ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

    Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

    The United States governmental system is a Democratic Republic with a President in the key leadership role. Alternatively, the United Kingdom has a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. In these two different types of government, the respective leaders are chosen in different fashions and have different roles and authorities.

    The Two Systems

    The United States government is composed of three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. These branches derive their authority from the Constitution, and each has enumerated powers and responsibilities. To ensure limits on the capabilities of each branch, the framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances, which promotes cooperation among the three branches and prevents any single branch from overstepping its bounds. The Constitution also outlines the Electoral College process to select the President. “Electors,” who are appointed by the state, cast their vote by ballot for the United States President. The aim of the Electoral College is to find a balance between direct election by citizens (a popular vote), and election by a congressional vote. 

    In contrast, the United Kingdom has a bicameral Parliament (meaning that there are two legislative houses), including the House of Commons (the lower house, where most law-making activity takes place) and House of Lords (the upper house, which refines and approves laws). Unlike the United States’ written and codified constitution, the United Kingdom relies on a mix of traditions which have developed over the course of centuries and common law, which is composed of hundreds of acts of parliament and court case rulings. The monarch theoretically has the power to appoint a Prime Minister. However, in practice, the Prime Minister is chosen by the political party with a plurality in the House of Commons and the monarch simply confirms the party’s proposed candidate.

    Source: CK-12

    Roles and Responsibilities

    The President of the United States is the leader of the executive branch, as well as the head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As such, the President implements and enforces laws written by Congress, as outlined by Article II of the Constitution. The President also appoints the leaders of the fifteen executive departments and more than fifty federal commissions, federal judges, ambassadors, and more. The Constitution also requires the President to, “from time to time” provide information to Congress by a State of the Union address. Convention has developed for the State of the Union, and the President has traditionally outlined a general agenda for the upcoming year, but the constitutional requirement may be fulfilled as the President sees fit. 

    By comparison, in the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is responsible for the policy and decisions of the government. With no formal constitution, the Prime Minister’s duties are less explicit, but traditionally the Prime Minister’s responsibilities fall under eight categories: constitutional and procedural, appointments, conduct of cabinet and parliamentary business, policy strategy and communications, organizational and efficiency questions, budget and market-sensitive decisions, national security, and special personal responsibilities. 

    One of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister is to manage the relationship between the government and the Monarch, as well as manage the relationship between the UK Government and the regional administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Similar to the President, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to appoint members of the government, including ministers, headships of security service, secret intelligence service, top appointments to the civil service, ecclesiastical appointments, academic appointments, and more. The Prime Minister is also in charge of appointing and then maintaining the Cabinet’s overall political strategy (the Cabinet is the collective term for the senior leaders of large government departments, alternatively referred to as the executive). The Prime Minister must also run weekly meetings with the National Security Council.

    Beyond constitutional duties, the President is capable of imposing their will and exploiting their power. One of the President’s greatest powers is their ability to either adopt proposed legislation by signing it into law or to veto the bills (note, however, that Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses). The President can also issue executive orders to either direct members of the executive branch, or clarify existing laws. This is a strategy that has been employed much more frequently by recent Presidents; executive orders saw a significant increase in usage beginning in the early 1900s. Additionally, as the head of the executive branch, the President oversees diplomacy with other nations. Thus, the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, though treaties require ratification from the Senate. The President can extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes. 

    Because the Prime Minister’s powers have been developed iteratively over time without a clear set of rules, they are more flexible. In addition to being able to appoint ministers, they may also dismiss ministers as they see fit, effectively giving them ultimate control over the legislative agenda. Regarding the Cabinet and its committees, the Prime Minister has the power to steer the agenda, and frequently pushes the cabinet towards the outcome they believe to be best. The PM can also decide the size of the cabinet, and may create governmental departments and executive agencies. While it is the responsibility of the PM to run National Security Council meetings, they also have the power to oversee the implementation of the general National Security Strategy. Finally, the Prime Minister serves as the representative of the UK during international meetings, and has the power to control much of the UK’s diplomacy with other countries.

    Is one better?:

    Ultimately, both the Democratic Republic and the Parliamentary system have their upsides and downfalls. The primary strength of a Democratic Republic is its system of checks and balances, which prevents any single branch from usurping power from another. However, there is often significant gridlock when the government is trying to function, resulting in slow progress.

    While the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial are isolated in a Democratic Republic, the powers are more fluid within the Parliamentary system. This can work to the system’s benefit, because the legislative and executive powers are merged together, allowing laws to be formulated and implemented more quickly than in a Democratic Republic. However, because of the fusion of powers, the executive, or Cabinet, can have too much power over the legislature, or Houses of Parliament. 

  • Expansion of the European Union and NATO into the Former Soviet Union

    Expansion of the European Union and NATO into the Former Soviet Union

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) coordinate closely and often operate with similar strategic goals in mind. The two alliances also uphold similar requirements for membership. Essentially, they each require member states to have democratic institutions of government, functioning market economies, and general respect for human rights within their country. Historically, NATO has been oriented towards issues of defense and collective security, whereas the EU focuses more on economic integration and trade. These Western alliances and their respective institutions expanded in recent decades into Eastern Europe and the territories of the former Soviet Union. 

    NATO and EU expansion has had two main components: diplomatic and military expansion. Diplomatic expansion is the process of incorporating new member-states into the alliances. NATO has conducted eight rounds of enlargement since 1949, and the EU has grown from six to twenty-seven members since 1951. Military expansion involves more ambitious defense agreements and coordination with additional countries. This includes, most notably, the revamped military strategy of NATO’s Allied Land Command or LANDCOM. Since the Warsaw Summit in 2016, this military branch has adopted the Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) initiative which created a more active security apparatus in Eastern Europe. The EU does not retain standing army units like NATO. Instead, the EU relies on member contributions and networking with regional entities to execute military operations when necessary.

    Member states in NATO and the EU are often supportive of expanding the alliances. The alliance charters established open-door policies towards aspirant countries for the sake of regional security, should they meet the general requirements. NATO states the “enlargement process poses no threat to any country (…) [it] is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, at building a Europe whole and free, united in peace, democracy and common values.” Several nations are currently working towards membership. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine are potential candidates for NATO membership, while Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Turkey are being considered for EU accession. Ultimately, NATO and the EU see eastward expansion as an opportunity to strengthen the organizations and promote Western-democratic reforms. 

    NATO was originally formed by the United States as a bulwark against Soviet power, so Russia remains wary about the intentions of the Western coalition. In recent years, the Kremlin has viewed expansion as a direct threat to its security strategy and key regional interests. NATO membership for Ukraine and Balkan states could decrease Russian influence in those countries. The Kremlin’s aversion to expanding Western alliances is thus rooted in legitimate fears of geopolitical isolation. A 2017 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states: “The Kremlin charges that the West is conducting hybrid warfare through a combination of military and other means, particularly democracy promotion activities in and around Russia. From Moscow’s perspective, these activities encircle Russia with Western agents of influence, create opportunities for Western intervention, and empower groups inside Russia opposed to the Russian government.” The Russian security establishment remains entrenched in this view, making strategic concessions highly unlikely. 

    Similarly, leaders in NATO and the EU remain committed to diplomatic expansion and enhanced security initiatives. The prospects for improved relations between Russia and the alliances, therefore, seem bleak in the immediate future. Ukraine continues to make increasingly legitimate strides towards NATO accession, a move that Russia has declared it would view as a “Red Line.” It remains to be seen what developments will take place with regard to new member states, in addition to how far Russia is willing to go with a direct or indirect response. It is certain, however, that the role of alliances like NATO and the EU will continue to be a source of conflict in relations between Russia and the West.

  • Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Argentina

    Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Argentina

    Fact Sheet 

    • Population: 45,864,941 (July 2021 est.)
    • Capital: Buenos Aires
    • System of Governance: Presidential Republic
    • Chief of State and Head of Government: President Alberto Ángel Fernández
    • Majority Language: Spanish
    • Majority Religions: Christianity (Roman Catholic, 92%; Protestant, 2%)
    • GDP Per Capita: $22,064 (2019 est. in 2010 U.S. dollars)

    History of Relationship Between the U.S. and Argentina

    The U.S. government officially recognized the Government of Buenos Ayres, what would become the Argentine Republic, in 1823, seven years after its declaration of independence from Spain. Though recognized by the United States and other foreign powers, this government struggled to establish itself as the legitimate government in the country, repeatedly facing challenges to its attempts to centralize power in Buenos Aires and efforts by its neighbors to assume control over the borderlands. During this period of intermittent conflict, power was consolidated in the office of the president and the military gained a position of prominence. The consequences of these trends would be borne out decades later.

    For much of its early history, the country was controlled by a democratically elected government. However, popular dissatisfaction with its inability to rectify the country’s economic crisis during the Great Depression, in addition to conservative and liberal frustration with the government’s neutrality during World War II, caused it to lose popularity and resulted in a number of exchanges of power over the course of the early 20th century. It was following this period of instability that, in 1943, the government was overthrown in a coup and Juan Perón ascended to power. Perón was a divisive leader, and his tenure preceded another period of political turmoil and instability leading to the Guerra Sucia (Dirty War). During this seven-year period, tens of thousands of Argentine citizens were summarily executed for suspected links to anti-government insurgent groups, a tragedy which would come to have lasting effects on the country. This was a tumultuous period for US relations. Members of the US government were divided over whether to support the Perón dictatorship in an effort to limit the spread of communism or recenter issues of human rights in U.S. foreign policy.

    In 1983, democracy was restored in Argentina and it has remained as a stable constitutional republic though the country faced a series of economic crises in subsequent years. These crises cemented economic relations between Argentina and the United States. Argentina’s economic recovery from a crisis in the 1990s occurred at the peak of neoliberalism’s popularity, and is often touted as a shining example of the potential success of Washington Consensus policies. Relations between the two countries remained largely concerned with issues of trade, lending, and monetary policy into the 20th century. Though U.S. strategic interests have shifted in recent years, the two remain close partners.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Argentina

    The United States’ main strategic interests in Argentina and South America as a whole are the promotion of democracy and human rights, counterterrorism, rule of law, regional economic integration, resource and infrastructure development, and citizen security. In an effort to advance these interests, the United States has engaged Argentina in a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements and provides financial, advisory, and other forms of assistance in exchange for their cooperation.  

    In recent years, counterterrorism, both regional and international, has become increasingly important in U.S.-Argentine relations. The two countries worked closely in the development of the Western Hemisphere Counterterrorism Ministerial (WHCM) which has advocated for Latin American countries to follow the American lead on terrorist designations including Hezbollah in Lebanon. The United States also provides assistance to the Argentine military and law enforcement agencies, in the form of training and education programs, technical assistance, and financial support, in an effort to advance the country’s counterterrorism efforts.

    The United States has sought cooperation from the Argentine government on issues related to the transnational trafficking of illicit drugs. To this end, the U.S. State Department’s International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau has implemented a number of programs designed to encourage inter-agency cooperation between American and Argentine law enforcement. Among these programs are the 2016 Preventing and Combating Serious Crime Agreement, which sought to facilitate information sharing between law enforcement agencies in each country, and the 2017 bilateral working group on cybersecurity, which supported efforts to identify and root out illegal activities conducted virtually. 

  • Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Chile

    Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Chile

    Fact Sheet

    • Population: 18,307,925 (July 2021 est.)
    • Capital: Santiago; the national legislature is seated in Valparaíso
    • System of Governance: Presidential Republic
    • Chief of State and Head of Government: President Sebastián Piñera Echenique
    • Majority Language: Spanish
    • Majority Religion: Christianity (Roman Catholic, 66.7%; Protestant or Evangelical, 16.4%), Not Religious (11.5%)
    • GDP Per Capita: $24,226 (2019 est. in 2010 U.S. dollars)

    History of Relationship Between the U.S. and Chile

    The United States formally established diplomatic relations with Chile in 1824. Constant political infighting characterized early Chilean history. In 1830, a conservative majority took control of the government and maintained control for over thirty years. The latter half of the 19th century saw Chile’s slow liberalization, though the country would soon become the site of intercontinental conflict in the War of the Pacific when Chile faced off against the combined forces of Peru and Bolivia. The Chilean government turned down US support out of concern for US influence in the region. This decision to limit American influence in Chile stunted the development of relations between the two countries. 

    The Chilean grew dissatisfied with the oligarchical ruling class and became frustrated with the country’s faltering economy. Popular discontent led to the Radical Period of Chilean politics where the government was led by a coalition of leftist parties and politicians. Through the following decades, political power alternated between traditionalist and leftist coalitions. Both groups advocated for pro-worker and protectionist economic policies, which ultimately bred dissatisfaction among the country’s elites. The wealthy elite supported the 1973 military coup in an effort to reassert their power, and a brutal dictatorship was established under the leadership of Augusto Pinochet. This political transition at the height of the Cold War garnered the support of high-level officials within the U.S. government who sought to limit the spread of communism in the Western Hemisphere. Though American support  increased during this period, relations between the two countries remained strained.

    In 2000 Chile began the long process of reestablishing democracy. Though the country has since been rocked by natural disasters and popular protests, Chile has undertaken reforms to provide civilians with greater control over their government and reduce corruption.

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Chile

    Since Chile’s return to democracy in the late 20th-century, the United States has worked to maintain a close relationship. Issues of particular importance include environmental protection and research, trade, and cooperation on sustainable development projects in the Southern Cone and the Andean Region.

    A number of U.S. agencies maintain an active presence in Chile, including the Environmental Protection Agency, National Parks Service, and National Science Foundation. These organizations collaborate with their local counterparts in order to conduct research and develop best practices related to issues of conservation, agriculture, and climate change. They focus on enforcing environmental regulations and managing protected areas. In an effort to address Chile’s lack of enforcement capacity and support the country’s conservation efforts, the United States has encouraged the use of its own environmental technologies and provided technical expertise through the implementation of the U.S.-Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement. Chile has also partnered with a number of U.S. states to advance research and advocacy for clean energy infrastructure and low-carbon economies. These programs are intended to leverage the resources and technologies developed in the private sector as well as research conducted by public universities in the states, allowing for less bureaucratized engagement between cutting edge conservation technologies and the governments which seek to employ them.

    The countries also collaborate to support sustainable development and anti-corruption initiatives across Latin America. The U.S.-Chile Trilateral Development Initiative aims to support sustainable development and encourage political stability and good governance. Chile has also worked with the United States in its peacekeeping efforts in Colombia.

  • Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

    Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

    Since the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea through military action in March 2014, Ukraine has been a state plagued by conflict. The conflict now involves the region of Donbas, consisting now of the two separatist People’s Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, in addition to Crimea. It has drawn in actors including the European Union and the United States, in addition to groups in Ukraine and the governments of both Russia and Ukraine. 

    Why did Russia annex Crimea?

    Russia has a historical relationship with the territory of Crimea; it was part of Russia for more than one hundred and fifty years, and was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 when both countries were part of the USSR.  Russia’s actions were precipitated by several factors, including Ukraine-wide protests which forced Ukraine’s Russian-aligned President Yanukovych to step down, and concerns that Ukraine was developing stronger ties to the European Union.

    Next Steps and Peace Agreement

    Not long after the annexation, pro-Russia separatists seized multiple government buildings across Eastern Ukraine and declared themselves the heads of independent states; these seizures effectively represented the start of the conflict in the Donbas. After a few months of fighting, Russian military forces formally entered Ukraine to provide support to the separatists. The Second Minsk Agreement was signed by then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2015. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-French President Francois Hollande provided diplomatic assistance and mediated the negotiations. The agreement sought to establish an immediate ceasefire and security zone. However, the agreement’s goals were not achieved, and fighting continued sporadically—most of which was attributed by outside conflict monitors to Russian and separatist forces. 

    Since the failed 2015 agreement, fighting has remained sporadic with western actors, specifically the United States, offering lethal aid to the Ukrainian government in 2017. This decision signaled a significant change in the United States’ policy towards Ukraine, which had only offered nonlethal, economic assistance to that point. There appears to be no clear victor or path to peace in the Donbas. March of 2021 signaled a renewed intensity as, after a relative calm, the conflict escalated once again with an increase in casualties.

    Image source: Council on Foreign Relations

    Pro- Ukrainian Actors

    The Ukranian side of the conflict involves both the Ukrainian national military and volunteer civilian battalions. The primary goals of the military—and by extension, the state—are to maintain territorial integrity and defend the Ukrainians living in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Unofficial civilian battalions are motivated more by an ultra-nationalist sentiment and Ukrainian patriotism. The fervent nationalist views exhibited by volunteer battalions sometimes coincide with extreme far-right positions, the most notable far-right battalion being the Azov Battalion.

    Pro-Russian Actors

    The Donbas region has two main economic centers, Donetsk and Luhansk, and a significant proportion of both these cities’ residents identify with Russia either ethnically or linguistically. Russian is widely spoken as a first language. Separatists and their supporters see themselves as distinct from the rest of Ukraine despite their shared national origin. Pro-Russia and separatist forces represent the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, both of which declared independence in 2014. The primary goals of these actors are to achieve independence from Ukraine and strengthen their ties with Russia. Despite operating within the territorial boundaries of Ukraine, these groups are considered pro-Russian actors.

    As the other prominent state actor, Russia has a vested interest in the outcome of the conflicts. The Donbas and Crimea situations make it unlikely that Ukraine can join NATO, because an attack on one NATO state must be treated as an attack on all. Therefore, Ukrainian membership would severely escalate the risk of armed conflict between NATO and Russia, at a time when the goal for the US and many European governments is to de-escalate tension. The conflicts also make EU accession unlikely for the foreseeable future. A western-aligned Ukraine would damage the close economic, political, and cultural ties the two countries share and that Russia values highly. Were Ukraine to become a member of either or both organizations, Russia would see this as an encroachment by western states on its perceived sphere of influence. Thus, by actively backing the separatist and deploying its forces in Ukraine, Russia can forestall encroachment, despite the threat of further sanctions by the international community.

  • Introduction to NATO

    Introduction to NATO

    Introduction and Purpose

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a political-military alliance of 30 member states in Europe and North America. The primary purpose of NATO is to ensure the freedom and security of the member states and the broader North Atlantic region by political and military means. NATO was formed in the aftermath of WWII and in response to the beginning of the Cold War. The original member states wanted the alliance to foster regional cooperation, increase trust, decrease the chance of further conflict, and deter the Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. In this manner, NATO has always been a peacetime military alliance to deter war.

    In NATO’s more than 70 year history, the world and prominent challenges have changed, as have NATO’s primary concerns. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the main threat. But in the 21st century, NATO’s focuses include terrorism and cyber-attacks. In light of events across the world that affect the stability and safety of the North Atlantic region, NATO has been working with organizations and countries globally to promote safety and stability. 

    Within NATO, there is an ongoing debate on the most significant current threat: Russia or China. This debate considers factors including geographic proximity, economic power, military exercises, cyber attacks, cooperation between Russia and China, and recent violations of human rights or democratic principles.

    History of NATO

    Facing growing Soviet power and new communist governments in Eastern Europe following World War II, Western European countries were concerned about their own safety, and became interested in collective security as a means of halting the expansion of communism. In 1949, twelve nations signed the Washington Treaty, which established NATO and laid out the principle of collective defense. In 1955, West Germany joined NATO, which prompted the Soviet Union to create the Warsaw Pact with Eastern European nations to oppose NATO. Following the creation of the Warsaw Pact, NATO implemented the principle of “massive retaliation”, where if any member state was attacked, the US would respond with a large nuclear attack. In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the end of the Cold War, and a gradual warming of relations between NATO and Russia. This period ended in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has expanded membership into Eastern Europe, with new members in 1999, 2004, 2009, and more recently in 2017 and 2020.

    Structure of NATO

    NATO’s decisions are made by a consensus of all member states; through deliberation all members agree on a course of action or announcement. Each state sends a delegation to NATO, including an ambassador, who represents that state’s interests. 

    The primary political decision making body is the North Atlantic Council. Military decisions are made by the Military Committee and other relevant groups. The Secretary General is NATO’s highest international civil servant; its roles include chairing the North Atlantic Council and other key groups, being NATO’s primary spokesperson, and leading NATO’s international staff. Jens Stoltenberg is the current Secretary General. 

    NATO Missions 

    Article 5 of the Washington Treaty contains the principle of collective defense—considered the cornerstone of NATO. According to Article 5, an “armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” and the other member states will also respond to the attack and assist the ally that was attacked. Article 5 has only been invoked once, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. In response, NATO planes flew patrol flights over the US, and NATO troops were later deployed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism.

    NATO has engaged in other operations across the world under a UN mandate rather than Article 5. In the 1990s, NATO missions tried to prevent further ethnic conflict and bloodshed in Bosnia and Kosovo. Additionally, NATO troops fought terrorism in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2015, led anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa in 2008, and participated in non-combat support operations.

    Current NATO Debates

    There are several current issues that are related to NATO: the future of the organization, who should be funding it, levels of military spending, and NATO enlargement.

    The first issue is whether NATO has a future, and if so, what that future looks like. One perspective is that NATO was originally created to oppose the communist USSR, which has since dissolved. Russia spends about 60 billion dollars on its military, while European NATO members spend 260 billion dollars, so Russia is unlikely to take formal military action. America’s current international challenges are primarily in the Middle East and Asia, which are outside of NATO’s scope, and thus some argue there is little future for NATO. The other perspective is that NATO is a political-military alliance, and while the military threats may be receding, political cooperation is still necessary on a range of issues, including terrorism, cybersecurity, and the response to authoritarian states like Russia and China. The US needs allies in these matters, and NATO can evolve to address them.

    The next issue is military spending and who should be funding NATO. All member nations are officially supposed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense so that each country contributes to the collective. However, many countries were not meeting that goal, increasing the burden of collective defense on the US. Some feel that NATO members are not paying their share, essentially free-riding off the US. Since the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, many member nations have recommitted themselves to defense spending, and NATO saw an increase of $130 billion in defense spending among member states since 2014. However, the crux of the debate over spending is whether a flat 2% is a fair distribution of burden. NATO member states like Spain and Greece approached bankruptcy in the 2010s even as their GDPs remained relatively steady. Because of this, some feel that other macroeconomic factors should be taken into account when establishing a burden sharing plan.
    The final issue is NATO enlargement. Article 10 of the Washington Treaty opens membership to any “European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” One perspective argues that further expansion could weaken the alliance’s commitment to liberal, democratic values and present further funding challenges along with antagonizing Russia. Another perspective argues that the inclusion of new states committed to the ideals of NATO, as demonstrated by following the membership criteria, strengthens the alliance, further stabilizes the region, and makes the alliance better prepared to face upcoming challenges.

  • Introduction to the United Nations

    Introduction to the United Nations

    History 

    In the wake of World War II, delegates from fifty nations met in San Francisco and unanimously adopted the final version of the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter set forth a mandate to maintain international peace and security. The mission to promote international cooperation was a familiar yet challenging goal. The League of Nations, established after World War I, embraced a similar initiative. However, the organization was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the Second World War. President Harry Truman advocated for the Charter’s ratification and emphasized its importance in his address to the United States Senate:

    “In your deliberations, I hope you will consider not only the words of the Charter but also the spirit which gives it meaning and life… It is the product of many hands and many influences. It comes from the reality of experience in a world where one generation has failed twice to keep the peace. The lessons of that experience have been written into this document.”

    President Harry S. Truman, July 2 1945

    Unlike its predecessor, the UN Charter was drafted during wartime and granted smaller nations a voice in its inception. The League of Nations halted operations following the creation of the UN and granted the new organization access to all of its archives and resources. 

    Structure

    The Charter of the United Nations established the following principal organs:

    • General Assembly: The GA is the main deliberative body of the UN. Each of the UN’s 193 member states are granted a vote in all GA matters. 
    • Security Council: The UNSC is tasked with the actual maintenance of international peace and security. The UNSC has the unique power to deploy peacekeepers, enact sanctions, and authorize military action. The council is made up of fifteen members, five of which are permanent (P-5) members who enjoy veto power. The P-5 members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The other ten members serve two-year terms. 
    • Economic and Social Council: ECOSOC is under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly and focuses primarily on economic and social issues. The GA elects the council’s 54 members to serve three-year terms. 
    • International Court of Justice: The ICJ is the judicial body of the UN. It settles disputes between states concerning violations of international law and acts as an advisory body to other UN bodies and agencies.
    • Secretariat: The Secretariat is the executive body of the UN. The Secretary General has the power to set the agenda within the UNSC and oversee the daily operations of the UN. 

    Agencies and Funds

    The image above illustrates the integrated nature of the UN system. Specialized agencies, funds, and commissions work alongside the main organs to supplement resolutions with expert research and a means to carry out the initiatives passed by the UN. Specialized agencies, unlike funds and programs, are independent international organizations who partner with the UN. For example, the International Monetary Fund works alongside the General Assembly to support initiatives concerning economic development. 

    Principles

    According to the Charter, the UN holds itself to the following principles:

    1. Sovereign equality 
    2. Peaceful conflict resolution
    3. Refusal to threaten force against any independent state
    4. Refrainment from providing assistance to a state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action
    5. Refusal to intervene in matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state unless the matter is brought to the UN for settlement
    6. Universal application of these principles for non-member states 

    Operations

    The UN aims to improve quality of life across the globe in order to prevent conflict and maintain international peace and security. The organization works on a range of issues including, but not limited, to sustainable development, gender equality, disarmament, non-proliferation, disaster relief, refugee protection, drug trafficking, global trade, and infectious disease prevention. There are also thirteen ongoing peacekeeping operations, most notably in the Golan Heights, India, Pakistan, and South Sudan. 

    For example, the UN General Assembly works alongside the United Nations Development Program and the World Food Program to provide Syrian refugees with food, healthcare, temporary housing, and access to educational programs. Following an 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile in 2010, the UN worked alongside the World Health Organization to deliver medical care and supplies to the nearly 2 million Chilean citizens affected. More recently, the UN created the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Trust Fund to assist less developed countries in crafting a sustainable response to COVID-19 and catalyze economic recovery. 

  • EU-Turkey Migration Agreement

    EU-Turkey Migration Agreement

    The EU-Turkey Migration Agreement was a 2016 agreement made between the 28 European Union member states and the Republic of Turkey to decrease crossings on the Greece-Turkey border. The agreement is still in effect in 2021.

    Context of the Agreement

    European nations experienced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of migrants traveled from the Middle East and North Africa to apply for asylum. The leading cause of this crisis was the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. By 2015, nonstate actors and extremist groups controlled more than half of the country, so millions of Syrians fled. In addition to Syria, protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the surge in asylum applications. At the peak of the crisis in 2015, 1.3 million people filed asylum applications in the European Union. The Greek-Turkey land and maritime border became a main pathway for those seeking to enter the EU.

    Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics

    The European Union has a similar asylum policy to the United States; any person with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group,” can apply for protection from an EU-member state if they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin. This definition does not automatically apply to those fleeing violence and war, so EU law includes a stipulation for “subsidiary protection,” where a person who does not qualify through the traditional pathway but can demonstrate they would suffer a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country also qualifies for protection. European Union member states granted protection through both pathways during the humanitarian crisis.

    Logistics of the Agreement

    The agreement had three main components:

    1. All new “irregular migrants” crossing to Greece via Turkey could be returned to Turkey, as well as asylum seekers in Greece whose applications were denied. In exchange, for every irregular migrant returned to Turkey, one Syrian would be resettled in the EU. “Irregular migrants” was not defined in the agreement, but it is generally accepted to mean those without visas to enter Greece, which would include asylum seekers. This was designed to incentivize displaced people to stay in Turkey, rather than cross to Greece and apply for protection there. Since the agreement came into force, 28,000 Syrians have been resettled in the EU from Turkey through the exchange agreement.
    2. The European Union would provide €6 billion ($7.1 billion) to Turkey for refugee aid.
    3. Turkey and the European Union would work to revitalize cooperation through trade agreements, visa liberalization, and Turkey’s accession to the EU.

    Since the agreement was implemented, irregular migration to Greece has decreased 97%

    European Perspective

    Arguments in support:

    1. Humanitarian concerns: as asylum seekers flooded into the Greek islands, the conditions in refugee camps and shelters deteriorated. The camps became overcrowded and unsanitary, and it was seen as vital to stem the flow of migrants for the wellbeing of those already there. In addition, many asylum seekers drowned attempting to sail to Greek islands, or else paid smugglers to transport them and fell victim to human trafficking. 
    2. Political concerns: there was a widespread perception among citizens of member states that the European Union was failing to handle the crisis. A 2016 survey found that citizens overwhelmingly disapproved of the EU response, with attitudes ranging from 60 to 80% disapproving and reaching as high as 95% disapproving among Greek citizens. Governments and citizens felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum seekers, and were concerned about the economic burden and a potential strain on the social safety net. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU in 2016 (also known as “Brexit”) and the refugee issue and immigration concerns played a large role in that decision. All of these factors contributed to a desire to take immediate action.

    Arguments in opposition:

    1. Outsourcing asylum: human rights organizations and activists objected to the agreement because they felt it allowed European Union member states to abdicate their obligation to those in need of international protection. The agreement effectively created a “buffer state” blocking asylum seekers from applying for international protection. Following the Turkey agreement, the European Union came to a similar deal with Libya.
    2. Turkey as a “safe country”: recent reports suggest that Syrians and other displaced people in Turkey do not have access to resources to fulfill basic human needs. Many are homeless or living in dilapidated housing, and rely on charity or work in the informal sector. In addition, human rights organizations have documented the Turkish government forcibly relocating refugees back to Syria, violating the international principle of “non refoulement,” which means refugees should not be forced to return to a country where they will face persecution. Because of these factors, some argue that Turkey is not itself a safe country, and therefore returning refugees to Turkey also violates the non refoulement principle.

    Turkish Perspective

    Arguments in support:

    1. Improve cooperation with the EU: the agreement included a provision to discuss visa liberalization, meaning that Turkish citizens would be able to enter the Schengen Area without applying for a visa in advance. In addition, the EU and Turkey currently have a Customs Union which allows for tariff-free trade with several exceptions; part of the agreement involves updating the Union for improved trade relations. Finally, the agreement specifically mentions working towards Turkey’s accession to the European Union, however there are doubts about whether either side really believed this would come to pass. Turkey had not met the economic and political standards needed to join the EU at the time of the agreement, and subsequently experienced democratic backsliding which made joining the EU even more distant.
    2. Funding for refugee aid: as part of the agreement, Turkey received €6 billion to fund refugee aid and resettlement, relieving some of the pressure on the government.
    3. Strong lever in international negotiations: Turkey is currently working to project influence in its neighborhood by playing a larger role in the outcome of conflicts in the region. This brings it into conflict with the European Union in the protracted Cyprus conflict and the Libyan Civil War, among others. The 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey make for a powerful bargaining chip in EU-Turkey negotiations. In March of 2020, Turkey opened the border with Greece and actively pushed for migrants to cross, after a disagreement over military strategy in Syria.

    Arguments in opposition:

    1. Same political concerns: although Turkey was initially welcoming to refugees, after five years, 3.6 million refugees, and no end in sight, public approval has turned decidedly negative. Refugees tend to be conservative and religious, while a large portion of the Turkish middle and upper classes are secular and more progressive, creating a culture clash. In addition, Turkey’s economy was struggling even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic’s toll on the tourism industry, which accounts for 12% of Turkey’s GDP. In the last election, the governing AKP party experienced significant losses which were largely attributed to economic and refugee issues.
    2. Costs outweigh benefits: the Turkish government estimates it has spent €35 billion on refugee resettlement and aid, far outpacing the EU commitment of €6 billion. In addition, Turkey is far from  from meeting EU accession targets and no progress has been made on the visa liberalization as of yet.

    Impact and Future Developments

    The immediate impact of the agreement was a dramatic decrease in the crossings from Turkey to Greece (97% down two years out). In the longer term, Turkey-EU relations have continued to worsen despite the immigration cooperation, due to a lack of strategic alignment on regional issues. Despite the agreement, European citizens overwhelmingly disapprove of government handling of the refugee crisis. This led to the rise of anti-immigrant parties across Europe. It is possible that without the agreement, disapproval with the government response would be even higher.

    In the future, the situation in Turkey for refugees is likely to devolve. Turkish citizens want to see progress on the issue, but Syria is still largely unsafe for refugees to return. There have been some reports that the Turkish government is deporting Syrians and returning them to unsafe areas—these reports are denied by Turkey.

  • The World Health Organization

    The World Health Organization

    The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 as a UN specialized agency to direct and coordinate international health policy within the UN System with the goal of improving global health outcomes. The WHO would be created with the backing of 61 countries, including the United States, giving it legitimacy to steer the global health conversation as a major international actor. The WHO Constitution defines health as, “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” This definition expanded the concept of health to include not just medical interventions, but also the social determinants of health and healthcare access. Despite this robust definition of health, the WHO initially prioritized communicable disease, women and children’s health, nutrition, and sanitation as opposed to healthcare access or addressing the social structures impacting health. Over time, these facets of health would be more directly addressed by the agency.

    The WHO is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland and has six regional and 149 country offices throughout the world. Delegates from the 194 member states compose the World Health Assembly, which sets WHO policy, approves and monitors budgets, and elects a director-general as a leader of the WHO for 5-year terms. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the current director-general of the WHO after being elected to his first 5-year term in 2017. He is the first African in the organization’s history to occupy the post. The WHO is governed by the member states and must respect their sovereignty. Therefore, it cannot enter a country without their permission and a country does not have to follow the agency’s recommendations. The WHO also maintains an Executive Board that is comprised of 34 members who have technical qualifications in the field of health. They provide proposals, make recommendations to the director-general, and implement the agency’s work plan.

    The WHO rarely provides direct medical interventions or direct funding to implementors, but rather focuses on administrative, logistical, and advisory support for countries and other organizations. Core functions of the organization include partnership development, conducting research, setting global health morns, providing technical support, disease monitoring, and advocacy for global health initiatives. For example, guidelines regarding essential medicines, diagnostics, and medical practices are published by the WHO for countries to follow although they are not obliged to follow them. In addition, the WHO supports initiatives to control epidemic and endemic disease by promoting vaccination programs, the use of antibiotics and insecticides, the improvement of clinical facilities for early diagnosis and prevention, access to clean water and sanitation systems, and health education for rural communities. The final major function the agency has, is the ability to declare a Public Emergency of International Concern or a Pandemic. This function allows the WHO to draw attention to, and rally global resources against, emerging health threats or trends in an effort to address them.

    The WHO can direct the global health discussion through its World Health Report and other tools to influence global actions as well. This can be seen in its 2019 General Programme of Work, where the WHO identified three priorities it seeks to address in the coming years:

    1. Providing health coverage to one billion more people
    2. Protecting one billion more people from health emergencies such as epidemics; and
    3. Ensuring another one billion people enjoy better health and well-being, including protection from non-infectious diseases such as cancer.

    Since at least half of the world’s population does not currently have full coverage of essential health services, publishing this document allows the WHO to highlight a global health challenge and set a goal for the countries of the world to strive for.

    The WHO is funded through a combination of assessed contributions, which are calculated based on each member countries’ wealth and population, and voluntary contributions which are provided at the discretion of governments and private donors. Approximately 17 percent of the WHO’s budget comes from assessed contributions, with the rest coming from voluntary contributions. This has increasingly made the WHO dependent on voluntary contributions and placed pressure on the organization to align with the goals of their donors. This was seen in 2020 with President Trump’s plans to withdraw completely from the WHO and take U.S. funding with it due to his belief that the WHO was too deferential to China. Non-government donors also impact the WHO’s direction as seen when private donors make voluntary contributions with the understanding that the donors’ preferred projects will be addressed. One example includes the donations given to the WHO by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has prioritized the eradication of polio and the increased resources allocated to this cause by the WHO reflect the foundation’s priority. This has presented a growing challenge to the WHO as monetary contributions are increasingly becoming inflexible through donor restrictions. 93 percent of funds given to the WHO for its health programs is now earmarked and cannot be distributed to other projects that may have a greater need.

    The WHO has accomplished remarkable feats through its global leadership and coordination during multiple outbreaks, vaccination campaigns, and other global health initiatives. What many point to as the agency’s greatest achievement began in 1967 when the WHO started a smallpox vaccination campaign. By 1980, smallpox was eradicated due to the coordination and determination of the WHO’s staff and leadership. Similarly, the WHO’s role in the polio vaccination campaign has been highly lauded, with polio currently on the verge of eradication. The WHO’s handling of the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak in 2003 was widely praised for the agency’s quick medical and travel guidance. The WHO’s decisive action and travel recommendations were crucial to the successful containment of what many feared could be a global health disaster. The impact of the outbreak was contained mostly to Asia and the death toll was quite low.

    Conversely, the most common criticism of the WHO comes in the form of mismanaged and slow responses due to poor coordination or political considerations. Political friction between WHO headquarters and the regional offices has been a hindrance to the agency’s efficiency, as many believe the regional offices have too much autonomy which leads to a lack of internal cooperation. During the 2014 Ebola outbreak, the WHO was criticized for waiting 5 months to declare a public health emergency despite the pleas of many organization such as Doctors Without Borders. More recently, many criticized the WHO’s response to COVID-19 as being too deferential to China. In particular, the Trump Administration believed the WHO accepted misinformation from China at face value due to the country’s political power within the agency. In general, critics believe the WHO should have been more forceful in its requests for accurate information at the start of the pandemic.

    The United States has played an outsized role in the WHO from its inception due to its monetary contributions and international political clout. The United States’ support for the creation of the United Nations (UN) following World War II was integral to the creation of the WHO as a UN specialized agency. Ever since the agency’s establishment, the United States has traditionally been the largest donor to the WHO. In 2019, the U.S. provided a of total $419 million through assessed and voluntary contributions of the WHO’s $5.624 billion budget. Additionally, The U.S. has been an active participant in WHO governance and provided technical support for health initiatives. This is seen in the country’s representation on the Executive Board along with U.S. government experts and resources being provided for research, laboratory work, and international outbreak response teams.

    As it relates to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO responded with its coordination, technical support, and advisory expertise. On December 31st, 2019, China reported a cluster of unknown pneumonia cases to the WHO. One month later, before any deaths were reported outside of China but a sharp increase in cases was seen outside of the country, the WHO declared a Public Emergency of International Concern. By March of 2020, the agency declared it a Pandemic as cases spread around the world. Additionally, the WHO provided critical supplies such as diagnostic tests and personal protective equipment to member states and created online courses to train health care workers in diagnosis and treatment methods for COVID-19. Furthermore, the WHO is providing medical and technical guidance to countries as they continue to investigate the virus and its new variants. The agency has sent more than 70 teams of technical advisors to assist countries with their COVID-19 responses. 

  • Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Intro to U.S-U.K Relations

    Read this page as a PDF.

    History:

    The term “special relationship” is used as a catch-all term for the political, diplomatic, military and economic relations between the US and the UK. Although the unofficial term became popularized in a speech by the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, in 1946, it is also widely acknowledged that the two states have enjoyed close political and military relations for much of the 20th Century. During this time the two countries were military allies in a number of wars and have often shared prioritized access and close cooperation on a range of issues.

    The relationship is not a consistent one, with the personality traits and policies of both countries’ leaders reportedly playing a significant role in determining its closeness during specific periods of time. The two countries were considered particularly close during the Clinton/Blair period, when the two leaders, as friends more than representatives, would frequently talk about the issues of the day and provide support and guidance to each other. This relationship is often thought to have been a significant factor in the decision by the UK Government to enter the Iraq War alongside the United States.

    Present:

    President Biden’s first phone call to a European leader was to the current British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the call included a joint commitment to strengthening the relationship. However, this came not long after Biden had publicly voiced major concern about the direction of UK policy regarding Brexit. His particular focus was on the UK Government’s decision to break the Good Friday Agreement in order to deliver a Brexit deal that would leave the UK out of the European Union’s Free Trade Agreement.

    It is this disagreement—amongst other differences—that has led to less focus being given to the relationship in recent years. An example of the tension during Trump’s presidency is clear in the following passage in a briefing available to MPs and advisers in 2018:

    “Against the backdrop of increasing American isolationism, the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the United States and the United Kingdom has arguably been subject to even more intense scrutiny, particularly as the UK seeks to define its global role in light of its withdrawal from the European Union. In particular, opportunities for cooperation such as a mooted bilateral trade deal, and areas of disagreement such as the US’s stance on the Iranian nuclear agreement, have prompted a number of questions about the potential nature of future relations between the two countries, and the wider ramifications.”

    HOL Library, 2018

    Future:

    It is clear that the future of the relationship will depend largely on the personality and politics of the future leaders of both countries. The UK Government is eager to see the relationship culminating in a US-UK trade deal. However, given Biden’s recent announcement that a trade deal may not occur till 2024, it is clearly not a US priority. Nevertheless, both countries seem to remain committed to keeping at least a facade of proximity, given their shared values and their status as two of the world’s key powers, economically, militarily and diplomatically.