.

Nevertheless, as of January 2015, 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power plants worldwide, although the number of operating plants can fluctuate slightly based on different definitions of the term “operable.” The United States has the most plants at 99, almost twice as many as the next country France, which has 58. The plants themselves are located predominately in what are commonly considered the more developed countries. One of the major explanations for this phenomenon are the high costs required to build a nuclear power plant. Another major factor in the peaceful use of nuclear power is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of bedrocks for peacefully spreading, and at times hampering, the spread of nuclear power worldwide. The first step can probably be traced back to a speech given by President Dwight Eisenhower. This speech, coined the “Atoms for Peace” speech, provided a blueprint for effectively managing nuclear proliferation following WWII. It also paved the way for spreading nuclear technology in a positive way.

While many of the suggested measures from Eisenhower’s speech were not taken, the International Atomic Energy Agency was born out of his ideas. This agency provided the prospect of nuclear knowledge in exchange for agreeing to safeguards and arms limits. While it worked in some cases, it could not halt the military aspect of nuclear research. It did however help give rise to the NPT.

The NPT divided countries into the proverbial nuclear weapon haves and have nots. Its requirements were also essentially the same, in return for allowing inspections countries were giving technical knowhow. While there are many criticisms levied against the NPT, it did work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, while helping some nations gain nuclear power as an energy source.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Despite all the efforts made to safeguard nuclear energy, there are still many concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants. This danger has manifested itself several times over the course of the nuclear power age, both internationally and abroad.

The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history was in Chernobyl, Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union. During the disaster, 50 people were killed at the plant and as many as a million more were exposed to the radiation. The amount of radioactive fallout released into the air, as a result, was 400 times more than what had been released in the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Domestically, the worst nuclear energy disaster was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. During the crisis on an island in Pennsylvania, a full nuclear meltdown was narrowly avoided and no one was killed. Nonetheless, the stigma created from the ordeal was a key contributing factor to the decline of new nuclear plants in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s.

The most recent disaster came in 2011 in Fukushima, Japan. During this disaster a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami, damaged the nuclear reactors in Fukushima. This led to a nuclear meltdown that killed as many as 1000 people trying to evacuate the area.

These are just three examples, but there are more, both in the U.S. and abroad. While nuclear energy has been lauded for its sustainability and limited impact on the environment, the threat of a nuclear meltdown is a major consideration in regards to expanding the technology going forward.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

With last week’s fire at a nuclear facility rekindling fears over the dangers of nuclear technology, what exactly is the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad? In answering that, two aspects need to be considered, namely nuclear waste and security.

Waste

Although nuclear energy is often touted as a clean alternative to other energy sources, such as coal and natural gas, it has its own waste issues. In the U.S. alone each year approximately 2000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste are generated. Troublingly, there is no permanent repository for this nuclear waste so it remains stored on site, potentially vulnerable to attack and leakage.

The waste issue continues further down the supply chain as well. The mining of uranium, which occurs mostly outside of the U.S. and therefore also partly nullifies any argument in relation to energy independence, is a very harrowing experience. A number of chemicals are used to mine Uranium which poison both the surrounding environment and the workers involved in the extraction.

Security

Along with waste is the issue of security. It has already been shown that the security of a nuclear power plant can be jeopardized by human error and natural disasters. However after 9/11 there have been fears of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. While the nuclear plants are supposedly protected by measures designed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there are acknowledged vulnerabilities.

Air and sea attacks could be problematic, as well as multiple coordinated attacks on a facility at once. Spent nuclear rods are particularly vulnerable to attack as they sit outside of controlled nuclear reactors. While the NRC has made strides in some of these categories, especially in regards to potential air strikes, concerns remain that it still falls short in other categories such as potential land and sea assaults. Furthermore, force on force tests–staged attacks on nuclear plants–showed at least 5 percent of plants are still not adequately protected even after changes were made to increase protection following 9/11.

These fears include other worries that stem from the Soviet collapse of the early 90s. These are centered on what are termed as “loose nukes”– unaccounted nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Similar concerns may also arise as civil wars continue in countries such as Iraq or Syria who at one time were known to be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Staying the course?

Coupled with waste and security concerns are also cost considerations. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to maintain and suffer a failure rate, in regards to financing, of over 50 percent, meaning tax payers are often required to bail them out. In light of all these considerations and with other truer sustainable energy sources it would seem the days of nuclear energy would be numbered.

This assumption is wrong however, as already 70 new plants are under construction with 400 more proposed worldwide. While many of these will never leave the drawing table, the rise in construction and planning of new nuclear plants points to nuclear power’s proven track record in at least one regard–battling CO2 emissions and producing power on a scale that currently far exceeds any other renewable options.

This option is particularly attractive to countries with state-run governments that can commit to long term investments and are desperate to move beyond major polluters such as coal-power plants, such as China. Meanwhile in Western democracies while some construction is planned, many are working toward phasing out nuclear power altogether. In this regard Germany is leading the pack and has pledged to be completely nuclear free by 2022. The following video explores the future of nuclear power:

Conclusion

Nuclear energy seems to be the ultimate compromise. While it is cleaner than coal or gas plants, it still produces radioactive waste that has no long term storage location and takes thousands of years to decay. Conversely it has a proven track record and while it may cost more to build new nuclear facilities than any other energy source, the energy produced far outpaces many alternatives. Thus, the world with its ever growing energy demands is left to maintain the delicate balance. We are still in the nuclear age, although how long we’ll stay here remains uncertain.

Resources

Primary

Department of Energy: The History of Nuclear Energy

Additional

United States History: International Atomic Energy Agency

Physicians for Social Responsibility: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive The Truth About Nuclear Power

CNN: After Explosion at Nuclear Plant, Concerns of Environmental Damage

Duke Energy: How Do Nuclear Plants Work?

European Nuclear Society: Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide

Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today

Foreign Policy: Think Again Nuclear Proliferation

CNBC: 11 Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters

World Nuclear Association: Fukushima Accident

Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Plant Security

BBC News: Nuclear power Energy for the Future or Relic of the Past?

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Nuclear Energy: Worth the Risk? appeared first on Law Street.

The devastating 7.8 earthquake that recently struck Nepal caused untold damage to buildings and has killed thousands of people, with many more missing. Following the devastation, the usual influx of aid began, as did finger pointing over who was to blame for the devastation. However, what this catastrophe has revealed most clearly is the disparate ways in which countries respond to disasters. Read on to learn about the response to the Nepalese earthquake, and the various global responses to disasters.

Responding to a Disaster

Emergency Management

Disasters, natural and man made, have been around since the beginning of time. However, the response to these disasters has not always been the same, and methods have varied as widely as the civilizations that have suffered them.

In the United States for example, we have FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA was founded in 1979 when five separate agencies that dealt with disasters consolidated into one. Although it perhaps best known now for its poor handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, it has served as the point agency for every natural disaster the United States has dealt with since its inception.

Emergency Management Cycle

While the methods for emergency management vary, one of the commonly accepted tools is the emergency management cycle. The cycle’s origins go back to the 1930s when phases were first used to describe the ideal response to a disaster. The cycle gained its central place in the emergency management lexicon in 1979 when FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter following recommendations from the National Governors Association, and versions have now expanded to other nations. This cycle is generally broken into three or four parts, although newer variations can include more steps. Usually the four steps are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. You can see an example here.

The first two phases, mitigation and preparedness, actually occur before the potential disaster strikes. In the preparedness and mitigation phases a country plans for a potential disaster through steps such as developing evacuation plans, raising awareness and improving current infrastructure.

Once the disaster actually strikes, there’s a response section of the cycle. During this time, emergency management workers attempt to rescue people, provide basic services, and prevent any further damage. The final phase is recovery. In this final stage, once the disaster has passed, authorities go to work returning basic services to full operational capabilities. Additionally, infrastructure and other institutions that were damaged during the devastation are rebuilt.

While these distinctions seem clear, steps often overlap and become blurred, further complicating the process. In addition, it’s important to remember that these steps apply equally to both man-made and natural disasters. However, maintaining an appropriate balance of preparedness for the two types is important, otherwise one can become neglected at the expense of the other. A chilling example is the focus on defending against terrorism in the United States that left other shortcomings unnoticed. Critics claim this led to an underfunding of the levee system in New Orleans, which ultimately failed during Hurricane Katrina and had devastating results.

The Finger Pointers and the 20/20 Crowd

Unfortunately not every country has such a system or even a plan in place, including Nepal. These programs are very expensive. For example, in 2015 FEMA’s requested budget was $10.4 billion. To put that into context, Nepal’s entire GDP for 2013, the most recent year available from the World Bank, was only $19.3 billion. While no one expects Nepal to have an agency or program on the scale of FEMA given the lower population and wealth gap between it and U.S., in the wake of this disaster, concerns have arisen that the nation was unprepared.

These considerations did not stop the criticism from pouring about the failure of the Nepalese government. These criticisms have come from several high profile sources, including numerous relief agencies, namely the United Nations. Criticisms range from insufficient infrastructure to the difficulty aid groups have delivering supplies to those who need them. Despite the disaster, many protective tariffs are still in place, making it difficult to distribute goods. There are also concerns over widespread corruption and the reported looting of supply convoys by authorities who want to disperse the aid along ethnic lines.

These criticisms should not be entirely surprising given Nepal’s governmental history. The country only just began recovering from a civil war in 2006, which had lasted ten years. That conflict pitted the newly established democratic government against Maoist insurgents. Since the end of the civil war, there have been a succession of ineffectual governments who have been unable to create any sort of a unified front. For example, in January 2015, the current government was unable to agree on changes to its constitution because of political infighting.  The video below depicts many of the issues facing Nepal’s relief efforts:

International Community

When countries such as Nepal and others suffer a horrendous disaster, the international community usually steps up to aid them in their suffering. While variations of aid can be separated into many different branches, the two clearest distinctions are financial and direct intervention.

Financial Assistance

While not every country has an emergency response team to spare to help in a disaster zone, many can offer another valuable commodity: money. As of April 28^th 60 million dollars in financial assistance had already been pledged to the earthquake ravaged area. This type of giving is not surprising, especially following natural disasters such as earthquakes. In fact two other examples, the deadly 2013 typhoon in the Philippines, and the 2008 cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) illustrate that in circumstances such as these, it is not uncommon for the aid a country receives to as much as quintuple from one year to the next.

Although this is good news for Nepal, it may not be enough. While financial pledges can be easily won in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, the ability to continue to elicit them tends to fade as the story does from the headlines. Costs to repair the damage in Nepal have been estimated to be as much as five billion dollars. This massive undertaking is especially difficult for a nation like Nepal whose GDP, as previously mentioned, is only around 20 billion total each year, with a significant portion of that coming from now-lost tourist revenue.

In addition to these considerations, a working paper on the political economy of disaster preparedness by Charles Cohen and Eric Werker of the Harvard Business School also raises additional considerations. While money is useful in dealing with a disaster, giving away large sums reduces the incentive of a government to be adequately prepared in the first place. According to the study, rich countries as well as poor would be better off if more aid was provided for preparedness than response–it’s smarter to be proactive than reactive.

Concerns also abound over a dishonest government stealing aid money. In some cases, leaders want to reward their constituents first in order to maintain their good graces. Thus, it is also imperative in these types of situations to have a decentralized aid distribution system as much as possible. The video below provides some dos and don’ts in regards to helping following a disaster:

Physical Intervention

Another means to assist an ailing nation is through direct assistance by countries and private organizations. In the case of Nepal, this aid can be divided into three sub-categories. First, countries such as Japan and Australia sent experts and aid teams to help recovery. Relief organizations such as the Red Cross provided money and experts to help, basically serving as microcosms of the nations they represent. Lastly corporations such as Coca-Cola and Kellogg provided bottled water and food to satiate survivors whose access to basic goods may have vanished in the wake of the disaster.

Like financial assistance, direct intervention can also have drawbacks. An example of this comes from the 2010 Haitian earthquake. In that case, relief efforts were hampered and stagnated due to an inefficient infrastructure in place. The United States took full control of the response efforts, at one point legally taking possession of the main airport in the capital Port-au-Prince during the relief efforts. However, subsequent American prioritizing of its own relief planes over other nations’ led to an international row that threatened to divert focus from the main crisis as hand. The accompanying video depicts the controversy:

The Wealth of Nations

Additionally the acceptance of aid either through financial aid or direct intervention can also be influenced by the existing wealth of a nation. For example, while Nepal is basically dependent on other countries for assistance, richer nations who are less beholden may refuse aid when it is offered. A prime example is the United States, which politely declined nearly one billion dollars in aid from allies following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While part of this was due to government inefficiency in distributing assistance, most offers were simply declined out of hand.

The U.S. declined most of the aid because, while it was adept at distributing aid to other countries, it was less skilled at dispensing aid within its own.  Thus rather than accept more aid that would often spoil or remain unclaimed, it instead declined many offers.  While this stagnation is criticized in other countries as a result of underdeveloped agencies, in the U.S. it was accepted because the U.S. is perceived as being a more capable nation due to its relative wealth.

Conclusion

Although countries such as Nepal and Haiti may serve as examples of how not to handle a disaster, there is no telling how any nation will respond once it actually experiences one. The prime example here is the United States. Even with its large bureaucracy dedicated to disaster relief and readiness, with an equally large budget, the U.S. has repeatedly been accused of being unprepared.

There are numerous examples of these failings, perhaps the two most glaring in recent memory are Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Katrina essentially wiped out one of the most historic cities in the US, New Orleans, while also killing over a 1000 people and causing over $135 billion dollars in damage. Hurricane Sandy saw a lower fatality count, approximately 100 dead, but saw major parts of eastern states such as New York and New Jersey effected to the point of $50 billion dollars in damages.

Disasters, whether they are man made or natural, can strike anywhere, anytime. While some nations, either through financial means or previous experience are more prepared than others, ultimately no nation is ever ready for something as deadly as Nepal’s earthquake or a massive hurricane. This is a global issue, and one that has no easy answer.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: The Four Phases of Emergency Management

World Bank: Nepal

Ottawa County Sheriffs’ Office: Four Phases of Emergency Management

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook Nepal

Additional

Time: These are the Five Facts That Explain Nepal’s Devastating Earthquake

Brookings: Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Management Keeping a Proper Balance

MNMK: Disaster Management – A Theoretical Approach

VOA: Nepal Officials Slammed Over Aid Response

Fierce Homeland Security: 2015 Budget Request

Harvard Business School: The Political Economy of Natural Disasters

CNN Money: Nepal Earthquake Donations, Who’s Sending What

Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research: The Phases of Emergency Management

Guardian: US Accused of Annexing Airport as Squabbling Hinders Aid Effort in Haiti

Washington Post: Most Katrina Aid from Overseas went Unclaimed

The Data Center: Fact for Features Katrina Impact

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post How Do Nations Respond When Disaster Strikes? appeared first on Law Street.

This week marks the one hundredth anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which took place in the Ottoman Empire beginning in April 1915. A lot has changed in 100 years–the Ottoman Empire obviously no longer exists, having been replaced by modern-day Turkey. The Armenians also now have a country of their own, bordering Turkey to the East. Yet the atrocities committed against the Armenians have remained a contentious point of debate, as Turkey refuses to recognize the genocide or even mention that it happened. Turkey has also pressured its allies to ignore the events, as well. Read on to learn about the Armenian genocide, Turkey’s position on the events, and the recognition, or lack thereof, by other countries.

History of the Armenian Genocide

Defining Genocide 

In the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Articles II and III, genocide is defined as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” However, there’s been significant debate over whether or not what happened to the Armenians constitutes a genocide. On the global stage, opinions vary widely. For example, Pope Francis recently declared it the century’s first genocide, while Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations has stopped short of doing the same. For the purposes of this article, it will be referred to as the Armenian genocide, although with recognition that such a classification is disputed.

The Armenians

The Armenians lived in the region of modern-day Turkey for thousands of years. While they briefly had their own kingdom, they were usually a part of a larger empire, including the Ottoman Empire from the 1500s until its collapse following WWI. The Armenians were treated as second-class citizens in the empire due to their Christian religious beliefs, as the Ottomans were Muslim.

While the Armenian genocide was the worst and most well-publicized massacre of the Armenian people, it was not the only one. Over the course of the late 1800s, there had been another massacre at the hands of the Ottoman Turks as well. In that case, hundreds of thousands of people had been killed, a large number given the small overall population. There were also other intermittent acts of butchery levied against the Armenian population by the Turks throughout the years.

April 1915

The Armenian genocide began in April 1915, during WWI. It lasted into the 1920s and overall as many as 1.5 million Armenians were forcibly deported or killed. Along with the gruesome murders, children were also kidnapped from their families and sent to live with Ottoman parents and women were raped and forced to become part of harems for Ottoman rulers.

These attacks were prompted by a few different facets of the Ottoman-Armenian relationship. Since the late 1800s Armenians had protested Ottoman rule, demanding more rights and greater autonomy. During WWI it was widely believed that the Armenians would support the Russians in hopes of achieving independence. This concern was validated, as Armenians organized volunteer battalions to fight alongside the Russians against the Ottomans.

These atrocities against the Armenians were carried out by the ruling power of the Ottoman Empire at the time, the Young Turks. The Young Turks had come to power themselves through a coup of the old emperor of what was then the Ottoman Empire. The video below gives greater details of the massacre.

Reflecting on History

A mass killing of Armenians happened; there’s almost no disagreement about that. But even today, it is still illegal to say that in Turkey. In fact, if someone is caught talking about the event or writing about it, they risk being arrested. But why have so many other nations been so slow today to acknowledge the events that happened almost a century ago?

Turkey

The Turks have many ways to explain the mass deaths of the Armenian population during WWI, mostly attributing it to the grim realities of war. Why has Turkey persisted so long in presenting that description of events? The answer appears to be two-fold.

First, Turkey has denied the genocide so long now that it has almost become part of the national consciousness. In fact, the idea of an Armenian genocide almost seems bewildering to the Turkish people. In a recent statement with regard to an EU parliamentary vote on whether or not to recognize the actions of the Ottoman Empire as genocide, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan weighed in. Erdogan seemed perplexed at the EU even raising the issue. According to him,

I don’t know right now what sort of decision they will make … but I barely understand why we, as the nation, as well as print and visual media, stand in defense. I personally don’t bother about a defense because we don’t carry a stain or a shadow like genocide.

Turkey also faces potential costs in admitting guilt. Experts suggest that if Turkey were to admit to committing genocide, it may have to compensate victims or their families. This was the case in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which was recognized. With these factors in place it becomes clearer why Turkey would be hesitant to admit guilt, especially when the admission would gain the Turks nothing, except perhaps some good will in the international community. The accompanying video reiterates why Turkey is refusing to acknowledge the genocide.

Denying the genocide has also been a political strategy for some in Turkey. President Erdogan is a huge road block for acknowledging the genocide. He has made comments denying the genocide that have helped him to gain popularity. Given that he has faced increased criticism for his governing style and changes he has attempted to make to Turkey’s government to keep himself in power, any political points he can score probably look pretty appealing.

Within Turkey, some groups have recognized the genocide. Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of the country’s population, have recognized the events to a large extent. While Kurds commemorated the anniversary and use the word genocide in describing the events, they have been accused of falling somewhat short. Namely, despite Kurdish units carrying out some of the Armenian murders, Kurdish citizens, like the Turks, are hesitant to accept any responsibility. In this case, they feel justified in their denial because it was not their nation conducting the massacres, but rather the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless many Kurds feel a responsibility to reconcile with the Armenians because they are also an oppressed people.

The U.S. and Other Allies

While Turkey’s motives seem relatively clear in denying the Armenian genocide, the motives of its allies are less so. Already many countries recognize the genocide including Canada, France, Germany, and Russia.  Other countries such as the U.K. and Israel do not.

The United States also hasn’t, as a whole, recognized the genocide. While 40 states, the House of Representatives, and several presidents have confirmed Turkish actions against the Armenians to be genocide, the nation has not. The reason for American refusal, like that of Turkey itself, mostly lies in self-interest.

When other countries, such as France and Austria, have recognized the genocide, Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador or ended military alliances with them. While France and Austria can get by fine without Turkish military assistance, it is a little more difficult for the U.S., which uses Turkey as a critical strategic point for interactions with nations in the Middle East.

Additionally, there has been a significant lobby on Turkey’s behalf within the U.S. government to not recognize the genocide. By preventing the U.S. from recognizing Turkey’s culpability it reduces the pressure the country is under internationally. The video below shows then-Senator Barack Obama addressing the Armenian genocide seven years ago, an issue he promised to address but still has not.

Conclusion

The man who came up with the word genocide, Raphael Lampkin, penned the term to describe the Nazis’ atrocities against the Jews.However, he had also been influenced by the Turkish actions against the Armenians during WWI and the Armenians’ subsequent efforts to track down and murder the leaders responsible. To him there was no difference between the two scenarios–in each case an entire people and way of life were targeted for extermination; however, Turkey and its allies, including the United States, have consistently failed to see the similarities. As long as the current barriers to recognition remain in place, that will probably continue to be the norm.

Resources

The New York Times: Armenian Genocide of 1915

Prevent Genocide International: The Crime of Genocide Defined in International Law

Times of Israel: UN Chief Won’t Call 1915 Slaughter of Armenians “Genocide“

Guardian: Turkey Cannot Accept Armenian Genocide Label, says Erdogan

CNN: ISIS-Kurdish Fight Stirs Trouble in Turkey

Ynet News: Erdogan Turkey’s King of Controversy

Al Monitor: Kurds Pay Respect to Armenians

History: Armenian Genocide

Los Angeles Times: Why Armenia Genocide Recognition Remains a Tough Sell

Blaze: The 1915 Armenian Genocide-Why it is Still Being Denied by Turkey (and the US?)

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

When we envision space, we tend to imagine an intense beauty unknown to this world. We certainly don’t imagine a junk yard. But what is space actually like? Well, unfortunately it seems to be moving a bit more in the junk yard direction. Last year, Alfonso Cuarόn’s Oscar-winning film “Gravity” brought attention to the issue. Although the movie was dramatized and at times inaccurate according to NASA standards, the problem of orbital debris–space trash–is very real.

There are millions of objects of varying sizes orbiting the Earth at any given moment, and even though these objects are visually hidden to us and thousands of miles away, orbital debris affects everyone. Satellites control aspects of our everyday life like On-Demand features, cellphones, Google Earth, weather reports, and navigation systems. More importantly, satellites facilitate military communication and intelligence. In response to the problem, a second generation Space Fence run by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) should be up and running by 2019. Read on to learn everything you need to know about orbital debris and the Space Fence.

What is Orbital Debris?

Orbital Debris, or space trash, consists of man-made objects currently orbiting the Earth that do not serve a useful purpose. Debris is created every time a spacecraft separates from its launch vehicle. It is also created from dead satellites, explosions, collisions, chipped paint from spacecrafts, and small particle impacts. Since humans started placing objects in orbit over the last 50 years, the amount of debris has only increased.

Orbital debris is placed into three categories based on size. Larger objects, above ten cm, account for some 21,000 pieces of orbital debris. Medium particles, between one and ten cm, account for approximately 500,000 objects. Smaller pieces, less than one cm, account for over 100 million objects. These pieces move extremely fast, reaching speeds of up to five miles per second or 18,000 miles per hour. A collision at this rate is devastating. NASA equates being hit by an orbital object less than half an inch around and moving at six miles per second to being hit by a bowling ball moving at 300 miles per hour.

Space Safety

All of this debris is ultimately dangerous for astronauts and the International Space Station. Spacesuits are designed to protect against micrometeoroids, which are pieces of orbital debris the size of grains of sand. They use materials like those used for bulletproof vests. The International Space Station is the “most heavily shielded spacecraft ever,” able to withstand impacts from smaller debris. The station can also alter course to avoid larger objects coming toward it. Space shuttles generally return to Earth with cracks and evidence of impacts on their windows. For this reason, windows are protected three fold and replaced every mission.

Orbital Duration

Most other orbital debris disintegrates reentering Earth. In the rare occurrences that objects do make it back, they generally fall into bodies of water or unpopulated land areas like the Canadian tundra or Australian Outback. Over the past 50 years, approximately one catalogued piece of orbital debris has landed on Earth each day and there have been no reported human injuries. The higher the altitude, the longer an object will stay in orbit. Debris in a lower orbit will remain for only several years. On the opposite side of the spectrum, debris above 1,000 km from Earth can remain in orbit for over a century.

What is the Space Fence?

The Space Fence aims to tackle the problem of orbital debris. The project is led by the U.S. Air Force Materiel Command’s Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. It is a system designed to track debris in the Space Surveillance Network in order to initiate a warning system. The idea is very similar to that of hurricane or tornado tracking systems. The term “fence” comes from the “narrow, continent-wide planar energy field in space” created from the transmitters and receivers used in the project. High frequency radar acts like a “flashlight beam in a dark room that illuminates the bits of dust swirling around.”

The first Space Fence was decommissioned in 2013. It initially tracked 5,396 objects in 1980 and was tracking 15,639 objects by 2010. There were a total of nine transmitters and receivers located at three transmitter sites: Jordan Lake, Alabama; Lake Kickapoo, Texas; and Gila River, Arizona. The six receivers were located at Tattnall, Georgia; Hawkinsville, Georgia; Silver Lake, Mississippi; Red River, Arkansas; Elephant Butte, New Mexico; and San Diego, California.

The new Space Fence’s higher frequency system, operating in the S-band frequency range, will allow the detection of much smaller satellites and orbital debris. Its “modern, net-centric architecture” will also allow more effective tracking in Earth’s lower and medium orbit. Over its lifetime, the new Space Fence is expected to be valued at $6.1 billion. The system will include “geographically dispersed ground-based radars to provide timely assessment of space objects, events, and debris.” There will be one large S-band radar placed in Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, with an option for a second based on funding. The projects also rely on international cooperation as part of global Space Situational Awareness efforts.

Who is building the Space Fence?

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, located in Moorestown, New Jersey, won the initial $914.7 million contract to build the second generation Space Fence in June 2014. Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company dedicated to researching and developing advanced technology systems, products, and services.

 Why are we building a new Space Fence now?

There are a few things we need to keep an eye on. The first major source of large orbital debris came from China’s intentional and sloppy destruction of its Fengyun-IC weather satellite in January 2007. The satellite was destroyed by an anti-satellite device that caused hundreds of pieces of varying sizes of orbital debris.

The second major event was the 2009 collision of the active American satellite Iridium and the defunct Russian satellite Cosmos. The American satellite weighed about 1,200 tons, making it the first large collision in space. The impact resulted in over 2,000 pieces of metal orbital debris. The video below shows a model of the collision and the debris it created.

Aside from these major events, researchers also fear the Kessler Syndrome. It is a theory, developed in 1978 by Donald Kessler, that describes a “self-sustaining cascading collision of orbital debris.” Essentially, the Kessler Syndrome is a domino effect. Two objects collide to cause pieces of debris that ultimately collide with one another to form more debris, and so on. The theory isn’t so far-fetched. In 2012, the United States issued over 10,000 close-call warnings that resulted in 75 avoidance maneuvers by satellite owners.

U.S. Policy on Orbital Debris

The U.S. first took an official stance to minimize orbital debris in 1988. A more recent June 2010 National Space Policy specifically addresses the issue of a clean space environment and orbital debris. NASA created an Orbital Debris Program Office at the Johnson Space Center in Texas. Its mission is to find ways for ventures to create less orbital debris and clean existing debris. Other U.S. agencies, like the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also need to follow specific guidelines for their spacecrafts. U.S. Orbital Mitigation Standard Practices were approved in 2001.

Guidelines are also followed by Russia, China, Japan, France, and the European Space Agency. Although there isn’t an international treaty surrounding orbital debris, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee was created among the leading international space agencies. Orbital debris is also a priority for the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Legal Issues

There are some legal issues inherent to cleaning up all the space debris. Each piece of large debris, like a defunct satellite, is technically owned by a country. For example, the U.S. doesn’t have authority to destroy a Chinese or Russian satellite. As Professor Johnson-Freese from the Naval War College said, “there are no salvage laws in space.” Under the current laws, one has to seek out permission from a satellite owner to go anywhere near it. This can make cleaning up space pretty tricky.

Conclusion

Orbital debris affects us down on Earth. We depend on a clear and safe space for many of the luxuries we take for granted. The Space Fence is one tool in the mission to create a clean space environment, but it is not enough. The Space Fence is only a tracking system; a plan needs to be enacted to deal with the orbital debris already in space. Moreover, guidelines for minimizing debris creation don’t remedy the harm that’s already been done. Some have proposed an international user fee for every launch to go into a global fund for space clean up. That idea has its own problems to sort through, like fair division, but it’s a start. We need to start taking the issue of the space environment seriously before the next major collision.

Resources

Primary

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office : Orbital Debris

NASA: What is Orbital Debris?

Additional

Defense Industry Daily: Don’t Touch Their Junk

Washington Post: Air Force to Award ‘Space Fence’ Contract to Track Orbital Debris

The New York Times: Debris Spews Into Space After Satellites Collide 

Space Answers: How Have Space Technologies Affected Life Back on Earth?

Space News: China’s Anti-Satellite Test

Space Safety Magazine: Kessler Syndrome

Washington Post: Space Trash is a Big Problem

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 Can a Space Fence Really Fix the Problem of Space Trash? appeared first on Law Street.

Since 1949, China and Taiwan have been considered by various parties either part of a single nation or two distinct countries. In this confusing existing dynamic, Washington has often acted as a go between. The United States has mainly balanced the two actors by maintaining its military dominance and deterring Beijing, while simultaneously boosting Taipei’s defense capabilities. Read on to learn about the history between China and Taiwan, the conflict that separates them, the United States’ role, and the current status.

Origin of the Conflict

It all started with two political parties and one civil war.

Chiang Kai-Shek was the leader of the Kuomintang (KMT) party of Chinese Nationalists. In 1927, he led an exploration to the north of China in the hope of dismantling the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The nationalist KMT almost defeated the CCP altogether, but ten years later Japan, desiring more power leading up to World War II, derailed KMT forces and completely disrupted the Chinese civil war. Japan was fighting both the KMT and the CCP, but the KMT took harder hits.

Upon Japan’s loss in WWII, the United States forced Japan to surrender Chinese land back to the KMT, including the island Japan had taken over. It was called Fermosa, and is the land that later became Taiwan.

Even with the support of the U.S. post-World War II, the KMT had suffered too many casualties against Japan. Using grassroots support, rising leader Mao Zedong strengthened communist ideologies, recruited soldiers from the countryside, and formed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Eventually with the rallied forces, the CCP took the KMT capital of Nanjing. Finally KMT leadership fled to Taiwan in 1949 and founded the Republic of China (ROC), or Taiwan.

With the KMT off the mainland, Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China (PRC), naming Beijing the capital. Still led by Chiang Kai Shek, the KMT declared Taipei its capital, but still held its claim to mainland China.

The Taiwan Strait Crises and Major Developments

In 1955 when the first Taiwan Strait Crisis took place, the United States sent troops to the strait because it was against the mainland Chinese communist regime taking over Taiwan.

The U.S respected the ROC because of its similarities with the U.S. political regime. At the time, ROC was represented at the United Nations and had a permanent seat on the Security Council. It was during this time that Congress agreed the U.S should provide Taiwan defense and support if Taiwan-China relations ever erupted violently.

But tensions remained high between Taiwain and mainland China. The two groups even came to an arrangement in which they would bomb each other’s garrisons on alternate dates. This continued for 20 years until the United States assisted in creating more normalized relations.

In 1971, the PRC procured the “China” seat at the United Nations through rallied power, replacing Taiwan. The United States declared that it “acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China,” in what is known as the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972. In the communiqué, finding language that both mainland China and the U.S. could accept was crucial to establishing diplomatic relations. The United States agreed that it would henceforth have only “unofficial” relations with Taiwan.

This left the United States with a problem–many believed that the U.S., as the guarantor of peace in Asia, had a moral obligation to provide some protection to Taiwan. To remedy this, Congress in March 1979 passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA declared that it is U.S. policy “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.” The TRA also mandated that the United States would sell Taiwan defense items “in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”

In a subsequent 1982 communiqué, the United States said it intended “gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan.” The Reagan Administration conveyed to Taiwan “The Six Assurances.” The six assurances were that the United States,

1. Had not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan;
2. Had not agreed to consult with Beijing prior to making arms sales to Taiwan;
3. Would not play a mediation role between Taipei and Beijing;
4. Had not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act;
5. Had not altered its position regarding sovereignty of Taiwan; and,
6. Would not exert pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with the PRC.

Washington continues to sell arms to Taiwan over strenuous Chinese objections, and both Washington and Beijing continue to plan for the possibility that they could one day find themselves involved in a military confrontation over Taiwan’s fate.

Current Status of the Conflict

China has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan if the island declares independence, encouraging Taiwan to keep improving its forces and conducting regular military drills. To simulate a Chinese air attack, Taiwan’s navy launched its premier surface-to-air missile from the deck of a warship very recently, its first test of the weapon in six years, destroying a drone.

Another point of contention comes from the fact that Taiwan wants a larger role in international organizations exclusively held for nations. Since Taiwan is not its own nation, compromises have sometimes been made to include Taiwanese leaders. Taiwan wants a bigger U.N. role–it lost its seat when the body recognized China in 1971. China was opposed to the U.S. idea that Taiwan be invited to the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly as an observer; and suggested that Taiwan participate as a guest. That was a great example of a compromise, and a move toward peace.

Currently, China is setting up an organization with a similar format to the World Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Taiwan requested membership, but the Chinese government will only allow membership under a different name–Chinese Taipei. This is another perfect example of the redundancy and tedious diplomatic ties between China and Taiwan.

Society and Culture in Taiwan 

One of the major changes affecting the balance between China and Taiwan has been the empowerment of the Taiwanese identity. Previously, Taiwanese people considered themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese, but people are starting to exclusively claim Taiwanese as their ethnicity. This is a problem for China, because that means fewer people are in support of Taiwan’s relationship with the mainland. Although many policymakers propose a joint or unified government between mainland China and Taiwan, this is threatened by the development of the Taiwanese identity.

Prospects for Future

America’s sale of arms to Taiwan often triggers a cyclical reaction: Washington and Beijing consistently fight back and forth over these sales before business returns to normal. This approach has worked reasonably well for more than 30 years, despite the occasional flare up in the strait, and has created an expectation that it will continue to be followed. However, there are some concerns about the sustainability of this relationship. China is steadily building up its military, and soon the U.S. may have a harder time matching the sophistication of weapons it sells to Taiwan. China’s ability to retaliate against the United States for arms sales to Taiwan is increasing. So, things may change soon, but for now the status quo appears to be holding relatively strong.

Conclusion

Ultimately the United States’ main interest in the Chinese-Taiwanese relationship appears to be peacekeeping, not peacemaking. In the present dynamic, Washington is a stabilizer, emboldening cross-strait interchange, warning both sides that it will counter any unilateral actions that may risk peace, and deterring Beijing by providing its military predominance, while supporting Taiwan’s security forces. In this complicated three-party relationship, none of that seems likely to change anytime soon.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei

Congressional Research Service: Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues For Congress

Congressional Research Service: U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues

Additional

Carnegie Endowment For Peace: China, Taiwan, U.S.: Status Quo Challenged

George Washington University: Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability

Council on Foreign Relations: If Taiwan Declares Independence and China Reacts With Force, on Whom Should the U.S. Lean Harder, China or Taiwan?

BBC News: Taiwan Rejected From China-Led Asia Bank ‘Due to Name’

Brookings Institution: Thoughts on the Taiwan Relations Act 

CSIS: Taiwan’s Quest for Greater Participation in the International Community

Jasmine Shelton

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

The post China and Taiwan: A Balancing Act For the United States appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

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

History of the Current System

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

Bretton Woods Agreement

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

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

The IMF

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

World Bank

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

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

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

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

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

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

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

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

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

With Friends Like These

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

Progress on the AIIB

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

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

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

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

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

While traveling in Egypt recently I met a man in Luxor who was eager to share his opinion on the state of Egyptian politics. “Mubarak is good, when Mubarak here I am never poor. They get rid of Mubarak. Then, I go sign my name for Morsi, they get rid of Morsi. I don’t sign for Sisi. I’m done signing for this country.” Is this man wrong to feel unenthusiastic, or even cynical about the stability of his newly democratic country?

It’s true that, at the very least, Egypt’s future is very much up in the air. The nation recently had essentially two different revolutions, complete with protests, military involvement, and government overthrows. The first revolution was in 2011 during the Arab Spring; the second in 2013. Given all of that turmoil, there are many questions as to how President Fattah al-Sisi will proceed. Read on to learn about the path that Egypt has taken in recent years, and some of the most pressing questions facing the nation today.

Revolution History

First, some background. After Mohamed Bouaziz, a Tunisian fruit vendor, lit himself on fire in protest in January 15, 2011, a movement spread through North Africa to overthrow leaders whom the public found to be corrupt or unjust. Egypt was one of the first nations to act.

The Egyptian President at the time was Hosni Mubarak, who reigned from 1981-2011. Due to cronyism, bribery, and a lack of opposition representation in parliament, many Egyptians were unemployed and unhappy with the dictator. Additionally, his British-educated son Gamal was being groomed to inherit the throne.

On January 25, 2011 the Egyptian people took to the streets. After 18 days of protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Mubarak submitted to the military’s ruling body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. The constitution was suspended and parliament disbanded. Egypt’s Islamist groups wanted to see elections first, while Liberals and secularists preferred to write a constitution first. The Islamists won, and elections were held.

By November 2011, Egypt began to vote in parliamentary elections, a six-week process in which the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the main forces behind the Arab Spring movement in Egypt, won the majority of seats. Ultraconservative Salafis took another quarter, rendering Islamist religious groups in control of more than 90 percent of the seats. By June 2012, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi became the first Islamist and civilian leader elected as head of state. He chose General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, former head of military intelligence, as his defense minister.

By December 2012, Morsi issued a decree allowing him to take any and all actions that he deemed necessary to protect the country. The Egyptian people interpreted this move as authoritarian, hearkening back to the Mubarak military regime. The new government’s conformity with Sharia law was also a large concern.

On January 25, 2013–exactly two years after the first protests to overthrow Mubarak–the people flooded to the streets to protest Morsi and his rule. Morsi claimed the minority should submit to the majority in a democratic fashion. Acting on behalf of the Egyptian people, al-Sisi appeared on state television, ordering Morsi to come up with a political solution within 48 hours. Morsi argued that he was legitimately elected, and could not be threatened by political opposition.

By July 2013 however, Morsi was removed as President by military coup. Islamist and Morsi supporters rallied and did not go out without a fight. By September more than 1,000 Morsi supporters were killed during protests. In March 2014, 528 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were sentenced to death in a mass trial for murder and attacks on property and people.

After al-Sisi’s appearance on television he was nominated as a Presidential candidate. Eventually al-Sisi won the pro forma presidential election with nearly 97 percent of the vote in May 2014, but with only 47 percent turnout.

Al-Sisi’s To Do List

Al-Sisi has now been in power for just under a year. While he’s made some progress with economic reforms, expanding the Suez Canal, and addressing concerns over the prevalence of sexual assault in the country, there are still issues that he will need to address moving forward.

The Shaky State of the Egyptian Constitution 

Cementing the Egyptian constitution has become increasingly important because it will define the new power balance between parliament and the executive office. While the constitution set up a system that includes both a president and prime minister, there are still many questions that need to be answered.

According to Human Rights Watch, “under Egypt’s 2014 constitution, all legislation enacted in the absence of a parliament should be reviewed by the new parliament when it takes office, but the constitution allows the members of the new parliament only 15 days for this review. That has raised concerns about the efficacy of the checks and balances in the system.”

Overall, aspects of the Egyptian constitution are up in the air as it is currently facing many changes. There are proposed amendments to Articles 277 and 289 of the criminal procedure code, which are primarily concerned with ensuring “access to prompt justice without prejudice to the rights of the litigants.” The changes would put “all matters concerned with calling or hearing witnesses” into “the hand of the court.” The amendments were drafted by the Supreme Committee for Legislative Reform (SCLR), a group of appointed officials created by al-Sisi. This vague language allows the Court all authority in calling witnesses; actions similar to the exploits of both Mubarak and Morsi, which proved detrimental to them both. While it’s possible the motivation behind the amendment is in the interest of speediness, critics claim it’s hard to see this in the true interest of justice.

Security Concerns

Under al-Sisi’s control Egypt has embraced a doctrine of active defense, changing its military posture. During the Mubarak years, Egypt generally responded to regional threats by working on its deterrence skills; however, since the coup against Morsi in 2013, Cairo has been more aggressive and ready in its approach to security and appears more willing to project force abroad, as seen in its recent involvement in Yemen.

In addition, the government recently passed a law that broadens the state’s definition of terrorism to include “anyone who threatens public order by any means,” and allows for security forces to accuse potential terrorists without a trial. Civilians are dying while in custody, and there are reports of brutalizing student protesters, and increasingly censoring journalists working in the country–by and large human rights groups are alarmed. On the other hand, many Egyptians would argue that the country did just experience two revolutions in three years, therefore increased security is necessary. Still, concerns remain that too much power is left in the hands of the military.

Additionally, even in Cairo there is increased military and police presence. There are consistent checkpoints with the intention of eliminating violent protests and uprisings. Whether those will remain or end up as a symbol of authoritarianism is another issue that needs to be addressed by al-Sisi.

Relationship With Israel

U.S. ally Israel should certainly enjoy the improved relationship with its southern neighbor. Under al-Sisi’s rule, thousands of tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza have been destroyed. Egypt also closed the formal border at Rafah. Without these two means of transportation, Gaza has no way of importing supplies, including goods and weapons. To al-Sisi, not only is Hamas a terrorist group, but also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Egypt sees the weakening of Hamas as a squeeze on Brotherhood support.The Palestinians are finding little sympathy from their Muslim neighbor. Destroying these tunnels may have been an attack on Hamas, but the tunnels were also used to bring food to the Palestinian people residing in the Gaza territory. It’s easier to identify the reasoning for disposing the tunnels; anyone can smuggle anything. However, why the legitimate cross point Rafah, was shut down isn’t as apparent. Some accuse Egypt of being indifferent to the suffering of the Gazan people. Regardless, the Egyptian actions certainly benefit Israel in its security operations.

Urban Development

Egypt has an overabundance of unfinished buildings. The rebar, or reinforcing steel, and pillars strike upward from the top of the residences with large piles of bricks sprinkled through neighborhoods. With cities so densely populated it would be logical to see some, but the tenements are so frequent it’s concerning. This isn’t a new problem, but it does raise the question for al-Sisi and governments moving forward as the country develops economically: how long can millions of unfinished buildings be tolerated in a developed nation? These policies are bound to change.

Return to Tourism

The revolutions left many Westerners scared to visit the country and as a result the tourism industry is dwindling. Investors recognize the fall, but they also recognize the potential for investment. Private companies are getting involved, such as Cairo Financial Holding, which is backing a $1 billion plan to revive Egypt’s tourism sector.

After the fall of Russian currency, the slowdown in the Euro zone, and continued attacks in the Sinai peninsula, hotels, restaurants, and tour operators in the region are struggling. In order to attract tourists, hotels have been forced to offer all-inclusive deals, which often include flights as well. A recent poll of hotels revealed that less than five percent of the hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh were holding out and not offering all-inclusive packages. At the current rate, hotels are netting an unsustainably low amount.

There are some other changes in the works. A project was announced at the international economic development conference held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The plan is to shift the capital from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh; meaning all new administrative, government, diplomatic, technology, and innovative parks would be built there as a part of a greater goal to alleviate the congestion and overpopulation in Cairo. These plans aim to bring in more business, tourism, and wealth.

According to Minister of Tourism Khaled Ramy, the tourism ministry’s objective is to reach pre-crisis tourism revenue of $11.6 billion by 2016 and $15 billion by 2018. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates pledged to offer $12 billion as investment aid to the country.

Conclusion

After the massive upheavals to every aspect of Egyptian life–including politics, the economy, and civil society–Egypt is obviously a changed place. Whether that’s for better or worse will have to be seen, but it is indubitable that al-Sisi still has an upward climb in front of him. From crumbling infrastructure to an unclear political system, there are many things that are still up in the air for this once-thriving country.

Resources

Guardian: Egypt Siding With Israel Cost Gaza Dearly

Foreign Policy: Mubarak’s Nine Biggest Mistakes

Time: Al-Sisi Wins Egypt’s Presidency But is Stumbling Already

BBC: Egypt Court Sentences 528 Morsi Supporters to Death

Human Rights Watch: Egypt Law Changes Would Threaten Fair Trials

Foreign Policy Association: Does the Egyptian Military Regime Work For the US and its Allies?

The New York Times: Egypt Says it May Send Troops to Yemen to Fight Houthis

Washington Institute: A New Era For Egypt’s Military

Telegraph UK: Egypt Implements New Real Estate Tax

Travel Weekly: Tourism in Egypt Boosted by $1bn Private Equity Fund

Al-Jazeera: Egypt Plans New Capital Adjacent to Cairo

Jasmine Shelton

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

The post Fattah al-Sisi: Challenges for Egypt’s New Leader appeared first on Law Street.

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

Read more: Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity  work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

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

Lone Wolves

Along with calling for would-be jihadis to come join the cause in Iraq and Syria or to provide donations, ISIS has also employed another tactic. It’s used social media campaigns recorded in French and subtitled in English to encourage radical action in Western countries. Instead of encouraging dissatisfied men and woman in these areas to come join the war in the Middle East, it calls for them to make war against their own governments at home. In this regard there also seems to be some examples of success on ISIS’ part. The most notorious so far is the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the killing of hostages a few days later in a kosher deli. These, along with subsequent attacks on police officers patrolling the city, have been attributed to ISIS-inspired terrorists, although exact motives remain uncertain. The video below depicts ISIS’ efforts to arouse lone wolves in the West.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing  back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

In 2008, the film “Taken” shocked America and launched a blockbuster trilogy success. The movie wasn’t just gratuitous action scenes, however–it offered a lens into the world of human trafficking. It included a common stereotype that human trafficking doesn’t occur in the United States, and that it’s the rest of the world’s problem. This is not true–trafficking does happen here in the U.S. and it’s a big issue. Here’s a breakdown of everything you should know about human trafficking in the U.S.

What is human trafficking?

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, “victims of human trafficking are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of commercial sex or forced labor.” It exists in rural, suburban, and urban locations. Human trafficking is sometimes known as modern day slavery. It usually occurs in the U.S. when people from other nations are brought in illegally to serve as free labor.

Read more about ending modern day slavery.

Human trafficking commonly brings to mind confinement, blindfolds, and drugs. Sometimes that can happen, but human traffickers also practice more subtle approaches. They influence their victims with various means, including:

• Debt Bondage: Captors will claim their victims owe a debt. The debt is paid in exchange for forced sex or labor.
• Public Isolation: Keeping victims from family, friends, work associates, and religious groups can cause victims to feel helpless and weaken their resolve to fight back.
• Confiscations of identification/traveling documents (Passports, visas, identification cards, etc.): Foreigners smuggled into the country need proper documentation to leave the country. The applications for documentation can be tedious and cause embarrassment, especially if they don’t have the identification required.
• Shaming: Human traffickers will threaten exposure to victims’ families, particularly if the victim has been forced to engage in sex work.
• Threat of Deportation/Imprisonment: Victims are threatened to be exposed to immigration authorities for violating immigration laws.
• Financial Control: Traffickers will withhold their victims’ money for “safekeeping,” making it impossible for the victims to set out on their own.

Each of these strategies is designed to make victims feel helpless and alone.  A demoralized victim is a weaker victim. Empowered victims are more likely to run away, alert authorities, and/or take a stand.

What happens to the victims of human trafficking?

There are long-term damages to victims of human trafficking. Tragically, a large percentage of these victims are children. Physically, victims of human trafficking can suffer from disease, stunted growth, and malnutrition. Psychologically, many victims will bypass key social, moral, and/or spiritual development. They can feel ostracized from the outside world. They are also at higher risk to fall victim to similar crimes again.

Statistics

It is important to note that due to the invisibility and nature of these crimes, statistics vary widely. While the following statistics are based on estimates, they’re still very disturbing.

Globally

There are quite a few estimations, but there are approximately 27 million slaves around the world, although only six percent are considered “identified.” There 800,000 people  trafficked across international borders every year, and one million children fall to the commercial sex trade. Of all the world’s trafficking victims, 80 percent are women and children. There are currently 161 countries affected by human trafficking, which is a $32 billion industry.

United States

In the United States, the average entry to prostitution is 12-14 years old. Previously sexualized victims and runaways are high-risk victims. Domestically, between 14,500 and 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States annually. California has the highest volume of sex trafficking areas. The top 20 highest volume cities include Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, Miami, Las Vegas, New York, Long Island, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, and Tampa.

Case Study: Inside the FBI Weekly Podcast

A 2009 podcast, “Inside the FBI,” details the account of a prominent U.S. human trafficking case. In it, Neal Schiff interviews FBI Special Agent Tricia Whitehill. She was involved in a case where multiple members of the Vasquez-Valenzuela family were indicted for “conspiracy, sex trafficking, and various immigration offenses.”

The investigation all started in 2006 when the family’s taxi driver called in a tip to CAST, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. He remained a source throughout the investigation. The family had brought in girls in their teens and early twenties from Guatemala to the U.S. The family targeted poor and uneducated girls, some of whom did not even know their own birthdays. The Vasquez-Valenzuela family lured the girls back to the U.S. by promising them jobs in the jewelry and restaurant industries.

Once the girls were successfully smuggled, they were told they owed a debt that had to be paid in prostitution. If the girls didn’t initially comply, they were threatened with violence, witchcraft, and the death of their families. After the arrests of eight out of the nine offenders, one family member was left unaccounted for and went on the run. She was finally weeded out of hiding through the help of publicity and the general public. Public awareness can make all the difference. The leader of the family received the toughest sentence of 40 years in prison.

While this was a case in which the traffickers were successfully apprehended, in many more instances that’s not the case, even in the U.S.

What legislation does the U.S. use to fight trafficking?

Side by side with public awareness, strong legislation is key to the battle against human trafficking. Here are some of the most important laws addressing human trafficking here at home.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

Long overdue in 2000, this act officially made human trafficking a federal offense. A federal crime is prosecuted under federal criminal law. It also includes provisions for the victims, including federal and state assistance, asylum in the U.S., and shelter and counseling.

Intelligence Reform and Prevention Act of 2004

This law established a Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to “serve as a focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist travel.” It promotes cooperation between state, federal, and intelligence agencies in this effort. It also requires an annual assessment delivered to Congress “regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and traffickers, and their facilitators.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Of 2000

A large percentage of human trafficking occurs in the labor industry, for example in restaurants. This legislation creates investigations into properties suspected of human trafficking and alerts property owners. This prevents the ability of owners to claim ignorance of criminal activity on their property.

Activism to Fight Trafficking

In order to end human trafficking, legislation won’t be enough. Here are some of the steps that others have taken to attempt to combat human trafficking.

Polaris, CAST, and CCO

In September 2014 in a valiant effort to raise awareness against human trafficking in the greater Los Angeles area, Polaris, a non-profit organization fighting against human slavery, CAST, and Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) announced their collaboration. CCO donated 25 digital billboards, 20 conventional billboards, and 20 transit shelter posters. The campaign ran in Spanish and English.

The campaign focused on two aspects. First, it promoted the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, a 24-hour, multi-lingual hotline designed for victims and members of the community. The campaign also encouraged victims to come out of the shadows and seek the help they deserve. The campaign tried to induce a sense of community for victims feeling alone.

The promotion also brought on board regionally elected officials and spokesmen like former NFL player and actor Terry Crews. He championed the cause saying:

Modern slavery is the husband coerced through violence to harvest crops, it’s the mother forced to work excessive hours as a domestic servant with little pay, and it’s the daughter sold online for sex against her will. Modern slavery is the 20.9 million people worldwide estimated to be victims of sex and labor trafficking, and we must do what’s in our power to restore their freedom. The more we raise awareness about the help available for victims of human trafficking in America, the more we can empower them to become survivors.

The more people who receive this message, the stronger the fight. The campaign hopes to target more cities across the U.S. in the future.

Presidential Involvement

In a step to bring further awareness to the general public, President Obama designated January to be National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a press release, he wrote:

Even today, the darkness and inhumanity of enslavement exists. Millions of people worldwide are held in compelled service, as well as thousands within the United States. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we acknowledge that forms of slavery still exist in the modern era, and we recommit ourselves to stopping the human traffickers who ply this horrific trade.

In September 2012, continuing his commitment, President Obama spoke to the Clinton Initiative in New York. Partnered with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the President laid out a three-part plan to combat human trafficking. First, to “spot it and stop it.” That part of the plan calls for extensive reports to further government understanding, more effective training for all interagency task force members involved, collaboration with transportation services, and aid educators to spot potential trafficked victims among their students. Second, the plan hopes to use the internet as a weapon against human trafficking. The internet has been a great tool for the human-trafficking industry and the President wants to “turn the tables.” The plan aims to recruit tech companies and college students to the fight. Third, the plan aims for further dedicate resources for recovery. For example, to simplify the application for T-visas, designed to protect victims of human trafficking.

Other Groups Involved in the Fight Against Trafficking

There are many other groups involved in the fight against trafficking that attack different parts of the problem. They include:

• Not for Sale: A non-profit, international organization dedicated to raising awareness for sexual slavery.
• Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition (California): Based in San Diego, the BSCC is comprised of more than 40 government and nongovernment agencies in the U.S. and Mexico to battle human trafficking.
• You Are Never Alone (Maryland): YANA provides a safe haven to women and children involved in prostitution who are seeking a better life.
• New York City Community Response to Trafficking (New York): The CRT is a team of community-based organizations and criminal justice agencies dedicated to responding to and raising awareness of human trafficking.
• Center for Multicultural Human Services (DC): CMHS received a joint federal grant with the Break the Chain Campaign from the Office for Refugee Resettlement to administer pre-certification and post-certification services to victims of trafficking in the Washington D.C. metro area.

Conclusion

With all of these laws in place, and so many activists working to fight it, why is trafficking still happening at such an alarming rate? It is hard to stop an industry so high in demand across the globe, regardless of its vile nature. In recent years, the internet is largely to blame. It allows for anonymity and easy communication internationally between buyer and seller. The deep web, not accessible through standard web searches, is a large black market tool. Another answer is that sex trafficking is almost impossible to obliterate when most of the victims are unidentified. Both rape and sexual slavery victims rarely come forward due to the highly personal sensitivity of the crime. However, we’re taking steps in the right direction with more laws and movements of activism. Hopefully, someday, the travesty that is human trafficking will become a thing of the past.

Resources

Primary

Office of Refugee Resettlement: What is Human Trafficking

Homeland Security: Human Trafficking Laws and Regulations

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Trafficking Report

White House: Presidential Proclamation

Additional 

Case Act: What is Human Trafficking

FBI Podcasts and Radio: International Human Trafficking

Polaris: Polaris, Cast, and Clear Channel Outdoor Law Anti-Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign

Judges’ Journal: President Obama’s Speech on Human Trafficking

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 Human Trafficking: Alive in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

In a country where even the name is a contentious issue, Burma, or Myanmar as it has more recently been known, is home once again to a brewing conflict. There are many competing sides in this struggle, including the much-criticized government, the victimized Muslim population, and Buddhist monks who are advocating a nationalist message. The violence has already led to mass displacement, reprisal attacks and questions about Myanmar and its democratic reforms. A shaky government is gearing up for the 2015 elections, but the outcome of this conflict is anything but certain.  Read on to learn about the history of Myanmar, the current conflict, and the prognosis.

What is Myanmar?

Myanmar, or Burma as it was known prior to 1989, is a country located in Southeast Asia. Its population of approximately 55 million people is comprised primarily of Burmese Buddhists, but there are also sizable minority groups residing there as well. For most of its history, Myanmar was home to independent Burmese kingdoms, until it was conquered and made a British colony from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

In 1937, Myanmar was finally separated from the British colony of India, and in 1948 gained full independence; however, independence did not exactly open the country to opportunity. Instead, for the next 60 or so years it was ruled by one military dictatorship after another. Finally, in 2011, a new quasi-civilian government was elected under the leadership of a man named Thein Sein and long-awaited reforms began. These reforms included releasing long-held political prisoners, agreeing to peace with minority groups, and opening up the press and the rest of society. The video below provides a description of the country’s road from independence to the present.

While the country stills struggles with violence and implementing reforms, its name also remains something of a quagmire. Although it officially changed the name from Burma to Myanmar following a brutal government crackdown in 1989, the world has been slow to accept it. The United States for example, while hopeful of Myanmar’s democratic aspirations, still officially uses the name Burma so as not to appear to sanction human rights violations there; however, during a historic visit in 2012, President Obama did refer to the nation as Myanmar instead of Burma. For the duration of this article, I will use Myanmar so as to avoid confusion.

A History of Conflict

Long before the invasion of colonizing British, Myanmar was home to extensive conflict. Much of the conflict was centered in a region called Rakhine, inhabited by the Rakhine people. The region has been repeatedly invaded by multiple forces. One of those forces is the minority Rohingya Muslim population, who clashed with the Buddhist Rakhine people. Rakhine has also been invaded by the Buddhist Burmese, who they are ethnically different from, mostly for political and historical reasons. Rakhine is a powder keg region that has consistently been a center of conflict in Myanmar.

There have also consistently been tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Buddhists (both Burmese and Rakhine). Some of it may stem from WWII, when Rohingya Muslims remained loyal to the British, while the Buddhists supported Japan in hopes of achieving independence. This was compounded after WWII when the Rohingya attempted to rise up and carve out an area of autonomy for themselves and were initially successful; however, over time they were defeated and have since been politically oppressed.

The Current Conflict

Rohingya Muslims

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group in western Myanmar. The group are victims of an official government policy that has been called ethnic cleansing by some; their people are segregated into isolated camps and villages where basic services are not available. The situation is bad enough that the Rohingya are considered some of the world’s most persecuted people by the United Nations. In a recent national census the group was not even counted among the country’s citizens. In fact, a 1982 law forbids the Rohingya from becoming citizens of the country. The group is discriminated against both because of its religion and also its traditionally darker complexion.

The Rohingya originated from a part of what was once a region called Bengal and is now part of Bangladesh. While the Rakhine are the overall majority in the region, in the areas bordering Bangladesh, the Rohingya are actually the majority. It is still unclear exactly how the group came to the region, with some saying they have existed there for hundreds of years and others claiming they are relative newcomers from just this past century. Either way, the Rohingya are viewed with great hostility in Myanmar. This distinction also excludes them from indigenous status within the country’s constitution.

Rakhine Buddhists

The other group is the Rakhine Buddhist nationalists. Somewhat surprisingly, many of those involved in the conflict are also Buddhist monks. This movement has become known as the 969 movement.

The number 969 is a reference to Buddha and some of his teachings. The figurehead of this movement is Ashin Wirathu, who has risen to fame by delivering fierce speeches that include unsubstantiated claims about Muslims, calls to boycott Muslim businesses, and demands for laws that prevent interfaith marriage.

Nevertheless, while the Rakhine are the majority in the region, they are yet another minority within it. Unlike the Rohingya, who are generally viewed as newcomers, the Rakhine are a much older group there. In fact, they once had their own empire in what is now Bangladesh and Myanmar, before they were invaded by the Burmese. To the Rakhine and much of the rest of the population, the Rohingya therefore are an illegal immigrant group and are treated as such.

The Flashpoint

The current conflict was set off by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by a Muslim man in May 2012. This led to a wave of violence perpetrated primarily against Rohingya by Buddhist nationalists. A second wave of attacks took place that October. These were different from the first in two ways: first they were much more coordinated; second they were directed at Muslims in general and not just the Rohingya.

Following the attacks, the government took two steps. First it created an interfaith commission to provide a report on exactly what had led to the violence. While portions of the report were valuable, other parts that called for Rohingya family planning cast doubt on its goals. Second, as the focus of attacks grew from the Rohingya to Muslims in general, the government made an effort to protect Muslim populations by sending in police; however, far from being useful, police sometimes stood by or even engaged in violence against Muslims along with Buddhist nationalist crowds. The government also sent the army into areas and they have proven more effective because they have less Rakhine Buddhists among their ranks.

This conflict has led to terrible living conditions for the Rohingya, with many being forced to flee into Bangladesh where they are living in refugee camps. It has also led to a mass exodus as Muslim citizens of Myanmar seek safety in other countries. It has further led to several reprisal bombings and attacks on Buddhist holy sites and Myanmar government offices by Muslims who claim to be acting on behalf of the Rohingya. Domestically, it has increased scrutiny on a government seemingly unable to stop the violence. It has also opened the door to leadership for a the popular opposition candidate named Aung San Suu Kyi. The video below explains the conflict in depth.

The Future For Myanmar

Going forward, three groups of people are likely to have the biggest impact, not only on this conflict but on the country as a whole. These are the Myanmar government, politician Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu

Myanmar Government

Aside from the Rakhine debacle, the government has several other things to worry about. According to international watchdog organization Human Rights Watch, the government has been backsliding on many of the promised reforms from 2011, namely granting freedom to the media. On top of this is the increasingly evident control still held by the military, which threatens to make the widely anticipated elections later this year into a farce that do nothing to change the status quo.

Unfortunately for the people of Myanmar the status quo is not that pretty either. The economy is one of the least advanced in the world. It is also plagued by sanctions from places like the U.S. and E.U. These conditions are only exacerbated by fighting and the perception of ethnic cleansing, which prevents new investments and global support.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aside from the government’s inability to maintain control, it is also feeling heat from Aung San Suu Kyi. Kyi has been arrested a number of times for denouncing the military regimes that have ruled Myanmar over the course of the last 30 years. Her efforts even garnered her a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Despite her record of denouncing injustice, however, she has declined to speak out in defense of the Rohingya. Many speculate this is her acting politically, as not only might she aspire to the presidency, but some of her strongest backers are the same Buddhist monks attacking Muslims. Furthermore it is unclear how much her voice could really alter things in Rakhine, especially considering the recent refusal by the government to allow her to run for the presidency. Still, it seems that as someone who champions civil rights she would stick up for a targeted minority even if it was unpopular, for the sake of country as a whole. Regardless of her relationship with the government, she is often viewed as a strong and respected voice in Myanmar. The video below chronicles Kyi and her viewpoints.

Ashin Wirathu

At the heart of Buddhist nationalist rhetoric is an embattled monk. Practically unknown before, he began to make a name for himself in 2001 during an earlier uprising against Muslims as part of the 969 group. His actions earned him 25 years in prison, but he was released as a political prisoner in 2010.

While he does not enjoy universal support, he has a large following because of his strong nationalist message and his denunciation of the Rohingya Muslims who are not liked by any segment of the population. Wirathu has also increased his audience by broadcasting on YouTube.

What gives him the most clout though is inaction. His fellow monks and the government have refused to discipline him. This has led some to believe he is preaching a message with which the government implicitly agrees. One of the few groups to oppose his teachings however, are certain women’s groups, which feel he labels the country with a bad image and is attempting to infringe on their rights by restricting who they can marry.

The following video details Wirathu and what he is preaching.

While these three actors are not the only ones at play in Myanmar, they are at the heart of the current conflict. They are also three agents who can affect change for good or for bad across the country itself.

Conclusion

The conflict in Myanmar threatens not just the Rohingya, but all minority groups. This is especially true in the wake of nationalist sermons preached by Buddhist Monks. Unfortunately not much is likely to be done about the situation. Although elections loom, the most promising candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi, is barred from participating. Unchecked and unresolved violence is only likely to simmer and burst out again; however, if the government can make real in-roads to reform and put on a legitimate election then the opportunity to rewrite Myanmar’s  story still exists.

 Resources

Primary

World Factbook: Myanmar

Additional

NPR: In Buddhist-Majority Myanmar, Muslim Minority Gets Pushed to the Margins

Washington Post: Why it’s Such a Big Deal That Obama Said ‘Myanmar’ Rather Than Burma

Al Jazeera America: Myanmar’s Buddhist Terrorism Problem

BBC: Why is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?

Human Rights Watch: Burma: Rights Heading in Wrong Direction

BBC: Myanmar Profile

BBC News: Ashin Wirathu: Myanmar and Its Vitriolic Monk

International Crisis Group: The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar

Quartz: Aung San Suu Kyi Has Gone Silent on a Major Human-Rights Crisis in Myanmar

Guardian: Burma Rules Out Lifting Ban on Aung San Suu Kyi Presidency Before Election

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post Myanmar or Burma: Conflict in a Country With Two Names appeared first on Law Street.

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

A Look Into the Past

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

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

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

Rise of Modern India

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

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

Move to a Market Economy

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

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

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

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

After the Recession

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

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

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

United States

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

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

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

Domestic Concerns for India

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

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

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

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

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

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

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

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

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

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

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

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

Michael Sliwinski

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

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