ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    In April of 2021, President Biden announced that U.S. troops would be removed from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, after 20 years at war. The Trump Administration came to a diplomatic agreement with the Taliban, a militant group in Afghanistan, and the Biden Administration decided to follow through with that agreement.

    Terms of the Agreement

    The agreement made between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, known as the Taliban, and the US declared that the United States was to scale down the number of forces to 8,600 within 135 days and withdraw from five bases. Within 9.5 months the United States was expected to remove all troops from Afghanistan. In response, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was to not allow any of its members to threaten the security of the United States, cooperate with any group in Afghanistan threatening the security of the US, or provide legal documents to those who pose a threat to the US and its allies. 

    In a speech explaining his decision, Biden explained his decision by saying“more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan government.” He argued that the primary goal for invading Afghanistan was “to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again,” and that goal had been achieved. 

    Subsequent to President Biden’s speech in April, the Taliban released an official statement on their thoughts of the Biden administration delaying complete withdrawal from Afghanistan to September 11, 2021. The Taliban’s statement relayed that failure to completely withdraw all troops by May 1, 2021, “opens the way for the Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate to take every necessary countermeasure, hence the American side will be held responsible for all future consequences.”  

    Events Leading up to the Withdrawal

    In May of 2021, the Department of Defense Attorney General released a report stating the Taliban had increased its attacks against Afghanistan government forces in the first months of 2021. The Taliban had also appeared to be plotting with al-Qaeda for, “large-scale offenses.” The next month, a spokesperson for the Taliban stated that after the United States leaves Afghanistan the Taliban’s main goal will be creating an “Islamic government.”  In July, the U.S. military withdrew from Bagram Airfield, the largest airfield in Afghanistan.

    Withdrawal and Aftermath

    On August 6, the Taliban gained control of Nimroz, its first province. Nine days later, Taliban fighters entered Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital. The President of Afghanistan fled the country to Tajikistan and the United States sent a helicopter to evacuate US diplomats. The next day, President Biden addressed the nation saying he did not regret his decision of removing the US troops out of Afghanistan.  Biden elaborated, “I cannot and I will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war.” The last military plane left Kabul on August 30, 2021. Officially the 20-year war with the United States in Afghanistan has come to an end. An estimated 2,400 United States service members were killed, more than 20,000 injured, and 800,000+ served.

  • US Bilateral agreements with Japan and Korea

    US Bilateral agreements with Japan and Korea

    Bilateral Treaties are “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.” During the Cold War, bilateral treaties were the main way the United States created alliances in Asia. Bilateral treaties are important because they form the basis for the U.S. military relationship with both Japan and South Korea to this day. This alliance method meant the US would have separate treaties with each individual allied country in Asia (primarily Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), but those countries would not have treaties with each other. This gave the US a lot of power over its Asian allies, since the US had agreements with multiple countries in the region, while Asian countries only had agreements with the US. This arrangement shaped the balance of power and way alliances have generally worked in East Asia until present day. Many countries still have bilateral treaties, as opposed to multilateral treaties, which are agreements “between a large number of states, usually (though not always) denoting participation by a majority of the world’s states,” and therefore give more equal power to those signing the treaty.

    This alliance system the US created in Asia after World War II is called the “Hub and Spoke system,” also referred to as the “San Francisco System.” The United States was the “Hub” and countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan were the “spokes,” meaning these countries were all allied with the US at the center, but not with each other, like the spokes of a bike wheel. This allowed the United States to begin its rise to global supremacy by expanding its military reach across the Pacific.

    US-Japan Relations

    US-Japan relations were officially established at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945, after the conclusion of World War II. 46 nations plus four sponsors were invited to the conference because they had declared war on Germany and Japan. This conference was key because it was where the US wrote Japan’s constitution and disarmed their military, which “officially ended Japan’s position as an imperial power.” The 1951 United States-Japan Security Treaty established that the US would station soldiers on Japanese soil and have the exclusive right to defend Japan from threats even after Japan regained sovereignty, meaning Japan could not have its own standing military. The agreement was renewed in 1960 and created greater mutual security cooperation and reliance between the US and Japan by allowing the US to “establish bases on the archipelago in exchange for a commitment to defend Japan in the event of an attack,” which is still in effect today.

    Despite the fact that Article 9 of the Japanese constitution states that Japan is not allowed to have its own military, Japan created their own Self-Defence force (SDF) under Former Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida of Japan in 1954. The SDF established Japan’s maintenance of military forces to settle international disputes as a result of US presence being reduced in East Asia at the time. Under former Prime Minister Shinzō Abe in 2013, a reformed Article 9 allowed for the SDF and foreign militaries to collaborate to protect Japan from threats.

    US-South Korea Relations

    South Korea and the United States also have deep military ties. In June 1950, the North Korean military invaded South Korea and started the Korean War. With the help of the United States and United Nations forces, the War tentatively stopped with a ceasefire in July 1953. The US-ROK Mutual Defense Treaty was formed in October of 1953 to give South Korea security guarantees from the US after South Korea was weakened as a result of the tragic Korean War, since North Korea still threatened to invade and reunify the peninsula. This peace treaty allowed South Korea to rebuild with less threat of another invasion.

    During the Cold War, South Korea’s fear of US abandonment became apparent. President Nixon decided to relocate a majority of the US Forces Korea (USFK) stationed in South Korea to Vietnam to aid the ongoing war effort there, raising concerns about US dedication to protecting South Korean. US Troops in South Korea continued to decrease after the Cold War under the 1990 Strategic Framework for the Asian Pacific Rim, known as the East Asian Strategic Initiative (EASI). EASI increased the United States’ relationship with East Asia and Japan mostly through heightened military ties. Tensions began to rise even more in the early 1990s as North Korea began to increase and exhibit its military capabilities and presence on the international stage. During this time, USFK remained in Seoul under the original US-ROK alliance in their largest and main base, Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul. 

    Present Day Consequences

    South Korea and Japan normalized relations in 1965, but despite this “friendship” treaty, they still have a lot of tensions stemming from Japanese Colonial rule over Korea. Before 1965, Japan and South Korea mainly cooperated with each other indirectly through their separate “hub and spoke” alliances with the US. This is important because these two alliances (plus Taiwan) are a strategic way the US can counter Chinese influence in the region today. 

    US Treaties with Asian allies have become increasingly important with the rise of a nuclear North Korea and an assertive Chinese stance. Furthermore, to this day the United States continues to maintain a large physical military presence in Japan and South Korea. The United States currently has 55,000 troops and over 80 military facilities stationed in Japan, more than in any other foreign country, and 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. Additionally, due to the treaties the US has with Japan and South Korea, if war broke out in either of these countries, the US would be drawn into war, making these security agreements hugely consequential.

  • Intro to 2018 U.S. Sanctions on Iran

    Intro to 2018 U.S. Sanctions on Iran

    History

    Sanctions have been the core of U.S.-Iran foreign policy since the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the U.S. government imposed sanctions as part of its strategy to prevent the Iranian government from supporting terrorist groups and destabilizing the Middle East. In the mid-2000s, U.S.-imposed sanctions expanded to curb Iran’s nuclear weapon production and reduce the country’s missile arsenal. Financial sanctions weighed heavily on Iran’s economy for decades, and led to the Iranian government agreeing to the 2015 J.C.P.O.A. 

    The Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.), was supported by permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Germany, the European Union, and Iran. It committed to alleviating U.S., E.U., and U.N. sanctions if Iran complied with a list of demands, including restrictions on nuclear production. Though many economic sanctions were lifted under the J.C.P.O.A., some U.S. sanctions, including on direct trade with Iran and on Iran’s support of regional armed groups, remained in place.

    In 2018, the Trump Administration claimed Iran was not obeying the Iran Nuclear Deal rules, which sought to place limits on the country’s nuclear arms program, among other guidelines. In response, the Trump Administration removed the United States from the J.C.P.O.A. and introduced a “maximum pressure” campaign. At this time, sanctions that were eased under the 2015 nuclear agreement were reimposed with greater intensity.

    Benefits for the U.S.

    According to the Trump Administration, Iran’s nuclear program threatened  U.S. interests, and the J.C.P.O.A. didn’t curb inappropriate actions committed by the Iranian government. In a 2019 report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the reintroduction of sanctions sought to prevent the Iranian government from proceeding further with the following actions:

    1. Repressing the Iranian people
    2. Diverting humanitarian aid from low income Iranians to government interests
    3. Growing the country’s weapons arsenal
    4. Contributing to destabilization in the Middle East and promoting terrorism around the world

    In order to stop Iran’s “unacceptable actions” in the Middle East, sanctions were designed to cripple Iran’s main industries (oil, shipping, and banking) and weaken the country’s currency and purchasing power. These “unacceptable actions” referred to Iran’s support of terrorist organizations in Syria, Yemen, and other countries.

    Impacts on Iran

    Political Impact

    Sanctions can make counties more authoritarian and give more power to corrupt governments that hoard resources and use their power to control their people. While the entire country loses wealth, the government and financial elites lose less wealth than average citizens. In this way, U.S. sanctions on Iran have slowed the movement for democracy and civil rights in the country. Since the reimposition of sanctions, the Iranian government has continued to arrest activists for demonstrations and for promoting equal rights. However, it is not clear that these actions are directly related to the reimposition of sanctions.

    Economic Impact

    Financial sanctions have contributed to the following consequences for the Iranian economy:

    1. Currency Decline and Inflation: Iran’s currency value declined from 35,000 rials to the U.S. dollar under the J.C.P.O.A. to 265,000 rials to the U.S. dollar in late 2020. This contributed to major inflation – 45% in 2021 –  after the U.S.’s 2018 reimposition of sanctions.
    2. Lack of International Financial System Involvement: Additional sanctions in 2018 were placed on Iranian banks that were owned privately or by the government. Any financial institution who enters transactions with these sanctioned banks could face prosecution in the U.S. In 2019, international firms feared retaliation from the U.S. if they were caught in any form of transaction with Iran, including humanitarian imports into Iran. This threat prevented many firms from any interaction with Iran-based banks or organizations. Years of similar sanctions have inhibited Iran’s role in international trade, which ultimately affects the country’s wealth, imports of necessary items, and the number of reliable trading partners abroad.
    3. Oil Sales Reduction and Recession: Oil exports and petroleum production are the main industries in Iran. Reimposed and additional sanctions on banks involved in Iranian exports caused a decrease in oil sales and the inability of Iran to fully participate in the international financial system. In turn, this made Iran’s economy fall into a recession.

    Social Impact

    In recent years, Iran has experienced an increase in food insecurity due to inflation and a decrease in value of the rial. In addition, reports suggest a rise in domestic violence and suicide due to stressful economic conditions. Further, street fights have broken out in lines at food markets and currency exchanges over tense financial conditions exacerbated by economic sanctions on Iran.

    According to the Iranian National Bank in 2020, the poverty rate in Iran was close to 20%. However, other reports claim the rate to be as high as 35-40%. There are reports that generational poverty is more growing under the financial sanctions, which make it harder for employed Iranians born into poverty to climb the ladder to higher socio-economic classes.

    Though the U.S. government claimed sanctions would not impact the entry of humanitarian aid into the country, Human Rights Watch claims that sanctions have limited the purchasing power of Iranian healthcare facilities to acquire medicines for Iranians. Depreciation of Iranian currency, limits on banks who can finance sales with Iran, and threats to companies importing goods into the country prevent many Iranians from obtaining goods. 

    Future of U.S.-Iran Relations

    Election of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi

    The reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran in 2018 suggested to Iranians that working with the U.S. through diplomatic channels would not equate to a healthy relationship between the countries. Since sanctions were imposed, Iran saw “hardliners” win a majority of parliamentary elections in February of 2020. Additionally, many strong candidates running for president of Iran in 2021 considered themselves on the conservative and uncompromising side of politics. This categorization included the newly elected president, Ebrahim Raisi. 

    Raisi was elected president of Iran in June, 2021 with less than 50% voter turnout. Raisi is supported by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and has a record of human rights abuses. With Khamenei and Raisi on the same page, reports suggest Iran will become more conservative. This will likely include the Iranian government acting without the voice of the urban middle class, who support social reforms.

    J.C.P.O.A. (Iran Nuclear Deal)In early 2021, the Biden Administration said it welcomed a return to the J.C.P.O.A., with modifications, and a removal of harsh sanctions if Iran is willing to comply. On the other hand, the Iranian government wants the U.S. to remove the economic sanctions before an agreement is made and promise longevity for the future agreement. Further, Raisi suggested he would agree to a similar deal to the 2015 agreement but promised to push harder in talks related to Iran’s weapons capabilities. However, Raisi brings more conservative and unwavering views to the table, suggesting an unclear path to a deal between the countries. Additionally, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Bahrain, and Israel believe they have a right to enter talks regarding an updated nuclear deal with Iran, but Iranian leadership has qualms about the involvement of these countries.

  • Zapad 2021—Eastern Europe’s Military Alliance and NATO

    Zapad 2021—Eastern Europe’s Military Alliance and NATO

    Overview of Zapad 2021

    What is it?

    Zapad 2021 was a week-long joint military exercise between Russia and Belarus. Zapad, Russian for “west,” took place in Russia’s Western Military District, Belarus, and areas under the Northern Fleet’s Joint Strategic Command in the Baltic Sea. Zapad was proceeded by drills in the geographic regions of Vostok, “east,” in 2018, Tsentr, “center,” in 2019, and Kavkaz, “Caucasus,” in 2020. The exercise consisted of a three-day defensive phase simulating an invasion by Western actors, referred to as the Polar Republic, and a four-day counter-offensive to regain lost territory. Zapad essentially represented a show of Russian-Belarusian military solidarity and served as a staging ground for new doctrine, strategy, and weapons systems.

    Diagram Description automatically generated

    Image Courtesy of the ISW

    Important Actors

    Russia and Belarus were the primary states involved in the exercise, although military representatives from India and states in the Caucasus and Central Asia were present. Despite unreliable statistics, it is believed that a total of 200,000 military personnel participated in the exercises, and roughly 80 aircraft and helicopters, up to 15 ships, and nearly 300 tanks were used.

    A helicopter flying over a field Description automatically generated with low confidence

    Image Courtesy of Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

    Significant Developments from the Exercise

    Overall, Zapad was hailed as a success by the participating states. By the end of the exercise, the combined military force had defeated the Polar Republic, which served as a fictitious representation of NATO. Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin expressed satisfaction with the exercise’s results and hailed his military for its capabilities. The most intriguing technological success was the performance of Russia’s newly developed autonomous tanks, which represent the Russian military’s success in developing new autonomous weaponry.

    Although not a direct result of the exercise, Vladimir Putin had to recuse himself from viewing the exercise due to being exposed to the Covid-19 virus. Putin tested negative for the virus but isolated himself as members of his staff had tested positive.

    Implications for NATO and Eastern European Geopolitics

    The exercise was meant to serve as a show of unity between Russia and Belarus, and a show of force directed towards NATO. To the first point, Russia and Belarus’ close military relationship was apparent even before the exercise, as Belarus had recently purchased over $1 billion in Russian weaponry. This significant purchase signals that Belarus is concerned about its security. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asserted that Zapad was practice for preventing a western-backed color revolution in Belarus in response to the 2020 mass protests against his regime.

    Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko

    Image Courtesy of The Guardian

    Zapad caused significant concern in Ukraine, a country currently in conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. In response, the United States, Ukraine, and several other NATO countries plan to hold a joint military exercise in late September 2021 in response to Zapad named “Rapid Trident—2021.”

    Before the exercise, NATO officials advised Russia to be transparent and warned that any miscalculations could ignite a potential conflict. However, it is clear that Zapad was used to demonstrate Russia’s new military capabilities and project strength rather than serve as a pretense for an invasion of a neighboring state.

  • Introduction to the US Relationship with Uruguay and Paraguay

    Introduction to the US Relationship with Uruguay and Paraguay

    The two northernmost countries of the Southern Cone, Uruguay and Paraguay, are linked through both their geographies and their histories. The United States works closely with each country, especially in its efforts to combat drug trafficking across the Americas, and the two are frequent collaborators in establishing and advancing environmental protections.

    Republic of Paraguay

    Fact Sheet: 

    History of U.S.-Paraguay Relations

    The United States recognized Paraguay’s independence from Spain in 1852. In the years following the formation of this relationship, Paraguay experienced a series of coups, civil wars, and dictatorships. During the mid 19th-century, the country was also engaged in a series of border conflicts with its neighbours, in which the US military often attempted to intervene. These tensions culminated in the outbreak of the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-1870), a bloody interstate conflict between Paraguay and the alliance of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil, which resulted in the complete destruction of Paraguay and the death of half of its people. Following the devastation of the war, the Paraguayan government transitioned to a republic. However, the country remained divided by inter-party conflict throughout the early 20th century. General Alfredo Stroessner took control of the Paraguayan government by force in 1954, and ruled as dictator for several decades before being overthrown in 1989. During this period, relations between Paraguay and the United States collapsed entirely, a consequence of international backlash against the many human rights abuses committed by the general’s government.

    Over the past two decades, Paraguay has slowly made the transition to democracy. The United States encouraged this change and has provided support to the new government. This new relationship has given the United States a new partner in the Southern Cone to cooperate with on international issues of migration, crime, corruption, and environmental conservation.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Paraguay

    The United States is one of Paraguay’s largest sources of development aid and foreign direct investment. Of particular interest to the United States are issues of drug trafficking and money laundering, preservation of democratic norms within the country, and the conservation of Paraguay’s many natural resources. 

    Oriental Republic of Uruguay

    Fact Sheet

    • Population: 3.4 million
    • Capital: Montevideo
    • System of Governance: Presidential Republic
    • Chief of State and Head of Government: President Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou
    • Majority Language: Spanish
    • Majority Religions: Christianity (Roman Catholic, 47%), Nondenominational (23.2%), Atheist or Agnostic (17.2%)
    • GDP Per Capita: $21,561

    History of U.S.-Uruguay Relations

    The United States formally established diplomatic relations with Uruguay in 1867. The country was internally fractured by civil war less than a decade after it declared independence in 1830, with followers of Uruguay’s first and second presidents fighting over control of the government and the country’s political future. Conflict between these two factions, the Colorados and the Blancos, eventually boiled over the country’s borders, generating a multinational conflict between the countries of the Southern Cone known as the War of the Triple Alliance. Although the Colorados ended the war in power, tensions between the factions persisted. In 1905, a civilian government backed by popular mandate was established. The early 20th century saw progress on a number of social and political issues, including women’s rights and equitable distribution of power within government. Following the Great Depression, however, the country was once again engulfed in political turmoil leading to conflict and the government’s right-ward, authoritarian shift. Economic instability led to a six decade-long period of alternating constitutional reform and military control. A civilian government returned to power in 1985.

    Though the US never formally severed diplomatic ties with the country, relations were strained while Uruguay was under military control. For this reason, the US relationship with Uruguay is weaker than with neighboring countries like Argentina and Brazil. Once Uruguay returned to civilian-led democracy, the two countries began to strengthen their alliance.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Uruguay

    A central focus of US-Uruguay relations is the United States’ support for Uruguay’s participation in and support for conflict resolution and peacekeeping efforts in Latin America and across the world. Uruguay has a strong reputation in both regional and international forums for acting as a reliable mediator and for consistently advocating peace, stability, and democracy. In an effort to support these endeavours, the United States provides assistance to the Uruguayan government and military and encourages Uruguay’s engagement in programs, particularly those of the United Nations, that work to these ends. 
    As with issues of political stability and peacekeeping, Uruguay takes an active role in international organizations’ efforts to combat international crime. The United States supports these efforts through direct assistance and has partnered with Uruguayan law enforcement agencies and officials to augment the international community’s capacity to undermine organized crime and trafficking organizations, particularly in Central America. The United States similarly provides assistance, in the form of training. to the institutions of the Uruguayan justice system in an effort to support the country’s commitment to reforming and improving the country’s criminal justice and correctional systems.

  • Intro to the One Country, Two Systems Policy

    Intro to the One Country, Two Systems Policy

    Historical Context

    In the late 19th century, the Qing Empire ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain as part of a series of treaties ending the Opium Wars. Under these treaties, a majority of Hong Kong was leased to Great Britain for 99 years. In the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher and Deng Xiaoping, leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), entered into negotiations regarding the framework for the transfer of Hong Kong back to mainland China, also known as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). During these negotiations, Deng introduced the One Country, Two Systems policy as a way of absorbing the region without requiring it to immediately conform to mainland economic and political standards, as well as compromising with Britain, who technically owned Hong Kong Island and the nearby Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity. Under the declaration, signed in 1984, Hong Kong’s economic and social systems would remain unchanged for at least 50 years. After the implementation of this policy in Hong Kong, it was also applied to Macau when it was ceded by Portugal in 1999.

    What is “One Country, Two Systems”?

    One Country, Two Systems describes mainland China’s policy regarding its relationship to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Under this policy, the PRC views Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as Special Administrative Regions (SAR’s) with local governments that have more authority than the CCP usually grants. While China is governed by a one-party communist dictatorship, Hong Kong and Macau operate as capitalist societies with varying degrees of democracy. Macau’s government more closely resembles that of the mainland due to a largely pro-CCP population, while Hong Kong has a stronger democratic tradition. In contrast, Taiwan is more or less a fully independent country that does not recognize CCP authority. 

    While Hong Kong and Macau’s statuses as SARs allows them to operate under different systems from mainland China and remain semi-autonomous, they still must recognize the existence of one unified China. This is because one of the CCP’s key foreign policy goals and a matter of national pride is the existence of a unified China that includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Thus, the CCP often requires countries to recognize their sole authority under “One Country, Two Systems” in order to have normal trade relations with China. 

    Key government officials in Hong Kong and Macau must be approved by the CCP and deemed to be patriots. Additionally, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law, a constitution-like document for these Special Administrative Regions, also lies with the mainland. Furthermore, matters of defense and foreign affairs are under the CCP’s control. Essentially, the CCP reserves the right to interfere in the affairs of the SAR’s when those affairs affect the sovereignty or unity of China. Another more pragmatic reason for imposing the One Country, Two Systems policy is because China wanted to leverage the advantages of the region’s free markets. By utilizing the existing capitalist systems, they have served as a bridge between capitalism and socialism, opening China up to more foreign capital and supplementation and supporting the growth of the socialist economy.

    US Relationship to the Policy

    As of 1979, the United States recognises the PRC as the legitimate, sole ruler of China. While the US acknowledges mainland China’s claim that Taiwan is a part of China, it still maintains unofficial ties with Taiwan’s government and a strong commitment to protecting Taiwanese security, due to Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. Similarly, the US maintains that Hong Kong is “an independent customs territory and economic entity separate from the PRC and can separately enter into international agreements,” and is committed to Hong Kong’s prosperity, autonomy, and way of life.

    Recently, China has publicly stated its intention to fold Taiwan into the mainland under the One Country, Two Systems model, but has met heavy resistance from both the government and citizens of Taiwan. China will be the biggest international challenge to the United States in the coming decades due to its recent economic and military ascendancy. 

  • Overview of Japanese Colonial Rule in Korea

    Overview of Japanese Colonial Rule in Korea

    In 1910, Korea was annexed by Japan, following a long and complicated history between the two nations. Relations between Korea and Japan were strained for centuries before the Japanese annexation of Korea, with one of the most notable conflicts being the Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century, in which Japan attempted to conquer Korea, but ultimately failed. By the beginning of the 20th century, Japan had established itself as the dominant military and imperialist power in Asia by defeating both China in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, formalizing Japan’s hold on the Korean peninsula.

    After annexing Korea, Japan established a government in which all of the officials were military leaders appointed by the emperor of Japan. Japan also imposed their education system onto the Korean colony, using it to assimilate Korea into Japan. Schools only taught in Japanese and excluded Korean history from their curriculum. The colonial government took away land from many Koreans and deprived them of rights such as the freedom of speech, assembly, and press. Japan also made efforts to modernize Korea’s economy. For example, Japan expanded Korean infrastructure by building nationwide infrastructure like roads, railroads, and electrical power. Japan also established heavy manufacturing industries in the north, such as steel, chemicals, and hydroelectric power. Much of this transformation was done using forced Korean labor.

    Struggling for Independence

    On March 1, 1919, a day also known as the March First Movement, Koreans held peaceful nationwide anti-Japanese rallies, which began with a written declaration of Korean independence. The Japanese responded with military force to suppress the demonstrations, killing, wounding, and arresting tens of thousands of protestors. Korean independence leaders formed the Korean Provisional Government, Korea’s first democratic republican government, in response to the Japanese suppression of the March First Movement. Koreans continued to fight for independence, carrying out armed struggles against Japan during the 1920s. In response, Japan imposed strict military rule over Korea in 1931 and, by the end of the 1930s, made efforts to erase Korean identity. Koreans were forced to adopt and use Japanese names, worship at Japanese shrines, and follow Japanese spiritual practices. Written work published in Korean was banned. Koreans were drafted to fight for Japan in both the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II, and were forced to work in mines, factories, and military bases for little or no pay. Following the outbreak of the war in the Pacific, young Korean women, also known as “comfort women,” were forced to perform sexual services for the Japanese military.

    Independence and Post-Independence Relations

    The Korean Provisional Government declared war against Japan in 1941 and established the Korean Restoration Army, which fought with the Allied forces in China. Japanese colonial rule in Korea ended in August 1945, when Japan surrendered at the end of World War II. Today, far-right groups in Japan insist that Japanese colonial rule was moderate, if not beneficial to Korea. They attribute Korea’s economic growth and success following the colonial period to the changes in infrastructure and education that Japan installed. Additionally, many of these groups in Japan say that Koreans have “‘enjoyed a moral arrogance through a moral superiority’ over Japan” and assert that Koreans themselves managed stations for comfort women, even though Koreans were compelled into many different types of labor during colonial rule. They argue that Japanese rule over Korea was not “brutal,” citing examples of colonial rule by Western nations, and claim that “Japan never practiced any of the forced labor, economic exploitation, and destruction of recalcitrant villages, with occasional forced relocation and racial segregation” that typifies Western colonialism, therefore making Japanese colonization “moderate” and “almost fair.” However, most Koreans who lived through this period give consistent accounts of Japanese oppression and exploitation, and both the victims of Japanese colonialism and scholars of Japanese history today agree that the “Japanese have never seriously faced…the realities of the devastating abuse Japan brought to neighboring nations and their people.”
    Koreans continue to fight to keep the memory of Japanese colonization alive by writing about it and erecting memorials, such as the comfort women memorial statues. Japan claims it apologized to Korea through a 1965 bilateral treaty, which established diplomatic ties between the two nations, and a 2015 fund. Nonetheless, Koreans believe that Japan has not truly apologized to the victims who suffered under Japanese colonialism, especially since the Japanese government continually denies the severity of Japanese colonialism and refuses to include Japan’s past atrocities in their education system. As Japan and South Korea are both key allies for the US in East Asia to counter Chinese influence, it is crucial that Americans understand the historical tensions between them. These disagreements could disrupt their partnerships with the US and change the balance of power in the Pacific.

  • International Trade with China

    International Trade with China

    As discussed in the US-China Trade Deficit paper, the United States and China have a complicated economic relationship. While the two nations compete in many industries, they are also major consumers of each others’ goods and contribute on different points in a supply chain to produce many of the products in demand across the globe. At the same time, the trade deficit with China has caused growing concern in the United States, and caused many economists and policymakers to explore ways to better support US business in the face of competition with China.

    I. Import Tariffs

    An import tariff is a tax levied by one country on the goods and services imported from another country. Typically, governments impose these tariffs to protect domestic industries, gain additional revenue, and, in the case of the U.S.-China trade war, retaliate against unfair trading practices. Beginning in 2017, the United States imposed a litany of tariffs on Chinese imports, motivated by the expanding trade deficit. In theory, increasing the price of Chinese imports would drive up demand for domestically-produced goods and services, and, if the output increased to meet demands, would prompt domestic producers to hire additional workers. The import tariffs placed on Chinese goods and services would narrow the widening trade deficit and stimulate economic growth. However, many economists argue that the Trump administration’s import tariffs, when put into practice, achieved the complete opposite effect. 

    A recent report released by the U.S.-China Business Council (USBC) asserts that, contrary to the Trump administration’s goals, the tariffs actually “raised consumer prices on both imported products and domestic products.” The report also claims that by reducing consumer spending and stifling economic growth, these trade policies have cost the United States approximately 245,000 jobs. The Biden administration has since left these tariffs intact, a decision which Wall Street Journal columnist Henry Olsen deemed  “welcome”. Olsen argued that to keep China from “[mounting] a serious challenge to U.S. global dominance,” the Trump administration’s burdensome tariffs must remain a necessary evil.

    II. Import Quotas

    Import quotas, a close cousin of import tariffs, achieve a similar objective through a different process. Historically, both have been utilized to reduce the volume of imports and encourage demand for domestically-produced goods. However, import tariffs are taxes on imported goods, whereas import quotas are limits on their quantity or monetary value. By many accounts, quotas are more effective in restricting trade since they aren’t affected by fluctuations in demand or exchange rates, but this isn’t a universally useful strategy. As Monica Sanders from the Houston Chronicle asserts, trading partners typically respond with similar trade restrictions, resulting in “less exporting opportunity for all producers and higher prices for all consumers.” For example, during the early 1980s, the United States imposed import quotas on Japanese automobiles to generate growth within the domestic auto industry. As economist Edward Hudgins remarks, by limiting the number of imported automobiles, domestic auto companies raised prices “without fear of losing business to less expensive competitors.”

    III. Import Subsidies

    Subsidies are government funds paid to domestic producers. Resembling other protectionist policies, subsidies protect against inexpensive foreign imports by decreasing production costs and, consequently, increasing production growth. This leads to increased demand for domestically-produced goods. While they do regulate costs and prevent the long-term decline of domestic industries, subsidies also lead to consumers bearing the brunt of the financial burden and can be complicated for infant industries. In order to collect funds for subsidizing domestic industries, governments must impose higher taxes. Since they develop without competition, subsidizing infant industries may eventually lead to those industries requiring permanent subsidies to stay afloat. 
    Despite these potential risks, subsidies have remained a central component of U.S. trade policy over the last several decades. To encourage domestic energy production, the United States provides a number of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Totaling approximately $20 billion per year, these subsidies were initially intended to “lower the cost of fuel production and incentivize new domestic energy sources.” Due to comparatively cheaper renewable energy sources and negative environmental externalities, taxpayers have found it difficult to rationalize this government spending.

  • Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    Russia’s Commitments Under New START in the Context of the NPT and the TPNW

    The creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament that occurred on a global scale. The NPT is a landmark international treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and achieving international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, that nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and that nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia to create mutual arms control agreements and reduce nuclear stockpiles. Beginning in November of 1969 with the presentation of SALT I, which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses, the two nations went on to engage in more than half a dozen other nuclear-focused disarmament treaties with one another.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. The renewal was significant because it assured both countries’ continued commitment to regulating and limiting nuclear weapons and weapons technology, and because of the upcoming review of the NPT that occurred later this year. However, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. The New START treaty, which was signed in 2010, by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems, and limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. 

    New START gives the U.S invaluable national security information by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, and maintains the international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed.

  • Introduction to US-Nicaragua Relations

    Introduction to US-Nicaragua Relations

    Fact Sheet

    Population: 6,243,931 (July 2021 est.)

    Capital: Managua

    System of Governance: Presidential Republic

    President: Jose Daniel Ortega Saavedra (since 10 January 2007)

    Majority Language: Spanish

    Majority Religion: Roman Catholic

    GDP Per Capita: $5,407 (2019 est.)

    Global Freedom Score: 30/100

    History of Relationship with the United States

    Nicaragua’s relationship with the United States began in 1824, when it declared independence from Spain and subsequently joined the Federation of Central American States. The United States, under the leadership of James D. Monroe, recognized the independence of the Federation of Central American States, which at the time included Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. It was not until 1849 that the United States recognized the independence of Nicaragua, when then-president James K. Polk held a meeting with the Charge d’Affaires Eduardo Carcache.

    The presidency of José Santos Zelaya strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Nicaragua. Several factors contributed to this shift, one of the greatest being Zelaya’s refusal to grant the United States permission to build a canal through the country, forcing them to use Panama instead. Rumors also surfaced that Zelaya was planning to invite Japan to build a canal that would compete with the United States’ waterway in Panama. This motivated the United States to support a conservative opposition revolt. Tensions reached a boiling point when two American citizens were executed for their participation in the revolt. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Nicaragua in 1909. Additionally, United States Marines were sent into Bluefields, a crucial city for Nicaragua’s economy, and the site of revolutionary activity. While guarding American property in Nicaragua, the Marines established a neutral zone in Bluefields. Ultimately, Zelaya sought asylum in Mexico and the United States resumed diplomatic relations with the next president in 1911. Marines remained in Nicaragua until 1932. 

    Relations between the two countries remained rocky from 1911 to 1947, though there were few major incidents. In 1947, after former president Anastasio Somoza Garcia overthrew the government of President Leonardo Arguello Brown, the United States once again severed relations with Nicaragua, stating they “would not be disposed to enter into official relations with the regime in power in Nicaragua.” In response to pressure from the United States, elections were held and Victor Roman y Reyes was elected, re-establishing diplomatic relations. 

    The Sandinista regime seized power in 1979. Backed by Cuba, the Sandinista regime became a major target of Ronald Reagan’s fight against Communism. Reagan authorized funds in 1982 to assist in the recruiting, training, and armament of Nicaraguan counterrevolutionaries (the Contras) that opposed the Sandinista regime. The Nicaraguan government expelled the American Ambassador in retribution. 

    The fall of the Sandinista regime and the beginning of the Chamorro government marked a new era of relations with the United States. The Chamorro government reversed many of the previous regime’s policies and undertook a series of reforms throughout the 1990s. Key policy changes included the reducing the size of the army and the resignation of General Humberto Ortega (chief military officer during the Sandinista regime). These changes signified greater civilian control over the military. However, unrest still defined the administration as disgruntled former Contras (renamed the Recontras) continued to promote unrest because they felt the Sandinista-dominated military was violent towards other political groups, and the administration failed to follow through on its promise of redistributing the land. The Chamorro government managed to disarm most of the Recontras by 1995. When it was time for the election of a new administration in 1996, the Chamorro government promised peaceful elections to transition from one civilian government to another.

    Daniel Ortega, the president from 1985-1990, returned to power in 2006 and began Nicaragua’s attempt to transition to a modern economy. This included entering the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement with the United States, which helped the country attract investment, create jobs, and promote economic growth. In 2007, the Inter-American Development Bank cancelled the country’s $1 billion debt. Through the PetroCaribe energy initiative, Venezuela sold crude oil to Nicaragua at discounted prices starting in 2007, allowing the Nicaraguan government to resell the oil at market prices. Profits from this initiative went to social programs to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate fell from 42% to 30% between 2009 and 2014. The US the remained Nicaragua’s largest trading partner, however, the economy began shifting towards China and Russia. In 2014, Nicaragua broke ground on a Chinese-funded canal across, but the project has been suspended due to environmental and financial concerns.

    The majority of citizens were content with Ortega due to his social programs that brought many out of poverty. However, some Nicaraguans grew concerned over his increasingly authoritarian rule, lack of government transparency, and control over national courts, military and the police. An incriminating report stated that profits from the PetroCaribe initiative were being diverted to invest in private companies controlled by Ortega’s family and friends. Despite growing uncertainty surrounding the Ortega administration, he was reelected in 2016, and Ortega’s wife was elected vice president.

    In April 2018, the government social security program increased worker contributions but decreased benefits, and this served as a catalyst for widespread protests and riots. Anger focused on the Ortega regime, and protests spread across many major cities. These protests were often met with violence. Soon after, Ortega withdrew the social security reform, though the violence towards citizens caused continued protests. The death toll reached nearly 300. By January 2020, nearly 88,000 Nicaraguans had fled the country in response to the unrest. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations’ human rights spokesmen accused the police and authorities of extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, and the denial of the right of freedom and expression.

    Following the breakout of COVID in the country, the Ortega administration downplayed the threat of the virus, and continued to permit large-scale gatherings. In addition, new legislation made it illegal to disseminate news that was not government sanctioned and prohibited “traitors” from holding public office without defining the term. The Organization of American States issued a resolution setting May 2021 as the deadline for the Ortega government to impose electoral reforms that favor a more democratic process in attempts to end election irregularities. Despite these measures, in June 2021, Ortega used his newly-passed laws to arrest 26 opposition figures, including six candidates in the running for the upcoming November election. The passing of repressive laws, silencing of civil society, and the undermining of democratic processes and institutions prompted international criticism and condemnation from the Organization of American States. The United States imposed visa restrictions on 100 members of the Nicaraguan assembly and judicial system. 

    Relations between the United States and Nicaragua remain rocky. The future of Nicaraguan elections, democratic processes, and civil rights remain in question.

    Strategic Interests

    Economy

    Nicaragua has widespread unemployment and poverty, and is the poorest country in Central America and the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. 50% of Nicaragua’s exports are textiles and agricultural products, with a large remainder of exports consisting of beef, gold, and coffee. The United States has remained Nicaragua’s largest trading partner, buying 51% of its exports and supplying Nicaragua with 32% of its imports. The economic strengths of Nicaragua include the low labor cost, the young working class, and tax incentives for possible investors. The weaknesses of Nicaragua’s economy include its high security costs, its reputation as a risky place for investments, growing mistrust in the government and private sector, and lack of trust in governmental institutions.

    Counternarcotics and Security Issues

    Nicaragua has been grappling with the high risk of human trafficking within its borders. Human trafficking recruiters often use social media outlets within the country to recruit vulnerable populations of women and children. Traffickers within Nicaragua recruit individuals through social media, promising high-paying jobs outside of the country, in reality forcing them into labor. Children are targeted through the same initiatives and are forced into illegal drug trafficking and production. Nicaragua serves as a transshipment point for cocaine and arms-for-drugs shipments into the United States.

    Human Rights

    24.6% of the country lives below the poverty line, posing a large humanitarian crisis that has received international attention. In 2018, the government expelled the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ (IACHR) monitoring mechanisms for the country. The Ortega administration has exacerbated these issues, with civilian deaths sparking international outcries for support.

    Migration and Border IssuesAs of April 2020, more than 103,000 Nicaraguans have fled since the violence in April 2018. Costa Rica hosts 77,000 refugees, and thousands of others have fled to Mexico, Panama, Europe, and the United States. Currently, “200,000 Nicaraguans are believed to be in the United States illegally.” The Biden administration, in response to irregular migration flows from the Northern Triangle and Central America, has initiated a “multipronged approach, including Executive Order 14010, which calls for a comprehensive framework to manage migration flows that would ‘facilitate access to protection and other lawful immigration avenues, in both the United States and partner countries, as close to migrants’ homes as possible.’” The Biden administration is requesting “$861 million in foreign assistance for Central America as part of its proposed four-year, $4 billion plan to address the root causes of migration.” The Biden administration continues to focus on the root causes of Central American migration, hoping foreign engagement in the region and funding of social programs will reduce illegal immigration and asylum-seekers at the border from both the Northern Triangle and Mexico.