ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    Click here to read this paper as a PDF.

    The Rohingya people of Myanmar are a majority-Muslim ethnic group native to the coastal Rakhine State in Myanmar. Before the mass migration of Rohingyans, there were an estimated 1.5 million living in Myanmar. 

    Despite making up only 2% of the entire Myanmar population in 2014, the Rohingya people have been subject to numerous human rights violations such as having their right to vote and citizenship stripped away in 1974 and 1982. As a result, the Rohingya people have been subject to state-sponsored, violent crackdowns such as Operation Dragon King in 1978, Operation Clean and Beautiful in 1991, the 2012 Rakhine State Riots and the recent Refugee Crisis.

    The current refugee crisis began on August 25th, 2017, when a group of militant Rohingya Muslims attacked police bases in northern Myanmar. The army retaliated by burning villages, killing civilians, and raping women. More than 420,000 Rohingyas have crossed the border into Bangladesh, thereby making them stateless refugees. 

     In September 2019, the United Nations-backed International Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar found that the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar “may face a greater threat of genocide than ever.” Although some news sources have dubbed the state-sponsored violence a genocide, the UN and other state authorities such as the United States government have yet to officially declare it a genocide.

    The Rohingya Crisis has sparked an international backlash from the global community, particularly regarding the military’s actions and the failure of the governing Aung San Syu Kyi administration. Syu Kyi’s government has repeatedly failed to condemn the attacks and avoided mentioning the Rohingyas by name, claiming that no violence or village clearances had occurred. Her reaction to the event has resulted in criticism from the media and sparked discussion around revoking her 1991 Nobel Laureate award. However, as of 2021, no actions have been taken to do so. 

    The United Nations condemned the crisis, and the UNHCR launched a Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, calling for US$951 million to continue delivering lifesaving assistance from March to December 2018. As of early August 2018, the JRP remains just 32 per cent funded.

    Under the administration of Donald Trump, the United States denounced the actions of the Burmese government, with former Vice President Mike Pence calling the situation a “historic exodus” and a “great tragedy.” Vice President Pence also noted the situation could, “sow seeds of hatred and chaos that may well consume the region for generations to come and threaten the peace of us all.” The United States State Department issued a statement condemning the issue and applauding the efforts of the neighboring Bangladeshi government to provide aid and refuge to fleeing Rohingya.

    In 2018, the U.S. Government responded to the Rohingya by imposing sanctions on the Myanmar military over the Rohingya crackdown. These sanctions were imposed on top Myanmar generals, police commanders, and two army units, accusing them of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims and widespread human rights abuses. Since August 2017, the United States has provided humanitarian aid amounting to more than $760 million to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. This aid was allocated to the UN bodies working in the area to establish refugee schools and provide necessary food, shelter, and other resources. The Biden administration is yet to give an official response concerning the crisis, but has continued former President Donald Trump’s sanctions on key military generals involved in engineering the crisis.

  • Intro to North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

    Intro to North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program

    Read this page as a PDF

    North Korea has several motivations for pursuing nuclear weapons. First and foremost is security. Ever since the end of the Korean War and the bifurcation of the Korean Peninsula, the Kim regime has perceived an existential threat to their survival. With the US backing two of their closest enemies, Japan and South Korea, North Korea has had a longstanding concern that the West will eventually attempt to overthrow the authoritarian government and install a leader friendlier to democratic ideals and South Korea’s Western allies. Pyongyang has determined that the only way to prevent this from happening is to become a nuclear-armed power and uses this belief to justify having nuclear weapons as a way to guarantee protection against the US.  Not only does the North Korean government think that their nuclear weapons will deter attacks, but they also provide North Korea with the chance to achieve self-preservation and be militarily self-sufficient.

                Another motivation for developing nuclear weapons is legitimacy on the world stage. Since becoming a nuclear power in 2006, North Korea has shoehorned itself into a very small club of countries that have nuclear weapons and put itself to some degree on equal footing with them. Compared to other nations with nuclear weapons, North Korea is by far the least economically, technologically and socially developed. By elevating themselves to be in the same elite group as the United States, Russia and the UK, North Korea is able to upgrade its global status and have their demands as a nation taken seriously. 

    The legitimacy the Kim regime derives from their nuclear arsenal also allows them to engage in coercive diplomacy. Pyongyang’s military threats are usually issued in a conditional context, portraying them as a necessary response to any potential U.S. attacks. For example, in his 2018 New Year’s Day speech, Kim Jong-un said “As a responsible nuclear weapons state, our Republic will not use a nuclear weapon unless its sovereignty is encroached upon by any aggressive hostile forces with nukes.” This statements seems to allude to some sort of ‘no first use’ sentiment, however without a formal agreement saying as much, this notion has to be disregarded as bluster and propaganda. 

    North Korea is also motivated by the prestige and fear associated with nuclear weapons, both at home and abroad. Being perceived as strong and powerful has always been very important to the Kim regime, and photo-ops with President Trump have been widely successful in increasing Kim Jong-un’s leadership legitimacy within his own country. Moreover, North Korean state media frequently release photos of Kim attending missile parades and launches, often lauding him as the visionary and driving force behind the success of the program. By constructing an image of invincibility, Kim boosted his personal prestige and, by extension, the prestige of his regime. In addition to serving as propaganda, the continued showboating of their military capabilities perpetuates the fear instigated by the Kim regime. Kim Jong-un wouldn’t be seen as nearly as dangerous without his nukes.

  • Nuclear Weapons Design

    Nuclear-Weapons-Design_Final

  • Introduction to Nuclear History & the Manhattan Project

    Introduction to Nuclear History & the Manhattan Project

    The Manhattan Project was the code name for the confidential American led effort to develop a nuclear weapon during the Second World War. The initiative was spurred by intelligence reports that Germany had been developing nuclear weapons since the 1930’s and that Hitler was prepared to use them against the Allies.

    First convened in 1939, President Roosevelt created the Advisory Committee on Uranium as a science-leaning research center to study uranium enrichment and nuclear chain reactions.  In response to Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Army Corps of Engineers was diverted to supplement this research and the ACU eventually became the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), which had a significantly more militaristic bent.

    President Roosevelt authorized the creation of the Manhattan Project in 1942 to bring together the various research initiatives under one umbrella. This pulled in J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was a leading expert on nuclear fission. The name “Manhattan Project” came from the OSRD’s Manhattan Engineer District, named after the borough in which it was located.

    Manhattan Project research was relocated to the secretive Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, the creation of which was known as Project Y. In 1945, the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated in the New Mexican desert in what was called the Trinity Test. Scientists working under Oppenheimer created two distinct types of bombs: a uranium-based gun-type design called “Little Boy” and a plutonium-based implosion bomb named “Fat Man.” The success of the Trinity Test led to nuclear weapons becoming part of the US strategy to win World War II.

    Once it became clear that Germany was close to surrender, the US delivered an ultimatum to Japan at the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction.” Since part of the terms of surrender included the formation of a new democratic government with no role for the Emperor, the proposal was rejected.

    On August 6th, 1945, “Little Boy” was dropped over Hiroshima. Three days later, “Fat Man” was dropped over Nagasaki. The bombs killed over 100,000 people combined and levelled the cities to the ground. Some historians have theorized that a desire to test the implosion type design factored into the decision to drop a second bomb.

    While the Manhattan Project was effectively shuttered with the end of World War II, various agencies and committees were created to apply Manhattan Project-era technologies to other fields. These include the Atomic Energy Commision, the Department of Energy, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  • Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Read this brief as a PDF

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous international organization within the United Nations system that is responsible for the verification of safeguards for nuclear weapons material. Along with promoting nuclear energy for civil purposes and nuclear safety education, the IAEA is chiefly responsible for implementing safeguard agreements. These safeguards are intended to make sure that nuclear materials and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes and not being diverted in any way for secret weapons development. While all nuclear weapons states have accepted some safeguards on their civil nuclear activities, the IAEA safeguards are primarily implemented in non-nuclear weapons states.

    Founded in 1957, the IAEA was established just as nations were beginning to trade in nuclear technology and materials. Spurred by burgeoning Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, the idea for the organization was born out of the Eisenhower Administration’s mission to stem nuclear proliferation. Under the IAEA Statute, the US is named as the depository, or custodian, government of the organization. In 1980, the US agreed to a voluntary offer safeguards agreement (VOA), which subjects civil nuclear facilities of its choosing to the same inspections as non-nuclear weapons states.

    IAEA safeguards are measures used to monitor nuclear activities, through which the agency seeks to verify that nuclear facilities and materials are being used in accordance with established guidelines. Uranium and plutonium are the main nuclear materials that are monitored, and states are required to record and compile a list of domestic nuclear activities and submit it to the IAEA for recordkeeping. Traditional safeguards offer IAEA inspectors reasonable assurances that what states have reported to them is correct, complete and true. This type of safeguards includes in-person inspections, material inventory & accounting review, and surveillance methods including surveillance cameras, tamper-resistant equipment, records auditing and statistical samples. In addition to verifying that states have reported their nuclear activity accurately, this class of safeguards also act as a deterrent against possible undercover nuclear weapons programs by increasing the risk of detection.

    Although there have been some failures with the traditional safeguard measures in the past (e.g. Iran), modern safeguard approaches aim to detect covert nuclear activity in addition to solely verifying declared activity. Modern safeguards include information gathered from various open sources, such as intelligence and visitor accounts, and can paint a more complete picture of nuclear activity in a state outside of what is being officially reported.

    It is important to note, however, that despite their name, safeguards don’t actually provide for physical safety or guarding. The goal of safeguards is to detect any undeclared diversion or production of nuclear material in their infancy stage. Since there isn’t an enforcement department of the IAEA, agency inspectors can’t forcibly prevent states from using material covertly; instead, their significance lies in being able to alert the rest of the international community to suspicious activity.

    Most UN members joined the IAEA at its inception in 1957. While IAEA membership at the time was not required, states were strongly encouraged to join in order to have access to information regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1961, all non-nuclear weapons states are required to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The IAEA currently has 172 members.

  • Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Read this brief as a PDF

    President Richard Nixon’s trip to the People’s Republic of China in February, 1972 marked the formal establishment of normal relations between the United States and China, and can be arguably considered one of the most significant moments in modern world affairs. It was not just significant as the first ever visit of an American President to China, but it also signaled the end of a quarter-century of hostilities between communist China and the United States. The new relationship marked the beginning of a sizable shift in the Cold War arena, and brought China into the international community. The relationship between the two powers continues to play a major role in the current climate, so understanding its establishment is vital. 

    China had a tense relationship with the West throughout the 19th century. Western imperialism contributed to the eventual disintegration of the Qing dynasty and left China on the brink of collapse. During the ensuing civil war, the US backed the Nationalist faction against the Communists. By 1949, the Chinese Communists were victorious and gained control of mainland China, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and established the Republic of China there.

    The relationship between the PRC and the United States was hostile from its inception. They were ideologically opposed, and the US continued to support the Nationalist government in Taiwan which claimed sovereignty over the entire county. The US also attempted to keep the PRC out of the United Nations and other international forums. The two countries were on opposite sides of the Korean and Vietnam wars, with China supplying arms and troops to communist forces and the US supporting the anti-communist factions.

    Shifting dynamics in both countries created the opportunity for normalized relations. The Soviet Union and China split over ideological and geopolitical differences, and the Communist bloc appeared to be crumbling as the two states turned against each other. As the 1960s progressed, China found itself isolated; it was threatened by the Soviet Union, India, and large American deployments across Asia. The ongoing Cultural Revolution had also pushed China into turmoil and instability. The United States was also vulnerable on the global stage. It had been involved in the Vietnam War for almost two decades which had been largely unsuccessful, as well as unpopular both at home and abroad. It had damaged the United States’ perception on the global stage, and worried allies. China was an important actor in the Vietnam war, and building relations would aid American interests in the region. President Nixon also believed the Soviet Union was the primary enemy, and the U.S should capitalize on the Sino-Soviet divide by establishing closer ties with China to weaken Soviet influence in Asia. Both leaders in China and the United States began expressing a desire for normalized relations, but the road to reconciliation was delicate and complicated. Various diplomatic overtures were made from both sides through intermediaries such as France and Pakistan. Pakistan also arranged the secret visit of the U.S National Security advisor, Henry Kissinger to Beijing for his meeting with Chinese Premier, Chou Enlai in July 1971, where they agreed that President Nixon would visit China in the following year. 

    Normalized relations with China faced considerable opposition at home and from American allies. US allies were distrustful of communist China and felt the United States was abandoning Taiwan. Anti-communist Republicans provided internal opposition, and Nixon faced considerable pressure from both Democrats and the press, who felt that Nixon was betraying America’s close allies like Taiwan. Despite the opposition, Nixon and his administration pushed through the China trip and tried to manage the image they presented at home and abroad. Nixon felt that establishing closer ties with the People’s Republic of China would shift the balance of the Cold War in Asia and help to further American interests globally. This hypothesis proved to be correct, and the opening of relations had three immediate impacts:

    1. Chinese support aided America’s position during the Vietnamese peace negotiations. Because of the damage done to the US’s image (domestically and abroad), a swift but ‘honorable’ exit to the conflict was crucial. China had been a principal ally of the North Vietnamese, and was able to pressure the North Vietnamese to come to the negotiating table. China also virtually ended military support for North Vietnam in 1973. 

    2. China also worked with the US in Korea, even though both powers continued to support opposing sides in the Korean war. The United States had clear objectives in that region, as it wanted “to bring about stability in the peninsula, avert war and lessen the danger of the expansion of other powers”, and Chou Enlai “in effect” accepted these aims and objectives during his meeting with Kissinger.. 

    3. The most important benefit for both countries from the new relationship was increased leverage against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had been increasing in military strength by acquiring advanced nuclear weaponry. It was also becoming more aggressive, and adopted the Brezhnev doctrine which justified military interventions in Central and Eastern Europe. Together, China and the US worked against Soviet expansion and influence over Asia and the Communist bloc which remained split between the Chinese and the Soviets. 

    The normalization of relations between these two countries in 1972 had major long-term reverberations. China, the most populous nation in the world, was brought into the international system and began playing a major role in the international community. The long-term economic relationship between China and the United States also grew out of this establishment, which continues to shape their respective economies to the present day.