Tag

Foreign Policy

Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Humanitarian Aid Immigration Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment

Featured Immigration Mexico and Latin America Security and Conflict Society and Culture The International Economy

Ending the Embargo: Liberating US Politics from the Cuba Lobby

written by Kurt J. Klein

Cuban propaganda declaring “Ideas are and forever will be the most important weapon.”

On 14 December, 2014, President Obama announced he will re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba after almost 54 years. A month later in the State of the Union, he called on Congress to end the embargo in 2015.

Since its beginnings in 1960, the embargo has done nothing to promote its stated goal of fostering democracy and human rights on the island. On the contrary, Cuba remains a one-party communist state that has been led by either Fidel or Raul Castro since 1959. In reality, the brothers use the embargo to successfully create a martyr identity; propping up their regime by giving them a boogeyman on whom they can blame the country’s economic woes. Furthermore, it serves as a derisive obstacle to US cooperation with Latin America. Economically, it costs US exporters at least $1.2 billion per year. Even stalwart allies, with the exception of Israel, leave the US isolated on this issue by renouncing the embargo. Since 1999, more Americans have favored ending the embargo than oppose ending it. So what’s the fuss? Why has it taken so long to abandon an anachronistic cold-war remnant that is not just ineffective, but deleterious to American interests?

Over the last 40 years, the “Cuba Lobby,” interest groups that support the embargo and other hardline policies towards Cuba under Castro, has wielded an unrivaled level of influence in Washington; indeed, analysts like American University’s William M. Leogrande have deemed it more powerful than even the NRA. The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC have a long history of wooing congressional candidates with campaign contributions and punishing those who would renounce the embargo. Similarly, this power reaches even to the State Department. Notably, congressmen under the influence of this cartel are known to manipulate the agency’s funding for specific programs and deny appointments to career Foreign Service Officers who are not sufficiently hard on the Castro government. Furthermore, in possibly the moment when their influence was most strongly felt, many election analysts believe that the traceable chain from Vice President Al Gore to the Clinton Administration’s actions during the Elian Gonzalez saga provoked the wrath of the CANF and the Cuban American exile vote during the 2000 election. Consequently, the lobby’s powerful presence in Florida helped swing the state, and correspondingly the presidency, to George W. Bush.

However, this is all changing. The first group of Cuban Americans who came to the US as political refugees after the Cuban Revolution are now well into their 80’s. It is this generation and their children, themselves aging and approaching retirement, who fervently loathe the Castros. These older Cuban Americans make up the leadership who push the Cuba Lobby to strongly support the embargo and other policies that isolate Cuba. On the other hand, the more recent Cuban immigrants came to the US for economic reasons. They do not possess the same acrimonious sentiments towards the Castros. They desire improved relations between the US and Cuba so they can visit and send remittances to their families without hindrance. As this younger generation replaces the older one, a window is now opening where a majority of Cuban Americans wish to see the embargo end. Currently, 52% of Cuban Americans in Miami-Dade County, the largest center of Cuban Americans, oppose continuing the embargo. The changing mood in the Cuban American community, and the fact that the President sees it as politically safe to normalize relations with Cuba, are evidence that the Cuba Lobby’s power is beginning to fade.

Even with the change in general attitude that is spurred by shifting demographics, it is unlikely that we will see any changes toward the embargo in the near future. As a matter of fact, both Houses of Congress are in the hands of Republicans. If Congressional Republicans fall in line as expected with current leadership, Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the necessary congressional support needed to repeal the embargo will be hard to come by. Under the current hyper-partisan climate in Congress, supporting policies that are promoted by the President are often seen as traitorous to the Republican cause. With that stated, there are some GOP supporters in Congress such as Senators Jeff Flake and Rand Paul who desire a change in policy. However, for the time being, the Cuba Lobby still retains its hold on the legislative branch. Perhaps future Congresses can end the embargo by bringing either a change in party control, or, if enough Republicans find political incentives to oppose the Cuba Lobby.

The embargo is very likely to become a hot foreign policy issue in the next Presidential election. The Democratic frontrunners support continuing President Obama’s initial steps. However, with the notable exception of Rand Paul, nearly all the Republican hopefuls oppose the president’s efforts to normalize relations with the island.

It is ironic that while the Cuba Lobby has been able to exploit Florida’s disproportionate political importance for its own cause, those wishing to end the embargo are looking to do it through another US electoral power oddity: Iowa, the first state to begin the process to pick presidential nominations for both parties. The United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba (USACC), an organization made up of many powerful agricultural interest groups, sees Cuba as a potential market for farm exports. They can count among their supporters current US Secretary of Agriculture and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. USACC’s goal is to convince voters in Iowa’s caucuses of the potential benefits that ending the embargo would have on the local agricultural industry. It appears their argument is already being heard in Iowa as the State Senate recently approved a resolution supporting enhanced trade between the US and Cuba.

Perhaps the Iowa caucuses can convince those seeking the Republican nomination, and in turn provide evidence to Congressional lawmakers, that opposing the Cuba Lobby is a politically tenable position. The beginning of presidential nomination process will be a great barometer to how close the US is to ending the embargo.

Note: This article also appears in The Generation’s first print issue

October 12, 2015 0 comment

Africa Featured Security Security and Conflict

The Unnoticed Conflict in the Central African Republic

written by thegeneration

Photographed by Bagassi Koura, via Wikimedia Commons

While news networks have assiduously covered the tumultuous events taking place in countries like Syria and Ukraine, the media has largely seemed indifferent to a similar conflict in the Central African Republic (CAR). As a result, much of the international public is unaware of a rapidly deteriorating situation. While camera lenses focus on places like the Middle East and Eastern Europe, this struggling African nation is being pushed further toward widespread slaughter. Increased media coverage of CAR is absolutely essential to spur the international community into action, inspiring them to do something rather than remain in a state of blissful ignorance.

Although the current episode of violence in CAR began in 2012, the country has had an unstable history since it declared independence from France in 1960. Corruption in government and a lack of political stability has led to numerous regime changes, coups, and counter-coups. The current conflict, though ostensibly between Muslims and Christians, is not truly a religious war. Rather, it is one stemming from mistrust and hopelessness. Feelings of political disenfranchisement and frustration born out of lack of economic and educational opportunity has led many Central Africans to join militias, often organized along religious cleavages. As a result, normal citizens have taken up arms, killing, pillaging and driving their fellow countrymen from their homes. The fact that no more recent survey has taken place than an Associated Press tally from September of last year speaks volumes about the lack of coverage. That outdated poll shows that more than 5,000 Central Africans have fallen victim to sectarian violence, a figure up more than 150% from the UN‘s April 2014 estimate issued along with their approval of the MINUSCA peacekeeping mission. According to a European Commission report released late last year, another 500,000 plus Central Africans have been internally displaced, while hundreds of thousands have fled to neighboring countries. CAR’s entire population is only about 4.5 million. The sobering reality is that more than one out of every five Central Africans has been uprooted and forced from the security of home and routine into sometimes uncertain, often horrific living conditions. Clearly, the conflict has not been contained, let alone resolved.

The UN’s charter gives as one of its primary objectives the maintenance of “international peace and security.” Thus, the UN bears some of the blame for the lack of progress in solving thecurrent situation. However, the UN derives its power from member states. Without cooperation and active involvement from individual nations, the UN’s ability to respond to world crises is severely undermined. In 2013, several nations expressed hesitance during the planning stages for intervention in CAR; the UK placed higher priority on funding an African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Somalia, while the US balked at the potential cost of putting the plan into effect.

As far as individual nations taking on a leading peacekeeping role, France has displayed some willingness, and currently has about 2,000 troops in CAR. However, the country’s colonial history in CAR has produced resentment and accusations of favoring Christian victims over their Muslim counterparts. Resolving the conflict clearly requires wider cooperation and participation by more neutral participants –ideally both Christian and Muslim nations– whether it comes in the form of funding or manpower. And yet, the response from other leading nations continues to be subdued at best.

Although funding for funding for humanitarian aid has trickled in little by little, there is still a significant deficit. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the 2014 response plan for CAR is 40% short of promised funds; in other words, humanitarian efforts are operating with $220 million less than needed. With the number of displaced Central Africans growing steadily, increased spending, involvement, and coordinated efforts from members of the UN is vital to moving towards a solution.

Could it be possible that the events in CAR attract such little attention from world leaders, because they see nothing material to be gained in intervening there? CAR is not oil rich. Wood, not a particularly coveted resource, makes up 60% of the country’s exports. Further, CAR’s location offers no real strategic advantage; it is landlocked and military bases there would offer little benefit. Without any incentives to motivate them, any nation that intervened in CAR would have to act out of altruism. Needless to say, this hurts the African nation’s chances of receiving help.

However, the UN and its member states are not the only ones able to effect change in CAR. Just as the nations that make up the UN give it power, and influence its decisions, the citizens of those nations can influence their own government’s actions. The international public’s awareness of a conflict certainly plays a considerable role in conflict resolution. A sympathetic and active public can exert pressure on their governments to enact top-down solutions to the conflict, while supporting efforts in CAR by donating to humanitarian organizations on the ground. The international public has thus far failed CAR. On some level, this is understandable. Economic conditions hamper the average person’s ability to make the donations that non-profits rely on to provide relief. Further, citizens confronted with rapid-fire elections often confront the same kind of fatigue that may be at work here. Higher-profile world crises may drain the public willingness to respond to less visible conflicts like the one in CAR. While it is understandable that the citizens of many privileged nations are exhausted from intervening in foreign countries, one must look no further than Rwanda for a history lesson on just how quickly and severely a forgotten conflict like the one in CAR can escalate.

Whether it is the sight of entire cities reduced to rubble in Syria, the return to the international stage of an expansionist Russia, or the paranoia and fear brought on by the spread of Ebola, other stories have monopolized the world’s attention. Considering the gravity of the situation in CAR, why don’t our morning papers jolt us awake with grim pictures of militia members wielding machetes?The answer is they and their readers or viewers have already moved on to newer, fresher disasters and atrocities. Instead of shedding light on the conflict in CAR, the media has largely forgotten it, allowing the situation there to quietly unravel.

If the public is to be roused to insist on action in CAR, the media must play a critical role by providing more coverage. Instead of paragraph-long updates published on the 12^th page of a newspaper or relegated to an unvisited corner of a news website, resolving the conflict in CAR requires feature pieces and exposés. If media coverage turned in the direction of exposing the misery of everyday life and the scarcity of essential, life-sustaining resources, the press could awaken human sympathy, stirring high-profile celebrities, powerful officials, and normal citizens alike to act. This surge of human energy and involvement could be a vital force in ending not just the conflict in CAR, but also many others in the often forgotten continent of Africa.

By Penn Scoble

March 15, 2015 0 comment

Featured Mexico and Latin America Security and Conflict South America The International Economy

Los Muertos no Pagan: The Case for New Institutions to Resolve Sovereign Debt Disputes

written by Kurt J. Klein

A political poster from a Buenos Aires street advocating “Enough Vultures! Argentina united in a national cause.”

In 1776, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations asserted: “When it becomes necessary for a state to declare itself bankrupt, in the same manner as when it becomes necessary for an individual to do so, a fair, open and avowed bankruptcy is always the measure which is both least dishonorable to the debtor, and least hurtful to the creditor.” Yet, 238 years later, international financial institutions still fail to answer Smith’s call. Recent turmoil in financial markets has brought both advanced economies such as Spain, and developing nations like Argentina, dangerously close to default. The global threat by destabilized markets makes it imperative that the State of New York, the federal government, and international bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), create new mechanisms to resolve the unique cases of sovereign debt defaults. Just as bankruptcy laws and courts are used domestically to resolve debt repayment conflicts, a similar framework needs to be created to handle sovereign debt disputes. This system needs to be focused on producing economic growth in the interest of both creditors and debtors. This idea is not new: Anne Krueger, while in the office of First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, proposed a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) in 2002. The proposal was vetoed by the George W. Bush administration. Now it is time to raise the issue again, as the absence of an adequate forum to handle these disputes is apparent in the ramifications of recent US court rulings against the Republic of Argentina.

In Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by Thomas Griesa, Federal Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York, stating that Argentina must pay the full value of $1.33 billion in bonds that are possessed by NML Capital before paying its obligations on other bonds. NML Capital is a hedge fund that owns Argentine bonds that were not exchanged during the country’s attempts in 2005 and 2010 to restructure debt after its 2001 default. As a result of the ruling, the nation fears that it could be liable for $15 billion when it is applied to all holdouts. This $15 billion albatross would be equal to roughly half of Argentina’s central-bank reserves. Yet the most important aspect of the ruling is Griesa’s understanding of the bonds’ pari passu clause. His interpretation prescribes that Argentina cannot make payments to the exchange bondholders until it comes to an agreement with NML Capital regarding its holdout bonds. When no agreement was reached and the Republic’s payment to exchange bondholders was blocked, Standard & Poor’s declared Argentina in default on July 30.

Argentina will not be the only party to endure the negative consequences of this ruling: the future of all sovereign debt restructuring is in jeopardy. Under Griesa’s interpretation of pari passu, bondholders will have no incentive to accept a debt swap after a default. Furthermore, even one bondholder who holds out can nullify an entire debt restructure and force the debtor back into default. As a result, countries with troubled economies become bigger prey for “vulture funds”: a pejorative term used to describe hedge funds such as NML Capital who buy up distressed bonds at fractions of their initial prices with the intent to litigate to be paid the bonds’ full nominal value. The ruling sets a precedent that would prevent nations from restructuring their debt, making good with creditors, and rebuilding after a default.

On the international level, Bolivia, with the support of the G77+China and alerted by Argentina’s tribulations, proposed a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes at the UN General Assembly. On September 9, the assembly overwhelmingly adopted the measure with 124 votes in favor, 11 votes against and 41 abstentions. The US was among the 11 nations that voted against the resolution. The proposal is short on specifics but it includes an element that would bind all creditors to a restructuring agreement if a majority accept. It is improbable that the US would yield jurisdiction on local contracts to a global institution. Thus this hypothetical framework would have little power over existing bonds issued in New York markets. However, this is a clear call by the developing nations who are most likely to issue bonds in foreign markets such as New York that such mechanisms are badly needed.

Understandably, if US law is more concerned about protecting creditors than permitting nations with a troubled past a chance to start over, sovereigns will reconsider issuing bonds in New York or other capital markets in the US. This has the potential for New York to lose its place as an international financial center in regards to issuing sovereign debt. On July 15, with the Argentine President in attendance as a special guest, the heads of state from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa inaugurated the $100 billion New Development Bank (NDB) at the sixth BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. These nations hope that the NDB will serve as an alternative to the western dominated IMF and World Bank. The BRICS’ NBD will be an alluring alternative to US financial markets for developing nations in the future.

If New York desires to preserve its place as an international financial center, new laws to preside over the unique cases of sovereign debt default need to be adopted. A sovereign is not a normal partner in a contract such as a person, business, or corporation. Hence, a special bankruptcy court for sovereign nations overseen by judges with advanced training in economics should be created by the State of New York or the federal government. A mechanism for negotiation, mediation and arbitration needs to be in place with a focus on restoring a nation’s economy so it has the ability to pay back its creditors. Among its many tools, it could swap debts for new bonds that pay according to macroeconomic statistics such as GDP growth similar to Argentina’s bond swap offers in 2005 and 2010.

But these measures can augment more than a developing country’s economic growth and New York’s standing as a hub of finance; they will promote global economic justice. Social utility is completely absent in the process where a cabal of hedge funds purchases distressed debt at a fraction of its titular value and subsequently litigates to be paid in full. A common counter argument is that Griesa’s and similar rulings are in line with what is in the bond contract. Thus, in order to observe rule of law, debtors must be held accountable. The fact that the legal process supports this practice is the very reason it needs to be reformed. The consequences aren’t beared by the corrupt politicians who wantonly accepted too much in loans and ensuingly misspent them in order to maintain political power. They fall on a country’s citizens who pay for both the creditor’s and debtor’s avarice in increased taxes, substandard public services, and stagnant economic growth.

The US’ foreign policy in regard to sovereign defaults must be reexamined and made coherent as well. With a large mandate from the aforementioned UN resolution, the world has asked the US to bring its actions in line with its commonly stated foreign policy goals of long term economic and social progress in the developing world. It should start by advocating and ratifying a SDRM at the IMF. The Anne Krueger proposed SDRM with collective action clauses from over a decade ago would be a great example to follow. This would set insolvent nations on a feasible path to grow while making good with all their creditors. The alternative is an eternal cycle of debt and default for nations with a dolorous economic past such as Argentina

”Los muertos no pagan las deudas” – ”The dead don’t pay their debts” is a phrase from late President Nestor Kirchner’s 2003 speech to the UN General assembly. Frequently, the current president borrows her late husband’s proverb in speeches regarding the external debt and the holdouts.

November 28, 2014 3 comments

Europe Featured Security Security and Conflict The International Economy

Crisis in Ukraine and the Global Scramble for Ukrainian Allegiance

written by Christine Smith

By Christine Smith – Editor

Since November of last year, mounting tensions within Ukraine have made divisions between Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US) increasingly evident. In an effort to establish stronger trade relations with Western Europe, Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych initially sought to broker a deal in which his country would join the EU. However, come decision time and ongoing pressure from Moscow, Yanukovych backed out of the EU deal in favor of strengthening economic and political ties with his country’s border neighbor Russia, resulting in the rapid escalation of tensions between pro-Western Ukrainians and eastern pro-Russian Ukrainians. Consequently, pro-Western Ukrainians voiced their frustrations and ousted Yanukovych, while pro-Russian Ukrainians retaliated by seizing government buildings and showing their support for Russian military assistance.

Despite the existence of East versus West divisions within Ukraine prior to the controversy surrounding the failed EU deal, following the tense situation in November, countries both near and far have sought to make their stance known in an effort to fulfill personal political and/or economic goals. For example, frustrated with the country’s former president’s decision to vacate from an EU agreement, the EU quickly reacted to Ukraine’s political instability by approving the provision of 1 billion euros of economic assistance to the new pro-Western Ukrainian government. Additionally, the EU issued tariff cuts to the country in order to make exporting goods to the EU cheaper and to reiterate why an economic partnership with the EU is worth pursuing.

Furthermore, the United States, who just so happens to be a strong ally of the EU, has voiced its disapproval of pro-Russian Ukrainian factions by demanding the end of Russian participation and by the apparent orchestration of eastern Ukraine’s ongoing separatist violence. It has even gone so far as to continuously label Russia’s presence in the region as a carefully planned, “full-scale invasions,” causing a stark division between the US and Russia reminiscent of the Cold War. However bold, this language appears to be appropriate. After Russia’s occupation and annexation of Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and its continued presence on the country’s eastern border, it is hardly surprising that a global power like the United States would distrust Russian actions and intentions. It is in the US’s political and economic interest, therefore, to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and promote Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.

Russia, however, views the situation differently. Because Ukraine and Georgia are the only territories separating Russia from NATO member-states (with the exception of the Russian port city of Kaliningrad), allowing Ukraine to join the EU and potentially join NATO is a scenario Russia cannot entertain. After all, NATO’s creation and ongoing expansion were centered around containing the Soviet Union politically and militarily. Understandably, Russia sees proximity to NATO as a direct threat to its national security, and therefore refuses to let Ukraine stray without a fight. That said, supporting a separatist movement is also not in Russia’s interest, for it will still lessen the physical divide between NATO members and Russia as a result of the incorporation of part of Ukraine into its borders, resulting in the expansion of Russia’s borders and the partial dissolving of its buffer from NATO. Russia, therefore, is walking a fine line; it must support pro-Russian Ukrainian factions without encouraging them to split away from Ukraine in order to create a new, united, pro-Russia Ukraine that Russia can depend on in its quest to maintain political security and distance from NATO.

Until tensions are quelled within Ukraine and so long as Ukraine remains a global political, security, and economic interest, hostilities between the West and East will remain especially high. For such a small country, playing up its strategic value is the primary source of power it possesses. Consequently, maintaining ties with all parties best serves the country’s interests, and will likely mean a decision about whether or not to join the EU will be prolonged as long as the West permits. Only time will tell what Ukraine will do and which region will succeed most at wooing the fragile state.

May 5, 2014 2 comments

Featured Immigration Security and Conflict Society and Culture

A Broken Measure Will Not Be Fixed by a Broken System

written by Erfan Faridmoayer

By Erfan Faridmoayer

Editor

Immigration reform has always been a subject of heated discussion in American politics. Whether the government at the time has been for or against it, the intensity of the debate gives clue to its importance, and the need for legislators as well as the public to critically address the issue.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama briefly commented on the need for immigration reform. Advocating for a bipartisan approach, the President called for an effort to initiate preparations for the reform. This message, nonetheless, was lost in some of the President’s comments regarding the current uncooperative atmosphere in Congress. With such a deep division between the Executive and Legislative branches, attempts to revisit the country’s immigration laws have once again been put on hold.

This was not the first time, and certainly not the last time, that party affiliations have taken precedence over much needed political action. Personal interests have diverted the mission of many legislators from addressing the long term needs of the nation to the short term requirements of re-election. Surprisingly, passing an immigration reform could be of great benefit to both parties: Democrats could have a chance to secure seats in the Senate and Republicans could increase their chances of reelection by gaining the backing of many minority groups who support the reform.

It is worthy of mentioning, however, that an immigration reform has the potential to change voting demographics in the long run. If the current undocumented immigrants gain the opportunity to become legal citizens of the United States, they will very likely vote for the party who has supported them in their naturalization process. An additional concern with the legalization of undocumented immigrants is that the competition for the job market will heavily increase. Many Americans are concerned about losing their jobs due to this situation.

Left out of the debate, however, is the need to take a more holistic view towards the population that an immigration reform will impact, and not narrowly focus on policies surrounding undocumented immigrants. A temporary solution will address the current illegal immigrants in the United States and set more strict regulations on the country’s southern borders. A long-term resolution, on the other hand, will also address many of the issues all immigrants encounter, whether they enter the country through legal or illegal means.

Regardless of the means of entry, immigrant families face many obstacles when finding a job, establishing monetary credit, financing a house, or saving for the next generation’s university tuition. Many individuals enter the U.S. with significant work experience, or with a highly educated background. In many occasions, these credentials will be valued less in America as would have in their country of origin.

For example, physicians who have been educated and have practiced in foreign nations cannot use their medical license to immediately begin practicing in the United States. As reported by The New York Times, America has restricted the ability of immigrant physicians to continue their specialty. This has led to these individuals pursuing occupations in pre-medical teaching, nursing, or in fields very distant from their professions in healthcare. If foreign educated physicians want to continue practicing their original specialty, they have to go through a relatively long and costly residency training, a process they have already completed in the earlier years of their medical education abroad. In addition, their chances of matching into residency programs are significantly lower than those of American graduates. Unfortunately, these extended limitations are present in a time when skilled physicians are most needed. As the affordable health care act goes into effect, there will be an immediate rise in demand for physicians in the United States. With the current shortage of physicians in many fields, foreign trained physicians will become an unutilized resource in overcoming this challenge.

This is not to suggest that there should be no restrictions in regulating the quality of medicine being practiced in America. For many decades, the United States has set a global standard for the medical field. To achieve this standard, strict regulations need to insure a safe medical practice. However, these barriers should not exceed a level that will prevent qualified healthcare providers from practicing their profession solely due to being educated in another nation. A constructive solution should assess the skill-set of foreign trained physicians and tailor their American medical certification respectively.

America has always been a land of immigrants, welcoming individuals and families from a variety of backgrounds, providing them with a safe haven to prosper and succeed in their new home. To sustain this attitude, previously established regulations need to be updated to accommodate the current influx of both legal and undocumented immigrants. In a larger perspective, it becomes clear that immigration reform needs to address a much broader scope. The legal status of currently undocumented immigrants or their belonging to a minority group should not be used as the core argument when addressing immigration reform. Government regulations need to be adjusted to accommodate skills learnt in foreign countries, and educate unskilled immigrants who aim to establish a reliable occupation.

Facts from Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and The New York Times

April 19, 2014 0 comment

Asia Featured Security and Conflict

Are the U.S. and India Headed for a Break-Up?: Finding the Delicate Balance in Diplomatic Relationships

written by Noelle Little

By Noelle Little

The arrest of the Indian diplomat, Ms. Devyani Khobragade, last December in New York sparked a renewed interest in the future of diplomatic relationships between the United States and India. This controversy, in addition to current tension between the U.S. and Narendra Modi, the widely supported candidate for Prime Minister in this month’s elections, presents an interesting reflection of the wider status of future U.S.-India relations. In the time of a rapidly growing China, India is positioned as the U.S.’s largest democratic ally in Asia. One that, despite differences between the two nations, has led to increased cooperation economically and diplomatically. Recently, however, tension between the U.S. and India has grown due to alleged cases of human rights abuse cases involving Ms. Khobragade and Narendra Modi.

Ms. Khobragade was charged by U.S. authorities for the submission of false documentation in order to obtain a work visa for her maid. In addition, it was uncovered that she was paying the housekeeper well below minimum wage at about $573 a month. The controversy, however, is not a result of Ms. Khobragade’s alleged crimes but rather her mistreatment by U.S. authorities. Considering the treatment that we expect of our officials in foreign nations, one would assume that U.S. authorities would in turn give foreign diplomats different treatment than common criminals.

Indian officials have reported that Ms. Khobragade was subjected to multiple cavity searches, as well as being kept in a holding cell with “drug addicts” before she was released on a bail of $250,000. Following her arrest, the Indian government released a statement regarding the treatment of Ms. Khobragade, stating that it was “shocked and appalled at the manner in which she has been humiliated by the U.S. authorities.”

What is perhaps most surprising in this case was the reaction of the Indian government. While a formal statement condemning the treatment of Ms. Khobragade is customary, the reaction against U.S. officials in India is unexpected. Indian officials proceeded to remove the concrete security barriers surrounding the American Embassy compound in India, while also demanding that the embassy release the details about all of their Indian employees. According to The New York Times, Indian officials also asked for “the names and salaries of teachers at the American Embassy School; that the embassy commissary stop importing liquor; and that diplomatic identification cards for consular staff members and their families be returned.”

This strong reaction to the treatment of an Indian diplomat has reawakened a growing concern regarding the future of diplomatic relationships between the U.S. and India. India is currently the world’s largest democracy with a rate of economic growth rivaling that of China. In the past decade specifically, diplomatic relations between the two countries has been generally positive, beginning most notably in 2005 when President George W. Bush signed legislation that allowed for civilian nuclear cooperation with India and redefined U.S.-India relations.

The increasing cooperation between the two nations gave the U.S. a regional ally in response to a growing China. In 2013, President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Singh furthered this relationship through an agreement for Westinghouse to supply nuclear reactors for Indian nuclear power plants. The cooperation between the two nations on the issue of nuclear power has in essence led to a de facto alliance motivated by China’s growing power in the East. After this meeting, Singh and Obama released a statement declaring that India and the U.S. “share common security interests and place each other at the same level as their closest partners.”

However, despite this burgeoning alliance, there are areas of contention that reflect how fragile diplomatic relationships between the U.S. and India may be. The treatment of Ms. Khobragade, in conjunction with the fast approaching elections, has been interpreted as a matter of national pride. India’s staunch support of Ms. Khobragade is in essence a larger refusal to be bullied by a large superpower like the United States.

Ms. Khobragade is not the only Indian official seen as contentious to the future of U.S.-India diplomatic relations. Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, is another point of growing strain within the relations between the two countries.

In India, Narendra Modi is widely believed to be the next Prime Minister after this year’s upcoming elections. Within the Western world, however, Modi is not held in high regard due to his complacency in the mass killing of Muslims in the 2002 riots in his own state of Gujarat.

Human Rights Watch reports that the riots of 2002 were sparked by the death of 59 Hindu pilgrims in a train fire caused by the attack of a Muslim mob. In retaliation, Hindu mobs killed hundreds of Muslims, displaced thousands and destroyed their homes and property. In the years after this episode of violence, efforts to investigate the cases were stalled while activists and lawyers were subjected to harassment and intimidation. It was not until the Supreme Court intervened that trials began to take place.

At the center of this controversy is the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, who is of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Modi and his fellow officials are said to have deliberately obstructed investigations. Furthermore, there is evidence which links Modi and his colleagues to the anti-Muslim attacks, as it is reported that the rioters had detailed information regarding the locations of Muslim residences and businesses. An independent media organization known as Tehelka has film footage of the accused speaking of how Modi provided his blessings for the attacks. As a result, in 2005, the United States revoked Mr. Narendra Modi’s visa under the law that bars foreign officials who are “responsible for or directly carried out … particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”

Despite his alleged complacency and involvement with the anti-Muslim attacks, Narendra Modi is still regarded as a front-runner in this year’s upcoming election. Economically, he has brought prosperity to the Gujarat state in India. When it comes to gaining support as a candidate, voters often respond more to improvements in their economic well-being than a candidate’s alleged involvement in a case of human rights abuse. Modi is well known for lowering the rates of corruption, increasing industrial growth, and attracting foreign investment from companies such as Ford and General Motors. While critics point out that business leaders are giving funds to the BJP in return for favors, it is still important to note Modi has increased the development of rural infrastructure in Gujarat, as well as access to reliable electricity and a booming agricultural industry. Internationally, he is recognized for his economic policies and in the summer of 2013 Britain began to re-establish contact with his state government.

But what does this mean for the future of U.S.-India diplomatic relations in the upcoming year? If Narendra Modi is elected Prime Minister, it has potential to further tension between the two nations because the U.S. would be denying access to a foreign head of state; a tension that the U.S. government wants to avoid as India is the strongest regional ally. For the moment, opinions remain split.

Ron Somers, who is the head of the U.S.-India Business Council, has commended Modi for being “a magnet for investment.” A Congressional Research Service report lauded Gujarat as “perhaps India’s best example of effective governance and impressive development.” Meanwhile, Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, vice chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, has expressed that she believes the U.S. will still uphold the denial of a visa to Modi due to his role in the events of 2002. Human rights activists believe the U.S.’s commitment to international human rights will outweigh the desire to further relations with an Indian government under Modi. While perhaps the idealist in everyone would like to believe this is true, given the relationship between the U.S. and nations such as China and Russia, it’s unlikely.

If Narendra Modi should be elected Prime Minister during the elections this month, it is highly likely that the U.S. will attempt to work towards re-establishing diplomatic ties, particularly due to the success of Modi’s economic policies in the Gujarat state and to the U.S.’s desire to maintain India as a strong regional ally. While tension from the anti-Muslim attacks remains, the U.S. does not have a strong history of cutting off all diplomatic relations due to human rights abuses within foreign governments. With India, the U.S. has been committed to strengthening their relationship as a regional ally, particularly with the sharing of nuclear technology, in response to a bourgeoning China.

April 12, 2014 1 comment

Security and Conflict Technology UCLA and the World

“Show, Don’t Tell”: Advice for Anyone with a Phone, Camera, or Keyboard

written by Erica Anjum

Photo Credit: Todd Cheney, ASUCLA Photography. 2/23/2014.

By Erica Anjum

Samantha Power was in the building. Schoenberg Hall, UCLA, to be exact, on February 23, 2014.

Although Ambassador Power is the United States’ permanent representative to the United Nations, she was not there to divulge the secrets of the White House or the UN. She was there as a former journalist.

After a roundtable discussion with a few students harboring their own journalistic ambitions, Ambassador Power addressed a much larger audience for the Twelfth Annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture and discussed the relationship between journalism, public opinion, foreign policy and international relations.

Social issues had drawn both her and Daniel Pearl to journalism, and had transported them far from home. At 23, a young Samantha had relocated herself to Yugoslavia and set up shop as a freelance journalist.

From the title to the last sentence, her words not only reported what was happening on the ground, but they were also charged with emotion and conviction. They rang with the challenge of someone looking you in the eyes and asking, “This is what is happening. What are you going to do about it?”

By established standards, past and present, journalism should be factual; moreover, good journalism should be neutral. Ambassador Power’s articles were not neutral then, but neither are most journalistic endeavors now. Some people lament the loss of neutrality in journalism, and others question whether it was ever a reality to begin with. Ambassador Power’s articles and her lecture at UCLA, titled “The War on Truth (and what we must do to win it)” suggest that due to the very nature of some topics, journalism cannot be, and more importantly, should not be neutral.

Journalists take risks with their own lives when they travel to unstable and violent regions. The risks they take, however, leave them with both power and responsibility. Modern technology makes it easier for the common man to share his stories today, but in situations with graphic and massive human rights violations, journalists are often in the best position to give people whose rights are being violated and lives taken voices loud enough to be heard internationally and immediately. They can contextualize the local into the global, raise awareness, and shape public opinion and emotions. In the process, they can ultimately provoke and impact foreign policy by rendering issues that may not be of direct geopolitical significance or of concern to national security as part of the intervention and aid agenda.

In this way, journalists hold an immediate power: by raising awareness, they can push governments to stop atrocities in their tracks. They also hold a more long-term power: the research for academic articles and books, generally esteemed as the reservoirs of knowledge, usually takes place long after events have passed, when witnesses are dead and much evidence has been shoved under the proverbial rug. Often, the only indication of what is happening, what happened last month, last year, or ten years ago is through what journalists produce. Thus, while their stories have the power to compel people and governments to act now, what journalists record in the present also contains the potential to shape the future.

These powers and the attached responsibilities have not changed since Ambassador Power was in Yugoslavia and Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, but there have been significant developments in the field.

As a journalist, Ambassador Power was able to make a living as a freelancer because the print media allowed for the same article to be syndicated across multiple newspapers, magazines, and journals at a profit. Professional journalists today generally cannot make a living as freelancers anymore; everything is online, and consequently, content cannot be repeated. Technological innovations, however, have also spawned a new breed of “journalists.” Armed with camera-phones, everyone is a witness; in the world of hashtags and blogs, anyone can be a reporter. They may not have degrees or paychecks, but they have opinions that can reach thousands in minutes. These citizen journalists are also sometimes killed for their actions, just like their professional counterparts.

This new breed seems far removed from the likes of Samantha Power and Daniel Pearl. It should be remembered, however, that while their names and careers are now famous, both the Ambassador and Daniel Pearl began their journeys as ordinary people interested in what was happening around them, and who were determined to share what they saw. The current phenomenon is in essence a decentralization of both power and responsibility: everyone can be aware and everyone can raise awareness. This not only makes it more difficult for dictators to muffle the truth, it also addresses the issue of the media only reporting the truth as they see fit.

As more people take on the role of informal journalists, events as they are unfolding in a variety of places can be shared through many voices. As multiple perspectives converge to tell each story, the truth behind every incident can be much better recorded for present and future generations. While some writers and the stories they have told may one day become extraordinary, the future lies in the possibility to engender things unextraordinary. The best way to win the war on truth is to render the truth common to tell and common to find.

This overall shift from professional to popular journalism corresponds in an interesting way with Ambassador Power’s transition from a journalist to a politician. Her speech at UCLA did not suggest that she is now any less concerned about the human rights issues that once drove her career as a journalist. On the contrary, her words resonated with the values of someone who still cares deeply about the atrocities witnessed on the ground, then and now. Her responsibilities have not changed, her target audience has. As a journalist, she focused on public opinion; as a diplomat she focuses on persuading policymakers in a bureaucracy which in her own words “aggregates the slowness of 193 governments.”

The roundtable discussion preceding the lecture was meant to be an opportunity for budding journalists to receive advice from a former professional. However, the message implicit in the discussion and the speech came from someone who has been watching events unfold from the perspective of both a journalist and a diplomat. Ambassador Power described the events leading up to Daniel Pearl’s murder as a “catastrophic alchemy of us vs. them.” This alchemy continues to fuel cycles of retribution taking individual lives, fanning genocides, trampling rights, and burying the truth in the process. While we may not all find ourselves caught in the middle of these violent dialogues, we each have our roles to play. These roles may change over time: Ambassador Power’s responsibility now is to help design an effective response through institutional machinery. Meanwhile, in a new era in which every individual is armed with the technology to fight, we each share the burden once reserved for professional journalists to bring the truth to light.

March 17, 2014 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts