ACE

Category: Foreign Policy region

  • Introduction to NATO Peacekeeping in Kosovo

    Introduction to NATO Peacekeeping in Kosovo

    Kosovo is a highly contested area between Serbians and Albanians,who both view Kosovo as ancestral land. Control of Kosovo passed between the Ottoman Empire, Serbia, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1800’s to 1900’s, and Kosovo declared formal independence from Serbia in February of 2008. 

    Key Dates

    • 1946: Kosovo is absorbed into Yugoslavia.  
    • 1974: Kosovo is given autonomous status within Yugoslavia. 
    • 1990: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic removes autonomous status, putting Kosovo under Serbian rule. Protests begin. 
    • 1996: Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) increases attacks, followed by a crackdown by the Serbian government. 
    • 1999: NATO begins aerial attacks on Serbian targets, Yugoslav and Serbian forces begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. Eventually a peace agreement is signed and a UN administration takes over.
    • 2008: Kosovo declares independence.   

    Crisis and Ethnic Conflict

    Ethnic conflict in Kosovo largely stems from historic systemic grievances between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. Authoritarian leadership, especially under the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary capitalized on tensions between the two groups, often favoring one above the other for political reasons. Furthermore, both Kosovar Serbian and Albanian political factions perceived the situation in Kosovo as an irredentist conflict. This implies that both groups assert their right to unite Kosovo with other territories inhabited by their respective ethnic majorities, such as Serbia or a ‘Greater Albania‘. In such cases, diplomatic solutions are difficult to achieve. 

    The state of the conflict in Yugoslavia in 1998 concerned leadership in NATO, the UN, and the international community. As Yugoslavia broke apart, the budding nation-states often disputed territory and rights as ethnic groups struggled to determine the shape of the new governments. Conflict in Kosovo further destabilized the Balkans during the late 1990’s. Despite an established cease-fire, ongoing violence prompted NATO leadership to opt for military intervention. Prior to the intervention, indicators of ethnic cleansing included actions like widespread displacements and confiscation of identification and property documents. By the time peace terms were reached, numerous governments and organizations estimated the death toll to be in the thousands.

    NATO Intervention 

    Before NATO’s intervention, numerous efforts were made by the international community to negotiate and establish cease-fires. In January 1999, six nations (France, Italy, Germany, Russia, UK, and US) convened for international mediation in the conflict. However, their attempts to secure an agreement between Kosovar Serbs and Albanians proved unsuccessful. Concurrently, NATO had issued a warning to the parties that the organization was prepared to carry out air strikes if the violence persisted.

    In March 1999, NATO initiated air strikes as part of Operation Allied Force. These strikes were carried out without a UN resolution, sparking debates about the operation’s legitimacy. The air strikes primarily targeted Serbian military strategic targets such as weapons, communication and supply lines, as well as oil sources. During this period, significant humanitarian aid was provided to the refugees alongside these efforts. President Milosevic eventually opted for peace negotiations in early June 1999 upon recognizing the campaign’s failure. Despite his regime’s focus on asserting Serbian dominance, the incurred losses were substantial. Since then, NATO peacekeeping troops have continued their presence. However, tensions escalated in 2023 due to Serbian protests against elected ethnic Albanians in local government, leading to clashes between demonstrators and NATO peacekeeping forces.

    US Interests and Reaction 

    The United States is a strong ally of Kosovo, having supported the NATO intervention in 1999. The recent rise in tensions has raised concerns among the majority of Congress about potential instability in the heart of Europe. Additionally, the US made substantial investments in providing aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo.

    While the US aims to support Kosovo and maintain its role as a mediator alongside Russia, recent use of force is viewed unfavorably by policymakers as it intensified tensions. Decisionmakers are likely concerned about the potential for a second front of destabilization in Europe, especially with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

    International Reactions 

    In 1999, public opinion in Europe regarding the airstrikes was varied. While many countries saw the Balkan conflict as a threat to European security and favored some form of action, there were differing stances. For instance, France withheld support due to the absence of a UN mandate. Meanwhile, neighboring nations like Greece, while not endorsing military intervention, provided medical assistance and peacekeeping troops to NATO, believing that military force wouldn’t resolve the dispute.

    Countries in the region, such as Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Albania, often responded based on their strongest domestic ethnic affiliations. Even if they didn’t have the political will to participate in the airstrikes, neighboring states still assisted through humanitarian aid, accepting refugees, granting NATO airspace access, or supporting diplomatic resolutions. Russia strongly criticized the NATO air strikes, and public opinion largely favored Serbia, given their deep historical, cultural, and political connections. Moscow leadership was unsure about the extent of their influence in neighboring countries post-Soviet Union dissolution. As air strikes persisted and talk of a ground invasion arose, Russian leadership, led by Boris Yeltsin, became worried about the potential economic repercussions of the conflict on Russia’s relations with the West. Under Russia’s influence, Milosevic eventually halted the campaign against Kosovar Albanians.

  • Successes and Failures of the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)

    Successes and Failures of the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP)

    Background

    Humanitarian efforts have evolved in the 21st century, largely driven by the goal of aid organizations to optimize their impact and reduce costs. One significant change is the rise in the use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) programs, which now constitute a larger portion of aid initiatives. CVA involves giving recipients direct cash or electronic funds as humanitarian aid, different from in-kind support that provides specific items like food and water. The shift towards more CVA and less in-kind aid reflects a shift towards a rights-based approach to humanitarian assistance, replacing the traditional charity-based model. This change in approach has also led nations like the United States to focus more on the humanitarian system.

    CVA’s expansion as a humanitarian aid approach has largely been driven by the Cash Learning Partnership (CALP) since 2005. CALP works to amplify CVA programs carried out by various humanitarian agencies. American government bodies responsible for U.S. aid programs, like USAID and the Department of State, collaborate with CALP directly, incorporating their guidance into the implementation of CVA. CALP has outlined its five main roles as follows:

    1. Capacity Building – Provide individual humanitarian organizations with training and workshops that will enhance their ability to deliver quality CVA programming.
    2. Coordination – Connect carriers of CVA programming and humanitarian organizations in order to improve the consistency and quality of cash aid provisions as well as solidify coordination mechanisms between actors.
    3. Knowledge Management – Establish a forum for CVA actors to exchange knowledge and experience about cash-based aid programming and solidify coordination efforts in information.
    4. Research – Conduct research regarding CVA and build an evidence base in order to provide the best policy recommendations and improve the quality of CVA programs.
    5. Policy – Generate policy recommendations with a primary focus on improving the efficacy and efficiency of CVA worldwide. Builds structured policy through conventions and debates between a diverse set of voices, much of which is highlighted in the State of the World’s Cash Report.

    Positive Attributes of CVA

    CVA offers beneficiaries more flexibility compared to in-kind aid. This reduces their vulnerability, as they can obtain needed resources faster. CALP studies show that recipients prefer cash because it provides choice and control, allowing them to buy what they need locally. In-kind aid may not always match their requirements, leading to less efficient humanitarian efforts as beneficiaries seek alternative means for necessary funds. CVA has been found to be effective across humanitarian aid types, including general and reproductive health, nutrition, poverty, gender, and labor market.

    Corruption and Misuse in CVA Aid Channels

    Opponents argue that CVA is uniquely susceptible to corruption. Corruption exists in regular aid distribution channels, but intermediary officials are more capable of siphoning liquid cash compared to physical resources. This problem is more pronounced in countries with higher corruption rates, which often require more assistance.

    Flexibility offers choice but also raises the potential for recipients to mismanage funds. Critics contend that people in need are more likely to misuse cash compared to in-kind aid. While opponents acknowledge that aid misuse exists in both CVA and in-kind aid, they assert that cash, being less controlled and more versatile, provides greater opportunities for recipients to mishandle resources compared to physical goods and services.

    Inflation Caused by CVA

    Some economists opposing the growth of CVA also highlight that increased flow of cash in local economies where CVA programs are prominent inflates the prices of popular commodities, thus countering the intended effect by making needed resources less accessible to low income residents. A study on CVA programs in the Philippines found that the cash inflow caused by CVA has a larger direct impact on the market and prices, creating negative spillover for non-beneficiary households.

    An alternative to CVA is Universal Ultra Basic Income (UUBI), which suggests providing reduced financial support to populations in remote or impoverished regions to avoid inflation. Instead, UUBI targets the poorest households, aiming to enhance economic conditions through targeted cash assistance.

    Efficiency of CVA

    CALP’s research underscores the current inefficiencies in implementing CVA programs. A primary cause is the lack of coordination among organizations involved in CVA and humanitarian aid as a whole. The current network for cash-based aid includes duplications and parallel projects, resulting in higher costs and wastage compared to in-kind aid. CALP acts as a bridge between humanitarian groups, working to streamline this network through agreements and improved communication among partners. This has enhanced the global efficiency, scalability, and sustainability of CVA as a form of aid. In the United States, despite some skepticism, government departments responsible for humanitarian aid, such as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in the Department of State (DOS), have shown support for CALP’s goals of more efficient and widespread CVA programming.

    Recent research is focusing on the cost-effectiveness of CVA, especially electronic CVA. Since aid distribution often occurs in-region, the electronic infrastructure may not be sufficiently advanced to manage the complex cash and large transactions required by certain CVA programs. To mitigate the cost inefficiencies resulting from inadequate technology, CALP suggests collaborating with local agencies prior to developing CVA frameworks to address regional variations. Therefore, there is a suggested connection between improving program efficiency and reducing costs by enhancing coordination and communication among organizations, which is in line with CALP’s operational priorities.

    Specific choices in CVA programming might affect the impact on beneficiaries. One area of contention is whether attaching conditions to cash assistance (called conditional CVA) is more effective than providing cash without conditions (known as unconditional CVA). A study of Mexico’s PROGRESA/Oportunidades, a well-established CVA program, challenges the notion that conditional CVA leads to significant economic growth. It points out that wealthier families, who are less in need but can meet the aid requirements, tend to benefit more than low and middle-income families who are in greater need. However, some critics argue that more precisely targeted conditional CVA programs could address this issue highlighted by the study.

  • US Response to Deforestation in the Congo Basin

    US Response to Deforestation in the Congo Basin

    The Congo Basin spans six Central African countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Republic of the Congo. The basin is home to the world’s second largest rainforest, measuring 500 million acres, and hundreds of thousands of local species. In the past decade, however, the rainforest has faced the encroaching threat of commercial agriculture and resource exploitation. Since 2013, expansion in commercial agriculture and the logging industry throughout Africa has destroyed thousands of acres of forest.

    Most of this agro conversion is done illegally, as companies fail to obtain the proper license or blatantly violate allotted boundaries and other legislation. For example, the European company Norsudtimber has illegal logging sites throughout 40,000 square kilometers of rainforest. The new farmland and extraction sites are mainly a result of a high global demand for valuable natural resources. Companies harvest palm oil and rubber or oil from the 16 blocs located throughout the forested region. Further exacerbating the uncontrolled deforestation is a lack of local government capacity, especially in terms of financial resources or incentives to adequately protect their forests. The combined demand for resources and lack of an effective counter to illegal practices has led to a steady increase in deforestation.

    Deforestation and Climate Change

    Deforestation in the Congo Basin goes beyond the scope of Central Africa as it ties into the larger issue of global climate change. The destruction of tropical forests affects global warming because the various trees and vegetation remove carbon from the atmosphere through a process known as sequestration. Deforestation releases carbon back into the atmosphere and limits the potential for further reabsorption. If global deforestation persists at its current rate, the resulting emissions will use up nearly 20% of the emissions budget established in the Paris Agreement. 

    The effects of deforestation and the resulting expedited global warming has already started to impact Americans in tangible ways. Most recently, much of the East Coast was subjected to dangerous air quality as a result of Canadian wildfires. These wildfires are enhanced by the drier climate created through global warming. As wildfires increase in size and severity, they expedite emissions and further the global warming process to create a dangerous cycle.

    The Current Approach

    In 2021, President Biden released an executive order about combating climate change that led to The Plan to Conserve Global Forests: Critical Carbon Sinks. This plan emphasizes an economic approach to preventing deforestation through methods of increasing investment in conservationist programs and offering “debt-for-nature swaps.” These “swaps” allow nations indebted to the United States to instead redirect that money towards conservation. 

    The Biden Administration has identified climate change, including the specific concern of deforestation, as significant threats to the US. The administration is actively taking measures to tackle this problem. For example, Biden signed onto a joint donor statement with several other countries and the Bezos’ Earth Fund to pledge $1.5 billion between 2021-2025 towards protecting the Congo Basin forests. Since then, in 2022, Biden released an executive order outlining his administration’s goals on preventing deforestation both locally and internationally as a protection against climate change and other environmental issues. As part of this order, Biden tasked his cabinet with creating a proposed plan of action around illegal production on deforested lands, including working with local governments on enforcing forest-protecting law. These steps represent a foreign policy focused on monetary aid towards eliminating deforestation and a direct acknowledgement of the situation within the Congo Basin.

    Extent of Involvement

    Some argue that the current aid and actions taken by the US to combat deforestation in the Congo Basin are enough. One concern about increasing involvement is the associated cost. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) recognizes the substantial financial and time commitment required for analysis before allocating more aid. Considering the significant financial support already provided by the US, it’s unclear if additional funding is necessary. Apart from financial aid, the US Forest Service collaborates with universities and NGOs in Congo Basin countries to establish an institutional approach to forest conservation. This type of support primarily aims to empower these countries to address deforestation internally. This raises the question of whether working at the national level is sufficient or if the US should take a more direct role.

    An alternative approach to the issue is for the US and local governments to rely on the indigenous communities to regulate the forests instead of getting involved themselves. In 2018, the DRC granted the Nkala people the right to govern a portion of the rainforest, and since then the territory has seen a diversification in crops, improved protection against extreme weather, and general sustainability. These systems do not, however, address the issue of resource demand and weak government protection for those indigenous communities.

    Increasing Aid

    The Interfaith Rainforest Initiative provides an argument for greater direct involvement. While the present deforestation emissions are minor, they contribute to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions when considering forest regrowth. Halting deforestation and promoting reforestation could potentially cut global emissions by over 30%. This is because the approach prevents emissions and allows for more CO2 removal as new forests grow. These findings justify the call for greater US engagement, not only to reduce emissions but also to initiate a reversal of the climate change trend.

    One possible way to get involved is by establishing trade guidelines. Trade historically has worked as a means to promote American international interests such as the Environmental Cooperation Agreement within the US’s Free Trade Agreement with Peru. Whether it is creating a fleshed out trade agreement with environmental provisions or just creating more guidelines to prevent the trade/resell of materials illegally extracted from deforestation, the US can take a stronger commercial policy stance.

    Environmentalists and other individuals with strong demands for increased involvement see a need for more direct approaches, such as increasing USAID funding to promote donations towards combating deforestation. As of April 2023, USAID’s Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) has already invested more than $600 million to tackle the many components of the deforestation issue. Biden’s budget proposal looks to increase funding for USAID and directly financially support African nations in conservationist measures. 

    Decreasing Aid and Other Alternatives

    Some are vehemently opposed to Biden’s foreign aid budget as part of an alternative spending plan. Some individuals aim to reduce spending and trim the government budget to address the debt crisis. This approach involves cutting areas considered less essential. For some, providing financial assistance to the Congo Basin might be seen as a potentially unnecessary expense. Some individuals view providing financial aid to the Congo Basin as potentially unnecessary. This perspective is partly rooted in concerns about corruption and inefficient use of US contributions, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Funds acquired through the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) are not directly given to the Congolese government due to corruption fears. Nevertheless, the DRC’s environmental minister has highlighted the significant loss of funds to administrative expenses under the existing system. Given this unclear monetary aid setup, those against involvement in the region contend that it may not be worthwhile.

    In addition, some argue that deforestation within the Congo Basin is beneficial because of the many resources produced from the newly opened areas. The US could benefit from the resources procured through increased mining projects such as oil and cobalt. The US government’s trade profile on the DRC labels the country as “in a strategic position for the energy transition” because of its “substantial untapped gold, cobalt, and high-grade copper reserves.” Some believe the US stands to gain large quantities of critical minerals if it invests in future mining projects rather than preventing deforestation in the Congo Basin. 

    Beyond the US gains, the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) shows that countries in early development stages are expected to see large jumps in carbon emissions. The rise in deforestation within Central Africa follows the initial part of the EKC. All the while, if Congo Basin countries transitions towards manufacturing over agriculture (part of the developing progression), then deforestation is predicted to decrease.  Deforestation may be a temporary and necessary part of Central African development. In fact, members of the Global South have expressed resentment towards the more industrialized nations’ supposed environmentalist stance because the countries promoting environmental protections within Africa are the same nations who historically exploited natural resources to reach their current standing. 

    The issue of deforestation within the Congo Basin is multifaceted with environmental, financial, and political concerns combining to reach a range of conclusions around how involved the US should really be. Within the US, addressing climate change is now a priority for 52% of voters. With that being said, people disagree if the Congo Basin is the best avenue for combating climate change. 

  • Intro to US – South African Relations

    Intro to US – South African Relations

    Introduction

    South Africa holds a prominent position in Africa as a major economic force with one of the continent’s largest economies and high human development scores. It actively participates in regional UN Peacekeeping operations and hosts the Pan-African Parliament’s permanent seat. Additionally, South Africa wields considerable soft power, using its distinctive national history and narrative to influence global affairs through soft power. As a result, United States – South African relations have an outsized importance on US relations and interests with all of Sub-Saharan Africa, as South Africa’s regional influence helps dictate US ability to achieve its goals in the region.

    Quick Facts

    History

    The connection between the US and South Africa traces back to 1799, during South Africa’s colonial period under the British Empire. In that year, the United States opened a Consulate in Cape Town, marking the initial diplomatic presence within the future borders of South Africa. Formal diplomatic ties were officially established in 1929 when South Africa gained autonomy within the British Empire.

    Once South Africa achieved independence, the US identified the nation as a key potential ally in the region, which led it to support the new South African government. However, this decision became more difficult to justify when the new South African government implemented the system of Apartheid—a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race, against non-white South Africans. The US later adopted a ‘Communication‘ policy towards South Africa, aiming to strike a balance between strategic and economic concerns by cultivating favorable relations with the South African government. The goal was to encourage the regime to cooperate with the US and gradually persuade them to dismantle the Apartheid system. This led the US to become one of the few countries not to embargo South Africa, helping give the regime cover at the UN.

    Concerned that its close ties to the Apartheid regime were straining relationships with other African nations, the US, during the Carter administration, started gradually reducing its diplomatic engagement with South Africa while still maintaining economic connections. However, due to the Angolan Civil War evolving into a proxy conflict between Marxist and anti-communist forces, the US sought military assistance from South Africa, which created conflicting messages about its stance on South Africa. However, public pressure continued to build to cut ties with the Apartheid regime, so when the Angolan Civil War died down, so did US support for South Africa, as there were no pressing security issues in the region, and therefore no strong justifications to support the regime. With the loss of its last major international partner, the South African regime, now led by F.W. deKlerk, pivoted towards working with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to bring an end to Apartheid.

    Once the Apartheid regime fell, and the ANC was elected in the free and fair election of 1994, the US and South Africa developed closer relations. This was sparked by the personal friendship between US President Bill Clinton and Mandela. However, Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, and many members of the ruling ANC in South Africa, did not fully trust the US because of the prolonged period of cooperation with the apartheid government, which led to reduced cooperation between the two countries.

    Relations between the two countries continued to swing with each new administration on either side, despite the strong economic ties. This has led South Africa to court geopolitical rivals of the United States, including Russia and China. In 2023, tensions escalated between the two countries when the US ambassador accused South Africa of supplying arms to Russia for the conflict in Ukraine, despite South Africa’s official stance of neutrality.

    Strategic Interests

    • Economic/Trade: Trade between the US and South Africa is strong, and South Africa is the largest African trading partner for the US. South Africa’s mineral wealth, including Platinum and Gold, is sought after by American industries. In return, South Africa’s primary import from the US is automobiles. However, South Africa is part of BRICS, an economic alliance with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, aimed at boosting their economies collectively. This expansion could potentially divert South Africa’s economic interests away from the US.
    • Military/Regional Security: The US and South Africa are major partners for promoting regional stability in the Southern Africa region. As a result, the US and South Africa cooperate on military and regional security issues, and the two countries conduct joint military exercises. The US military is involved in health initiatives by providing logistical planning. However, South Africa has also led joint exercises with Russia and China, highlighting how South Africa continues to refuse to align too closely with either the US or its geopolitical rivals.
    • Global Health: The US and South Africa have a longstanding partnership working towards promoting global and regional health. The US has invested billions to PEPFAR, a program which helps prevent and treat HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR has invested heavily in South Africa, and the surrounding region, which had some of the highest rates of infection. This partnership expanded to cover other threatening diseases, such as Covid-19. This growth has ensured that the partnership remains a robust point of cooperation between the two countries.

    Future Developments

    The US will face competition from Russia and China in vying for influence in South Africa. South Africa is expected to use its differing relationships to maximize its own benefits, while carefully managing ties with the global powers to avoid upsetting any one of them. To maintain South Africa as a regional partner, the US must further develop and utilize economic and health connections. Building trust is crucial, given the historical context that still influences the relationship.

  • Successes and Failures of U.S Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs

    Successes and Failures of U.S Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs

    Introduction

    Following the Russian Federations invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the nation’s oligarch class came into the spotlight as the United States and its allies implemented sweeping sanctions on Russia. In the context of Russia, oligarchs refer to individuals with immense wealth and influence in the Russian political system. The interdependent relationship between the oligarchs and the government of Vladimir Putin made the latter a viable target for sanctions against Russia, and a major aspect of the United State’s sanctions strategy.

    Background

    The origins of Russia’s oligarchs begin with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the newly established Russian Federation’s transition from a socialist to capitalist economy. Under President Boris Yeltsin, the Russian government sought a rapid transition to capitalism. In pursuit of this, a policy program known as “Shock Therapy” was introduced to rapidly privatize the Russian economy. Shock Therapy involved two waves of mass privatization in which state owned assets and enterprises were handed over or sold to the newly established private sector. Russia’s oligarchs first emerged within these circumstances. 

    During the first wave of privatization, the Russian government distributed vouchers to citizens which could be used to buy shares of companies being privatized across the country. The individuals who would go on to become part of Russia’s first generation of oligarchs enthusiastically accumulated vouchers, allowing them to secure massive stakes in newly privatized industries. The second wave of privatization began amidst Yeltsin’s bid for reelection in 1995. Facing declining support and a government lacking money, the Yeltsin government made a deal with Russia’s emerging oligarchs. In exchange for billions of dollars in loans and support for Yelstin’s reelection, the oligarchs were given massive stakes in remaining state enterprises. Conducted through fraudulent auctions, vast swathes of essential industry fell under the control of oligarchs, further solidifying their position and power. Yeltsin was successfully reelected.

    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was elected President in 2000, which marked the beginning of a new era for Russia’s oligarchs. Although he campaigned on promises to uproot the oligarchs, following his inauguration, only oligarchs opposed to Putin were targeted. In their steed, the present class of Russian oligarchs solidified—those loyal to Putin including oligarchs who had emerged under Yeltsin as well as new upstarts who benefitted from their loyalty or personal connections to Putin. 

    In the more than two decades since Putin first became President of Russia, the oligarchs and Putin’s government remain intrinsically linked by their shared history and reliance on one another for support and protection. Prominent oligarchs sit within the Russian government, at the helm of state corporations like Gazprom (a major energy company), and enjoy beneficial government contracts for their companies under the auspices of Putin’s government. 

    Policy Success

    Evaluating the success of sanctions against oligarchs can be gauged on two metrics: 

    • Impact on wealth, assets, and lifestyle
    • Changes in attitudes towards Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Russian government

    The sanctions against the oligarchs can be considered to have yielded successes in both areas. Immediately following the initial implementation of sanctions, several prominent oligarchs with close ties to Putin came out in public opposition to the war despite the repercussions for doing so. Various oligarchs were also reported to have experienced significant losses in wealth, and the seizure and freezing of assets abroad has been estimated to have resulted in $67 billion in losses by the first anniversary of the war for the 23 wealthiest oligarchs in Russia.

    Policy Setbacks

    The primary setbacks in the current sanctions policy against the oligarchs are:

    • Insufficient level of impact on their wealth 
    • Inadequate impact on the relationship between the oligarchs and the Russian government. 

    Despite considerable losses since the initial implementation of sanctions, oligarchs were able to recover some of the losses. As a collective, Russia’s oligarchs lost 13% of their total wealth more than a year after Russia’s invasion began. Impacting the wealth of the oligarchs is further complicated by difficulties with identifying their assets abroad. For example, it is challenging to know with certainty which real estate in the United States is owned by oligarchs. As a result of policies favoring privacy over transparent disclosure of ownership, real estate in the United States has become a particularly effective means for oligarchs to hide their wealth abroad. New legislation and policy revisions have enabled more effective investigation into real estate ownership and other assets, but challenges associated with identifying the assets of oligarchs continue to be a hurdle to maximizing the impact of sanctions on oligarch’s wealth. 

    Some research indicates the sanctions have had a limited impact as instead of dividing the oligarchs, sanctions have instead united Russia’s oligarchs to fend off the external threats to their collective wealth. In turn, the sanctions against oligarchs have struggled to manifest sufficient opposition among the Russian elite to the conflict. The Russian government has responded to any opposition with rapid and intense action. Since the beginning of Russia’s war, critics of Putin as well as multiple oligarchs have died under suspicious circumstances raising the likely possibility that opposition at even the highest levels is being liquidated, further limiting the impact of opposition of oligarchs to the war as a result of sanctions. 

    Future Outlook

    There is one emerging option: targeting the wealth managers of the oligarchs. The wealth managers utilized by the oligarchs represent new viable targets for sanctions for several reasons:

    • Oligarchs can rely on a few elite financial managers who possess the necessary qualifications, making their identification easier.
    • The majority of these wealth managers are located in Europe, making their sanctioning logistically easier.
    • The position, responsibility, and knowledge held by these wealth managers makes them a particularly weak point in the financial networks of the oligarchs.

    Focusing on these individuals could pose a substantial threat to the oligarchs. The United States can ensure that oligarchs are unable to bypass the impacts of sanctions by maintaining and expanding cooperation with foreign partners in Europe and other regions. This can be achieved by implementing sanctions and restrictions to deny them viable safe havens.

    These approaches in tandem would create an evolved approach to the United State’s sanction regiment against Russia’s oligarchs, with the potential to yield greater long term impacts that will contribute to the aims of the sanctions. These strategies may in turn yield the necessary pressure to instigate sufficient high-level opposition to Russia’s war which Putin’s government can not afford to ignore or attempt to silence. 

  • US Response to Conflict with al-Shabaab in Somalia

    US Response to Conflict with al-Shabaab in Somalia

    Introduction

    The United States developed a diplomatic relationship with Somalia in 1960 following its independence from British and Italian rule. After a period of stagnation between the two countries throughout the 1990s, the United States formally recognized the new federal government of Somalia (FGS) in 2013. While the United States has worked with Somalia to maintain regional security and relieve humanitarian aid for decades, Somalia has continued to face a series of political upheavals and violence with the absence of a functioning central government. For almost two decades, al-Shabaab, a clan-based militant group, has conducted violent insurgencies in southern and central Somalia and officially became an al-Qa’ida affiliate in 2012. The United States officially designated al-Shabaab as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2008. 

    Historic and Present Threats 

    Al-Shabaab’s primary goal has been to expel foreign forces and establish an Islamic state in Somalia based on its interpretation of Sharia law. Historically and currently, they exploit local grievances, carry out attacks, and enforce their strict interpretation of Islamic law in the regions they control, especially in southern and central Somalia. Al-Shabaab killed more than 500 people by detonating two truck bombings in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, in 2017, and killed 148 people at Garissa University College in central Kenya. They were able to gain strength by taking advantage of the lack of effective governance and security in Somalia. 

    The United States has been involved in countering the militant group’s attacks since 2013. U.S. forces executed the former leader of al-Shabaab, Ahmed Godane, with an airstrike in 2014. Al-Shabaab’s successor, Ahmad Umar, has publicly communicated that his organization sees the U.S. as a key enemy and has aimed to dismantle U.S. operations in Somalia and other neighboring countries. According to the Pentagon, the U.S. has authorized over 275 strikes in Somalia during the Trump administration.

    The African Union (AU) and United Nations agreed to terminate their multinational peacekeeping force in Somalia (AMISOM) by the end of December 2024. Due to the reduced military presence, al-Shabaab was able to capture a Somali military base in 2023. Several regional forces were also killed in an al-Shabaab suicide car bomb. Al-shabaab’s threat has pushed the AU to reevaluate its withdrawal and complicated U.S. counterterrorism operations. As a developing country, Somalia has dealt with severe internal political disputes between Mogadishu, AU leaders, and Somali federal state authorities, as well as state corruption. After involvement with Somalia since the early 2000s, the U.S. suspended support to the Somali army in 2017 due to corruption concerns related to the accountability of weapons, fuel, and other assistance provided through security aid programs. Although assistance was partially resumed in 2019, the Trump administration officially withdrew all U.S. troops from Somalia in 2020. 

    Current U.S. Policy in Somalia

    Current U.S. policy in Somalia focuses on two key areas: military intervention and capacity-building. Through its Africa Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. military conducts targeted airstrikes, drone operations, and ground raids to disrupt al-Shabaab’s leadership, training camps, and logistical networks. The U.S. also provides military and financial support to the Somali government and its security forces. For example, they provided training for Somali troops, advised and assisted counterterrorism operations, and enhanced the capacity of Somali security institutions. Since the early 2000s, Washington has partnered with several local and international partners, including Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, the African Union (AU), the UN, and various Somali forces. 

    In 2022, President Biden authorized the redeployment of 450 Special Operations forces to Somalia. This replaced a system where U.S. troops periodically trained and advised Somali and AU forces. The new directive is for the U.S. troops to provide security and services for Somali officials rather than engaging in direct combat. This decision is based on research indicating that the American presence in Somalia before Trump’s withdrawal was effective in countering al-Shabaab. In the year following the U.S. pullout, the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies estimated that the number of al-Shabaab attacks rose by 17%, from 1,771 to 2,072. U.S. security assistance to Somalia and peacekeeping operations in the country has amounted to approximately $3 billion since 2010. This makes Somalia one of the top recipients of security aid in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Involved Agencies and their Roles 

    • Unified Task Force (UNITAF) was a multinational force led by the U.S. in 1992. It was authorized by the Security Council to use “all necessary means” to create a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia. Although the initial peace-keeping efforts were successful, the lack of political transparency and absence of a disciplined national armed force in Somalia led UNITAF to transition to UNOSOM II. Under UNOSOM II, the new force was granted enforcement powers by the United Nations (UN) and assigned military tasks such as monitoring hostilities, controlling heavy weapons, and protecting UN personnel and agencies. However, in 1993, Somali militia carried out armed attacks against UNOSOM II troops, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the UN-sanctioned multinational force.
    • The Department of Defense has been actively involved in targeting al-Shabaab militants, disrupting their activities, and weakening their capabilities through military operations. They collaborate with US AFRICOM, which leads these efforts by closely working with Somali forces and other international partners. In August 2022, Somali President Hassan Mohamud initiated a “total war” strategy, encouraging African nations to apply pressure on al-Shabaab extremists from all angles. Local clans are supporting Somali forces in driving out al-Shabaab militants from various parts of central Somalia and challenging their presence in southern strongholds.
    • The CIA offers intelligence support by collecting information about al-Shabaab’s leadership, operations, and financing. They have uncovered that al-Shabaab finances its operations through piracy, kidnapping, and extortion from local businesses, farmers, aid groups, and others. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the militant group generates approximately $100 million per year through these activities.

    Conclusion

    U.S. troops are assisting in political reconciliation efforts among Somalia’s different groups and tribal factions. The reintroduction of American troops, along with military advances from Somali forces, will play a crucial role in determining how effectively al-Shabaab’s control over different regions in Somalia can be reduced in the future. Both sides’ leaders are grappling with the challenge of finding a balance between the costs of continuing the conflict and their interests in negotiating its end.

  • U.S. Relations With China Regarding Technology

    U.S. Relations With China Regarding Technology

    Introduction

    Over the last four decades, China’s remarkable growth has shaped the world. With an average annual GDP increase of 9% since its economic reforms began in 1978, the country has lifted 800 million Chinese citizens out of poverty. Today, China is responsible for close to 5% of the world’s production. Now, China has shifted gears towards technological developments. With its dominance stretching from advancements in space robots to artificial intelligence, China is now in a position to become the world’s top technology leader.

    China’s Political Influence 

    According to reports submitted under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), China has invested $280 million to influence U.S. politics. This investment has led to a significant presence of Beijing-backed individuals in American Chinese-language print, broadcast, and online media. According to research from the Hoover Institution, virtually all Chinese-language media in the U.S. is controlled by Beijing or by business people who support China. This could allow for the Chinese government to feed propaganda to consumers in the U.S. Beijing sees Chinese Americans as part of a global Chinese diaspora and assumes they still have political, cultural, and even religious ties to the so-called Motherland in addition to having an interest in the well-being of China. 

    Such actions affect people’s right to free expression in the U.S. and have an impact on their political views and voting decisions. Much of the demographic in the affected areas are in competitive congressional areas such as New York or California. Thousands of fake Chinese accounts that targeted Americans were found on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, according to a Freedom House Organization report from 2019. These accounts seem to ignite Americans’ rage on contentious topics such as social justice laws or the right to bear arms. In September 2022, Meta—owner of Facebook and Instagram—revealed that before the midterm elections, a China-based influence operation targeting American users with biased political content was found and removed. The following month, Google claimed to have discovered Beijing’s use of trolling and other strategies to try to polarize Americans leading up to the 2022 midterm elections.

    Social Media: TikTok

    Worries about the Chinese government’s access to user data have emerged regarding TikTok and other major social media platforms. While it remains uncertain if the software poses a security threat, TikTok has been prohibited on government-owned devices in several countries, including the U.S. A report from the Internet Governance Project suggests that techniques for gathering computer-based data from publicly available sources could potentially collect extensive information about users of various networking apps, as well as TikTok. A former employee of ByteDance, the parent firm of TikTok with headquarters in Beijing, has provided explicit allegations that the Chinese Communist Party accessed user data on a large scale and for political purposes.

    US Response

    Over the last four years, the United States has become more cautious about China. The Justice Department established the China Initiative to address national security concerns related to China. This initiative aimed to intensify efforts to identify Chinese agents in the U.S., particularly in academic and research fields. However, despite initiating numerous investigations, it allegedly relied on unreliable information too often, resulting in failure to substantiate accusations against the targets. Eventually, the initiative was terminated due to concerns that it unfairly singled out Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans without gathering substantial evidence against them. However, the Global Engagement Center (GEC) of the State Department and the FBI have improved their ability to spot Chinese misinformation online. Major IT firms have also identified evident state media online and have improved their ability to remove questionable posts. 

    Conclusion

    FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed that China has a “breathtaking” strategy to steal information from the United States and influence American politics. The FBI has also claimed that Beijing poses a greater threat to political influence than Russia, however Chinese authorities have strongly objected to this characterization. Nevertheless, Chinese influence in American politics, media, and society seems to be growing and is expected to increase over the next few years. Despite efforts and claims to the contrary, it appears that the U.S. lacks an effective plan to prevent China from using a variety of media to gather information on U.S. citizens for their own purposes.

  • Policy Options: U.S. Response to Shifts in India-Russia Relations

    Policy Options: U.S. Response to Shifts in India-Russia Relations

    India is at a crossroads between its historical relationship with Russia and its growing relationship with the United States. Shifts in the global security order, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strengthening bond between Russia and China, and India’s cooperation with the U.S. on trade, technology, and security, are changing the dynamics of these relationships. India’s unique position gives the U.S. options in its approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the trajectory of Indo-Pacific affairs.

    India-Russia Relations

    During the Cold War, India and Russia pursued mutually beneficial ties built upon three pillars: arms sales, a preference for the role of the public sector in the economy and the role of Soviet foreign aid towards India, and countering the alignment between the U.S., Pakistan, and China. The enduring aspect of this historical relationship that remains crucial in Russia-India relations today is the sale of arms. Russia continues to be India’s primary source for arms imports, while the other two factors have lost their significance in the post-Cold War era.

    Another key component of the two countries’ economic relationship is oil. More than a third of India’s oil comes from Russia, and this share has increased in the past year. Additionally, starting from April 2023, India has initiated trade talks with Russia, aiming to broaden their economic cooperation beyond defense and oil sectors.

    However, certain geopolitical trends may compel India to reevaluate the nature of its relationship with Russia. Russia increasingly looks to China as its top strategic partner against the West and is seeking opportunities to grow closer to Pakistan on economic and security issues. India has a history of conflict with both neighboring countries, and current tensions persist. As Russia strengthens its ties with these nations, India might consider seeking alliances with other partners. 

    Despite these shifts, India’s relationship with Russia remains strong due to its dependence on arms sales, which would take time to diminish, and an oil trade that India finds advantageous due to Russia’s competitive prices. Russia also continues to place importance on this partnership, considering bilateral collaboration with India and participation in institutions like the SCO and BRICS as integral to its broader Eurasian strategy.

    The Impact of the Ukraine War

    Though India has not taken the same punitive measures toward Russia that the West has, it has not expressed support for Russia’s invasion either. At a summit for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization last year, India’s Prime Minister Modi spoke openly to President Putin, urging him to rely on diplomacy rather than war to resolve the conflict. Modi’s comments, though not a condemnation of the war, indicate a growing frustration with the strain it has caused around the world. 

    In the midst of the war, India’s economic ties with Russia persist. While the West sought to economically isolate Russia at the outset of the war, India’s imports from Russia grew substantially with Russia’s share of India’s oil imports increasing from 1% to 18% in the hundred days after the invasion started. 

    At the same time, the war has strained Russia’s arms trade with India. Russia’s struggles in Ukraine have forced it to delay shipments and suspend contracts with India as it seeks to cover its losses in Ukraine. India has expressed worries about the dependability of the Russian weapons it uses, and the Russian military’s issues in Ukraine only make these concerns worse. India started gradually diversifying its defense exports before the war, and the war could potentially encourage it to expedite this process. 

    The Role of the U.S. 

    While India has maintained some elements of its historical relationship with Russia, it has also strengthened ties with the U.S. As security issues in the Indo-Pacific, including the rise of China, become a priority in U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. and India both seek to develop a stronger partnership. Along with Japan, Australia, and the U.S., India is a member of the Quad, a pact through which these four countries engage in dialogue regarding security concerns in the Indo-Pacific. Though not a formal alliance, the Quad expresses a vision for a rules-based order in the region. Additionally, the formation of AUKUS, a security pact among Australia, the U.K., and the U.S., underscores the U.S.’s heightened attention to the Indo-Pacific region and its alignment with India on key concerns, although India is not included in the pact. The Russian Defense Minister has criticized both initiatives as measures to “contain” Russia’s partner, China.

    These expanding security connections are evident in the enhanced military collaboration between the two nations. A recent instance is the joint military drill conducted by the U.S. and India near India’s disputed border with China. Should India’s rapport with Russia encounter challenges, and considering Russia’s strong alliance with China, alongside India and the U.S.’s shared focus on China, this cooperation indicates that the U.S. could potentially serve as a security ally that India can rely on.

    In turn, as China continues to pursue its ambitions in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to overtake the U.S.-led order through its Global Security Initiative, the partnership between the U.S. and India—including military cooperation—could provide an alternative for the region. 

    The opportunities for cooperation between the U.S. and India extend to the economic sphere as well. The bilateral initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) between the two countries aims to strengthen cooperation on technological innovation, defense industry, space, and education. The U.S. and India are also pursuing trade ties separate from the iCET arrangement. 

    However, India and the U.S. are still at odds over India’s arms trade with Russia. India’s decision to purchase S-400 missile systems from Russia could leave the nation open to CAATSA sanctions from the U.S. Although Congress granted authority to the President to waive these sanctions, it is not yet clear whether he will do so. 

    Obstacles to U.S.-India Ties

    India’s unique position between the U.S. and Russia is consistent with its historical preference for non-aligned foreign policy. Dating back to the Cold War, India pursues an independent foreign policy, establishing ties based on maximizing autonomy and protecting strategic interests, and is wary of permanent alliances based on shared ideological values. This allows India to maintain ties with both Russia and the U.S. when the interests of each nation seem contradictory. This could mean that India will be hesitant to sever ties with Russia as long as it deems the arms trade and economic relationship beneficial. 

    Despite India’s concerns about the quality of Russian systems, the majority of its arms imports come from Russia. This is partly because Russia provides favorable terms that support India’s defense industry growth, and moving away from this reliance would be a lengthy process.

    In addition to possibly subjecting India to U.S. sanctions, India’s purchase of S-400 systems from Russia poses an obstacle to increasing military cooperation between the U.S. and India. U.S. officials are concerned that through the S-400, Russia could breach U.S. systems and collect intelligence on the U.S and other allies. 

    For some U.S., policymakers, further alignment with India is not viewed in a positive light. Though India is a democracy, Prime Minister Modi often faces criticism for human rights abuses in the country. Among the reported abuses monitored by the U.S. State Department are suppression of the freedom of the press through arrests of journalists, mistreatment of prisoners (including torture), and policies discriminating against religious minorities. This could lead to hesitancy to strengthen ties with India and compel foreign policy leaders in the U.S. to make requests for reform. 

    Future Options

    As the war in Ukraine forces Russia to halt some of its arms sales to India, the U.S. has an opportunity to sell more defense systems to India to fill the void. This would decrease India’s reliance on Russian arms sales while strengthening ties with the U.S. During his visit to Washington, D.C. in June 2023, Modi emphasized the significance of defense cooperation and innovation U.S.-India relations. He mentioned the idea of uniting the defense industries of both nations. However, the challenge lies in the time required for this initiative. Despite India’s efforts to expand its defense suppliers, it is improbable to completely sever its arms trade with Russia, given its reliance on Russian systems.

    On the issue of the war in Ukraine, U.S. officials have expressed hope that India could use its unique relationship with Russia to pursue a resolution to the conflict. With the U.S. supporting Ukraine and India’s ties with both Russia and the U.S., India is in a position to attempt to negotiate peace between the two sides, and it would be consistent with a non-aligned foreign policy. In the press conference with President Biden, Modi reiterated support for diplomacy as the means to resolve the conflict. If the U.S. is open to the idea and India is willing to undertake the task, this could be an opportunity to resolve the war and strengthen relations. However, Putin seems reluctant to pursue peace, so it is unclear what it would take to bring Russia to the table in this situation. 

    Although India is unlikely to abandon its relationship with Russia, there remain other opportunities for cooperation between the U.S. and India. Tensions with Russia do not necessarily need to be an obstacle to cooperation on trade and technology between the U.S. and India. President Biden elaborated on the importance of trade, technology, and education between the two countries during Modi’s visit. Beyond Russia, there are also other security concerns, such as China, that are of interest to both the U.S. and India in the Indo-Pacific, and will likely lead the countries to continue to cooperate even while India’s relationship with Russia persists. 

  • Failures and Success of International Fisheries Management

    Failures and Success of International Fisheries Management

    International fisheries management is the combined efforts of nations across the globe to ensure long-term operational success of fisheries and marine resources. It depends on setting realistic policies and establishing regulations that take both marine conservation and the economies of fishing communities into account. International fisheries management is crucial to ensuring that the global ocean system remains healthy enough to sustain global fishery needs, from feeding citizens to maintaining conservation of natural resources.

    At the root of international fisheries management is the challenge of reducing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. 

    • Illegal fishing directly breaches international or regional fishing law. 
    • Unreported fishing is a lack of reporting or intentional misreporting of fishing activities to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).
    • Unregulated fishing is fishing that occurs in areas outside of the vessel’s nationality, or in areas where conservation and management measures are not in place. 

    IUU fishing threatens economic and environmental damage to the global ocean system and global fishing economy. Countries currently employ similar strategies to combat IUU fishing, and join forces to do so by forming Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). The European Commission writes that RFMOs are “open both to countries in the region (‘coastal states’) and countries that have interests in those fisheries (‘distant water fishing nations’).” Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) allow for countries to work together toward common goals in their fisheries.

    The European Union (EU), United States (US), and Canada are three big players in current management strategies, with similar strategies, policies, and regulations to combat IUU fishing. The EU verifies marine fishery products with catch certificates and the correct flag state—only these verified products are allowed to enter the EU. The European Commission acts as the governing enforcement body on behalf of the EU Member States of illegal fishing activities, carding countries and states that fail to regulate IUU fishing. The Interagency Working Group belongs to the US, and combines 21 government agencies for a cohesive and comprehensive approach to combating IUU fishing. The group is developing a five-year strategy to decrease IUU fishing through a combination of increased surveillance, encouragement of sustainable fishing practices, and assurance that only legal and reported seafood enters trade systems. Lastly, in Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is working to combat overfishing, with the long-term goal of creating and maintaining sustainable fisheries. They have stopped overfishing in the North Atlantic Ocean, and are working toward doing so in the North Pacific Ocean. The DFO is focused on increasing surveillance and monitoring at sea, specifically on traceability and certification. The fisheries enforcement agencies of the EU, US, and Canada have made surveillance, certification, and conservation the focal point of their approach to international fisheries management. However, through time, many have critiqued their management strategies. 

    Critiques of Fisheries Management Strategies

    The paradox of fisheries management is balancing conservation/environmental needs with social/economic needs. Much of environmental and public policy is dynamic, including international fisheries management—however, many critiques have remained consistent since fishery management entered mainstream public policy in the 1970s. These issues are “the innovativeness of fishermen in seeking ways to improve their harvests” and “changing social priorities that are largely unpredictable and outside the control of fisheries managers.” This suggests that the challenges faced nearly 50 years ago are still present today, and that there is a stasis in management strategies.

    Countries that fail to combat illegal fishing sufficiently in the eyes of the EU can receive a red or yellow card from the Commission. Failures include legal gaps, a lack of control over vessels, poor conservation measures and management structures, failure in cooperation with regional and multilateral bodies, and failures in traceability and fish processing. Individual countries have the responsibility to ensure that laws against illegal fishing are clear, and consistently enforce them through fleet surveillance. Furthermore, they must base conservation methods on scientific fact. 

    Conservationists argue that there are causes beyond overfishing and the environment impacting crises in the world’s fisheries. They argue that a conservationist approach that is “less sensitive to the inadequate results of fisheries science” must be employed to ensure future success of fisheries.

    Successes of Fisheries Management Strategies

    Clear and direct rules that outline best practices for transshipment (the transfer of catch between vessels at sea) will ensure that IUU fishing cannot occur, and the seafood supply chain can be monitored every step of the way, providing accurate data to countries about transshipment processes at sea. Global Fishing Watch’s Carrier Vessel Portal is a further success that speaks to the worldwide effort to increase transparency and surveillance at sea. This online tool uses “satellite data, machine learning technology and information provided by RFMOs to identify and display potential transshipment activity in near real time.” The challenge in regulating and encouraging best practices for transshipment is oftentimes the distance between land and the transshipment process, which is occurring out at sea. This tool provides surveillance and transparency in the transshipment process, removing some of that mystery. 

    Increased conservation measures are a success in international fisheries management. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has set a quota for blue sharks, which are often caught in tuna fisheries, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) have completely prohibited capture and retention of manta and mobula rays in the Indo-Pacific ocean region.

    Successful international fisheries management depends on the collective effort and collaboration between nations in order to achieve a future ocean that is sustainable and healthy. Recent advances in technology have allowed for increased surveillance, thus decreasing IUU fishing. While many of the challenges that face international fisheries management strategies have not changed in decades, RFMOs and UNCLOS are making positive strides in creating legislation that acknowledges global dependence on fisheries, while also keeping conservation and longevity in mind.

  • Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Introduction

    The Paris Agreement, passed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in 2015, is an international legislation addressing climate change. Though not the first of its kind, it has had a significant impact on the geopolitical landscape. Despite facing setbacks and failures, the agreement has proven to be effective in addressing climate change, considering its historical context and political perspectives.

    Background

    Climate change is defined by the United Nations as “long term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns”, a pattern that has accelerated as a result of human influence. Climate change has been at the heart of political differences for over a decade, as individuals, businesses, and governments try to balance economic needs with environmental protection. The Kyoto Protocol of 2005 is a contract that operationalized the United Nations Framework on the Convention of Climate Change, and it was one of the first acknowledgements of climate change as an international problem. It set the stage for the Paris Agreement by setting goals to limit greenhouse gasses and mitigate the effects of climate change and uniting the international community to collaborate against a common problem. 

    The United Nations created 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) in 2012, which are social, economic, and political goals that revolve around international climate vulnerability. These goals were created as a call to action for the United Nations to work towards a sustainable future. However, there were many other aspects of climate change that the protocol and goals did not address, leading to the creation of the Paris Agreement. This agreement encouraged world leaders to take action against climate change and mitigate the consequences of this global problem.

    Introduction to the Paris Agreement

    The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 by 194 parties, including the United States, is an international treaty where each country commits to following the agreement’s regulations and taking steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. The agreement’s main goal is to limit the global average temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius and establish an action-oriented framework.

    Countries follow a 5-year cycle, during which they submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), outlining their national climate action plans. These plans are tailored to each country’s unique economic, political, and social situation and aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. NDCs represent each party’s mandatory call to action.

    The Agreement also provides financial and technological assistance to signatory countries to help them implement their climate action plans effectively. Developed countries are expected to take the lead in providing financial support due to their greater resources and capabilities. This support framework is customized to meet each country’s specific needs, encouraging both developed and developing nations to take action.

    The Paris Agreement includes an Enhanced Transparency Framework, where countries report their climate actions and progress. After a review, they receive recommendations for future plans. Overall, the Paris Agreement is a comprehensive and effective piece of legislation that urges countries to make a significant difference in combating the effects of climate change.

    Successes

    Previously, experts predicted that global temperature would rise about 7 degrees Fahrenheit. However, since the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the previous prediction has decreased to a global rise of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. This marks a major step in the fight against climate change. However, it is not clear if the Paris Agreement directly led to the reforms which reduced temperature predictions, or if government actors and activists who were already mobilizing against climate change would have undertaken the same actions regardless of the international agreement.

    The Paris Agreement achieved notable success by encouraging countries like Japan, China, and the EU to set carbon neutrality goals and embrace net zero targets. Net zero means each country commits to reducing emissions close to zero, with any remaining emissions reabsorbed without significant environmental impact. This progress has led to substantial emission cuts and efforts to mitigate climate change. Other countries are inspired to adopt similar goals, promoting global sustainability.

    Another success of the Paris Agreement lies in creating a collaborative community of countries. The United States, as a member, works alongside other signatory parties to combat climate change. The European Council actively promoted all EU member states to join the Agreement and take action against climate change. This unity among EU countries and the United States in aligning with the agreement and working together has contributed to the success of achieving this goal.

    Failures

    The main challenge associated with many international agreements is enforceability. While the Paris Agreement requires monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions, it does not have the ability to force a country to reduce emissions. Most actions related to reducing carbon emissions have to be passed by legislative bodies or heads of states, and agreements with the international community come second to those forms of decision making. If a country who signs onto the Paris Agreement fails to meet its obligations, other countries might use soft power to coerce actions, via sanctions or diplomatic means. However, major powers like the U.S. and China are less susceptible to this form of peer pressure, and they are also the countries currently responsible for the most emissions. 

    Some also question whether the Paris Agreement goes far enough in setting ambitious goals for carbon emission reductions. In order to receive widespread support, some costly and aggressive elements had to be abandoned. Based on the policies which have been enacted, the Earth is currently not on track to stay below the stated goal of a 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature.