ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Intro to the Andean Region: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru

    Intro to the Andean Region: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru

    The Andean region is a geopolitical area encompassing the states through which the Andes mountain range runs–Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru–who share cultural characteristics initially spread by the Incan Empire in pre-colonial times. 

    The region is economically characterized by membership in the Andean Community Trading Group, which includes Chile, Colombia and Venezuela, in addition to the three countries. The group was created with the objective of developing a customs union and fostering industrial development. Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru’s economies are also characterized by reliance on trade with the US, which makes up around 40% of total trading. The Andean region has faced many of the same challenges as its neighbors, including supporting large populations of Venezuelan migrants and refugees as well as concerns about electoral fraud and government corruption. Peru and Ecuador have served as a major destination for Venezuelan migrants. Like much of Latin America, the Andean states have suffered substantially from government corruption and fraud. More recently, major government efforts have implemented anti-corruption programs. It is difficult to say whether these programs are in truth anti-corruption or simply attempts to jail political opponents on false charges, but anti-corruption and anti-fraud are of high public interest.

    US interests in the Andean region are diverse, but many come back to anti-drug production and trafficking efforts. Coca cultivation has been an indigenous practice in this region for many centuries for medicinal purposes and cultural practices; however, as the global market for cocaine has become more lucrative, this cultivation has increasingly shifted towards supplying the Global North with narcotics. US foreign policy in the Andean region has been characterized by efforts to reduce coca cultivation and eliminate drug trafficking.

    Republic of Bolivia

    • Capital: La Paz (government and executive capital), Sucre (constitutional capital)
    • Population: 11.85 million (2020)
    • Government type: Presidential Representative Republic 
    • GDP per Capita: $3,552
    • Official National Language/s: Spanish, several dozen indigenous languages (including: Aymara, Quechua, Chiquitano and Guaraní), Bolivian Sign Language
    • Majority Religion/s: Roman Catholicism (many practice a version blended with traditional indigenous practices)
    • Global Freedom Score: 66 (partly free)

    US History with Bolivia

    Bolivia has not always been a country of key diplomatic importance for US foreign policy because of its small economy and lack of raw materials of interest. However, relations with the US are essential for Bolivia due to its economic dependence on the United States. 

    The US offered Bolivia official diplomatic recognition in 1848, several decades after many other Latin American countries. After beginning an official relationship, the United States and Bolivia’s relations have been largely characterized by a US focus on extractive industries and primary products production in Bolivia, similar to the rest of the developing world. Late 19th century relations between the countries were also characterized by the Monroe Doctrine, which officially declared US protection for Latin American countries against European intervention. In practice however, actions taken under the Monroe Doctrine were more in line with specific US interests in the region, so smaller countries like Bolivia did not receive much protection or aid. Specifically, the country unsuccessfully campaigned for US assistance to gain access to the Pacific Coast. 

    Despite initial disinterest in Bolivia, commercial importance of Bolivian markets increased at the end of the 19th century as US businessmen realized the potential of this market to sell their goods. This led to the US government beginning to take a more concrete foreign policy approach towards Bolivia starting in the early 20th century. The US aimed to reform Bolivia’s economic and political institutions to better facilitate US investment. However, these interests were challenged with the rise of economic nationalism in the 1930s which led to the nationalization of foreign oil holdings. 

    The Bolivian Revolution in the 1950s further distanced Bolivia from US commercial interests. The populist movement under the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement Party (MNR) pushed for better labor standards for miners and other workers and successfully advocated for further nationalization. These efforts were particularly focused on mining companies, many of which were at least partially owned by foreign firms. These actions led to large losses to US foreign investment in Bolivia. At the same time, the US government continued to push for US economic interests in the country. US aid flows to Bolivia gave the United States some leverage over Bolivia’s economic policies and economic advisors pushed for a cut to the Bolivian government’s budget and money supply. Ultimately these efforts were largely unsuccessful and the Bolivian government continued to implement populist economic policies, including nationalization of major industries. As a result, coca production increased as unemployment among lower classes increased. The bulk of this coca was used in cocaine production for US and European markets. Despite economic setbacks, the United States continued its support of Bolivia. In the early 1960s, the US Alliance for Progress resulted in an increase in US economic and military assistance to Latin America. However, the Bolivian government nationalized Gulf Oil, a major US oil company in 1969 and 2 years later forced the US Peace Corps out of the country.

    With the onset of the US’s War on Drugs policy in the 1980s that reached all throughout Latin America, including Bolivia, the US pushed for stronger coca production regulation, arguing that existing laws were too relaxed. 

    Key US Foreign Policy Considerations

    Major current US foreign policy considerations in Bolivia concern coca production and sale. The rise in cocaine sales and use in the United States led to the War on Drugs, which began in the 1980s. US policy makers continue to advocate for decreasing coca production throughout Central and South America and in Bolivia particularly. Due to coca’s importance both to local economies and indigenous practices, these efforts have not been as successful as US policy makers have hoped. The beginning of Evo Morales’ presidency in 2006 further moved coca policy away from US interests. Evo Morales was the first indigenous president and a former coca growers union leader. He relaxed policies appeasing the US War on Drugs and separately made efforts to decrease economic dependence and pressure from the US government. Unlike the United State’s desire to completely eliminate coca production (to control cocaine production and sales to the US), Morales also kept coca growing legal and addressed US concerns with regulatory measures. As a result, the United States has not supported Morales’ presidency. In 2008, the US ambassador was accused of conspiring against the acting government and expelled. At the same time, the US Drug Enforcement Administration in Bolivia was suspended due to disagreements about coca production policies within the country. 

    US concern about Morales’ leadership came to a head again in 2019 when the election result leading Morales to win his fourth term of office was scrutinized as fraudulent. When demonstrations ensued, Morales organized roadblocks preventing food from reaching major Bolivian cities. These actions relate to a different US interest in the region: promoting democracy and free and fair elections. Election fraud and corruption are common issues throughout Latin America. The prevalence and size of the US financial system means that the United States is often unintentionally involved in issues of money laundering and bribes. In May of 2021, the United States government charged former Bolivian Interior Minister Murillo with corruption for receiving bribes from a US businessman and using the US financial system to launder these bribes.

    REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR

    • Capital: Quito
    • Population: 17.64 million (2020)
    • Government type: Presidential, Unicameral Representative Democracy
    • GDP per Capita: 6,183 US dollars (2019)
    • Official National Language/s: Spanish (many people also speak Quechua)
    • Majority Religion/s: Roman Catholic
    • Global Freedom Score: 67 (partly free)

    US History with Ecuador

    US diplomatic relations with Ecuador first began when Ecuador was part of Gran Colombia (known at the time as the Republic of Colombia but encompassing present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, and parts of Peru and Brazil) and continued after Gran Colombia dissolved in 1831. Over the past two centuries, Ecuador-US relations have primarily centered around implementation of War on Drugs policies and economic interests.

    The War on Drugs began around the 1980s and Ecuador was a location of key interest for the United States. Ecuador contained the main drug route on which drugs were illicitly transported from Peru to Colombia. During the 1980s and 1990s, the US supported Ecuadorian authorities in increasing enforcement measures against criminal drug groups. Issues with criminal organizations in Ecuador continued into the 21st century and the United States has provided aid to train the Ecuadorian army and police as well as seal borders with neighboring countries.

    US-Ecuador relations worsened in the late 2000s as political parties to the left gained influence over the government and President Correa was elected in 2006. Correa’s politics leaned towards socialism and weren’t aligned with US interests. To the US’s dismay, he implemented policies to gain economic independence from the US and also made efforts to initiate closer relations with Russia, the EU and China. In 2007, the Ecuadorian government under Correa began passing new legislation to restrict US companies present in the country. Taxes for oil trading companies were increased and lawsuits were filed against Chevron and Texaco for over one billion dollars in damages (including pollution, health detriments, and environmental damage).

    In 2013, US-Ecuador relations were further complicated by a completely separate incident: the granting of asylum to US whistleblower Julian Assange. The Wikileaks founder lived in the London Ecuadorian embassy for a year and was granted Ecuadorian citizenship in 2017 which allowed him to avoid arrest by US authorities. His citizenship, however, was recently revoked because of alleged fraud in his naturalization documentation. 

    Relations have improved since President Lenín Moreno took office in 2017. President Moreno’s efforts to increase the trade relationship between the two countries and implement more bilateral agreements has elevated Ecuador’s diplomatic relationship with the United States. As a result, USAID’s mission in Ecuador re-opened in 2019.

    Key US Foreign Policy considerations

    US foreign policy interests in Ecuador reflect larger regional trends. As mentioned in the previous section, drug policies and rule of law are incredibly important to both Ecuador and the United States. 

    Another key policy consideration has been US aid to Ecuador for COVID-19 relief. The US Department of State/US Agency for International Development (USAID) has allocated $18 million to Ecuador for COVID assistance. This aid has gone to multiple avenues in Ecuador, not only providing relief to the medical services, but also trying to improve the rule of law, combat corruption, fund infrastructure development projects, provide increased economic opportunities, counter illicit trafficking and defend human rights.

    Another key interest to consider is Venezuelan instability and massive rates of emigration. Ecuador is a major destination for Venezuelan migrants. In June 2021, Ecuador announced the implementation of a new “normalization process” for 430,000 Venezuelan migrants living in the country. There is also a rising need for funding coming from outside of Ecuador to support this group. The United States provides funds to support Venezuelan migrants.

    REPUBLIC OF PERU

    • Capital: Lima
    • Population: 33.50 million (2021)
    • Government type: Presidential Republic
    • GDP per Capita: 6,977 US dollars (2019)
    • Official National Language/s: Spanish, Aymara, Quechua
    • Majority Religion/s: Roman Catholic (some blend catholicism with indigenous beliefs and practices)
    • Global Freedom Score: 71 (partly free)

    US History with Peru

    The United States established diplomatic relations with the newly independent nation in 1827 and the two countries have maintained a cooperative relationship ever since. 

    Like its neighbors, Peru has been a center for coca production and thus a subject of interest for the US’s War on Drugs in the 1980s. Peru was a priority location during this program due to its high rate of production of coca exports. The Peruvian government has largely been supportive of US counter-narcotics efforts in Peru. 

    The US has also supported programs in Peru to improve law enforcement and rule of law. Much of the relationship has been characterized by US support for further democratization and human rights promotion. Relations became strained in 2000 with the re-election of President Alberto Fujimori due to concerns of election fraud and corruption in Fujimori’s government. However, following the downfall of Fujimori in November 2000 and the changes in government, relations improved again.

    Peru and the US also have an important trade relationship. In 2006 they established the bilateral U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) which significantly increased trade between the two countries. Through this agreement the United States also works with Peru to combat wildlife trafficking and transnational crime.

    Key US Foreign Policy considerations

    Many of the US foreign policy considerations for Peru are similar to those in Ecuador and Bolivia. Similar to Ecuador, COVID-19 assistance has been a current key area of interest. Through June of 2021, Peru had the highest COVID death rate proportion of their population in the world, primarily because their large informal sector was unable to transition to remote work. Early June numbers estimated the official death toll as more than 180,000, a significant number for a population of 33 million. Peru also had a weak healthcare system and lacked sufficient funding for securing the resources required to address the pandemic. As a result, the United States provided $25.8 million in support to Peru to address COVID-19’s impact. The United States has also provided $16 million in humanitarian aid.
    Much like the rest of Latin America, Peru has also suffered from corruption and fraud in politics—a key interest in US foreign policy relating to goals of democratization and avoiding authoritarianism abroad. The June Peruvian presidential election saw much controversy regarding fraud and corruption as candidate Fujimori was arrested for fraud and challenged the election of her opponent Castillo. The United States is not directly involved in the investigations of corruption and fraud, but through foreign assistance, policy makers have attempted to improve government transparency and decrease corruption. In the 2019 fiscal year, the United States provided $75 million to Peru for a wide variety of causes, including countering narcotics production and trafficking, eliminating transnational criminal organizations, peacekeeping, implementing effective government and rule of law, and promoting defense cooperation.

  • The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a section of federally protected land that spans over 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. ANWR is home to a variety of ecosystems and wildlife, including caribou and polar bears, both endangered species. The land is also sacred to local Indigenous groups. The Gwich’in people refer to the Coastal Plain area of ANWR as “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins” because it serves as a migration and birthing place for caribou. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages ANWR under the four following principles: “to conserve animals and plants in their natural diversity, ensure a place for hunting and gathering activities, protect water quality and quantity, and fulfill international wildlife treaty obligations.” The ANWR also has value for oil drilling, due to its 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain. The conflict of environmental and economic interests has led to over 40 years of debates and policies about oil and gas development in the area.

    Background

    Oil drilling in the ANWR has a long history of controversy. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) prevented oil drilling in ANWR with the exception of the Coastal Plain area, but this policy did not immediately allow for any oil drilling in the Coastal Plain. The policy required the Department of the Interior (DOI) to first perform an environmental impact analysis of oil and gas exploration in the area, to allow Congress to make an informed decision about whether or not to allow it. In 1987, the DOI finalized their research and recommended opening the area to oil and gas development, but Congress chose not to act on this decision, maintaining the protection of the Coastal Plain for the time being. In 2015, the US Fish and Wildlife Services released a new environmental impact report recommending Congress to establish 12 million acres within the ANWR, including the Coastal Plain, as Wilderness Study areas, which would prevent oil and gas developments, but Congress also never acted on this, leaving the 1980 policy in place.

    Policy Changes in 2017

    The possibility of drilling was discussed again when President Trump took office in 2016. In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowed for oil leasing by private companies on the land. However, before this could begin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had to conduct a new environmental impact survey. In 2019, the BLM released their final environmental impact statement, in which they recommended leasing the maximum amount of land for oil exploration. Conservation groups, 15 states, and Gwich’in tribes believed this survey was not sufficiently thorough, and filed multiple lawsuits against BLM’s oil and gas leasing program which stated that the decision violated the Endangered Species Act. 

    Arguments and Responses

    Seismic surveys for oil can disrupt polar bear habitats, potentially threatening an already endangered species. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a peer-reviewed study that concluded that these surveys could be done in a way that poses a minimal threat to polar bears, the U.S. Geological Survey found that 34% of polar bear dens in the Coastal Plains could be threatened by seismic surveys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded to this potential threat by assuring that, even if the polar bears were harassed, they would not be harmed. The Gwich’in tribes also argued that the BLM did not properly factor in the importance of this land to their tribes. Alaska has a short growing season, so the environment can take decades to fully recover from human damage. This means that any potential damage from oil drilling could be significantly destructive to sacred land. 

    Latest Developments

    These lawsuits slowed the approval process but did not halt it permanently. In January, 2021, President Trump authorized the BLM to begin the process of leasing the land for oil exploration. Once again, this decision was met with resistance. Members of Congress and Senators wrote to the secretary of the DOI to try to stop this process, arguing that the environmental impact survey was rushed and that the significance of the land to the Gwich’in people was ignored.

    A few days later, newly inaugurated President Biden signed an executive order that temporarily stopped BLM’s Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program, and required the new secretary of the DOI to review the previous impact survey. On June 1st, 2021, Biden’s Secretary of the DOI, Deb Haaland, ruled the BLM’s 2017 environmental survey as “legally deficient” and began the process to conduct a new environmental survey of the effects of oil and gas exploration in the Coastal Plain.

  • E-cigarettes: Public Health Effects and Regulation

    E-cigarettes: Public Health Effects and Regulation

    What are E-Cigarettes?

    E-cigarettes, or nicotine vapes, are electronic devices used to deliver nicotine to the user’s lungs, where it can be readily absorbed. Nicotine is the addictive chemical found in tobacco products. At its most basic, an e-cigarette is composed of a mouthpiece, a cartridge, a heating element, and a battery. The cartridge holds the e-liquid, in other words a mixture of nicotine, water, vegetable glycerin or propylene glycol (or both), and flavorings. When activated, the heating element draws on the battery’s power to turn the liquid into vapor, where it is then pulled into the user’s lungs via the mouthpiece. 

    Proliferation in the US

    The first mention of an e-cigarette occurs in a patent from 1930, which was never commercialized. In 1998, a major US tobacco company requested Food and Drug Administration approval to bring their version of the e-cigarette to the market, which the FDA denied on the basis of it being an unapproved drug delivery system. This resulted in a lull in the market for nicotine vaporizers, but momentum resumed in 2003 in Beijing, China, with the first commercially successful rendition of the e-cigarette. E-cigarettes were introduced to Europe and the United States in 2006. In the years since 2006 there has been a flurry of commercial success for e-cigarettes, and they are now a popular consumer product in the US, with ongoing research as to their health effects and how they are best regulated.

    Impact on Health

    Because e-cigarettes only gained commercial success in the early 2000s, there is limited long-term data on the health effects of vaping nicotine. That means there are no certain long-term conclusions about health that can be drawn. However, assumptions can be extrapolated from available long-term data on similar types of exposure, such as exposure to artificial fog machines or food vapors in a factory setting. 

    • Flavoring agents: One such example is a condition commonly called “popcorn lung”, a form of life-threatening respiratory failure so named because it was first observed in popcorn factory workers who had inhaled a flavoring agent called diacetyl. Diacetyl was found in the majority of sweet e-liquids evaluated by one study. Many ingredients in e-liquids, like diacetyl, are rated by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) when eaten but are untested for inhalation in an aerosolized form. This is true of vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol as well, and these knowledge gaps are common when it comes to e-cigarettes. 
    • Product labeling issues: There are also numerous inconsistencies in product labeling, making it even more difficult to know exactly what one is inhaling. Nicotine concentrations in e-liquid, for one, have frequently been found to differ from the labeling. E-liquid typically contains 16-24 mg/ml of nicotine, although the available concentrations range from 12-100 mg/ml. The average cigarette, on the other hand, delivers approximately 2 mg of nicotine to the smoker, and the median fatal dosage for an adult is around 60 mg. High concentrations of nicotine in e-liquid have caused an increasing frequency of nicotine poisoning from accidental ingestion of e-liquids among children and adults. 
    • Metal leakage: The frequent heating and cooling process of the e-cigarette heating element can cause metals such as chromium, manganese, nickel, and lead to gradually leech into the e-liquid as the heating coil breaks down. Inhalation of these metallic fumes by welders is known to increase respiratory illness and possibly increase the incidence of lung cancer. A similar phenomenon could be extrapolated to e-cigarette users, although more research is required. 
    • Other ingredients: Overall, e-cigarettes contain lower levels of carcinogens than conventional cigarettes, but comparable levels of ultrafine particles and other toxins that affect cardiovascular health and account for half of smoking related illnesses.

    Enforcement of E-Cigarettes

    From a public health standpoint, e-cigarettes present a challenge in that it is difficult to regulate indoor vaping or create “smoke free” areas, since e-vapor disappears quickly and the scents are not unique to e-cigarettes. A recent study found that 60% of e-cigarette users vape in “no smoking” areas, and e-cigarette vapor has been found to lower indoor air quality and result in similar levels of nicotine absorption in bystanders as second-hand cigarette smoke does. In recent years, there has been an increase in regulation surrounding vaping in public places, but enforcement is not easy.

    E-Cigarettes as a Cigarette Substitution

    E-cigarettes have the potential to be used as a smoking cessation aid, since research thus far shows them to be less dangerous than a traditional combustible cigarette, and the customizable dosage of nicotine they deliver can help ease a smoker’s transition off of traditional cigarettes. However, several meta-analyses show that they are only helpful in a specific context. E-cigarettes purchased over-the-counter as a consumer product by current smokers, both those who were motivated to quit smoking and those who were not, are not associated with increased smoking cessation among adults. However, when they are provided to smokers motivated to quit as a free therapeutic tool, they do result in a higher success of smoking cessation. Another meta-analysis found that there were a few studies that showed the opposite effect, although the authors stated that these studies did not account for the frequency of use. Higher frequency vaping is associated with more successful cigarette cessation. All studies concerning this topic emphasized that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible cigarettes, but not risk free either. It was unusual for people who had quit smoking with the help of a nicotine vape to then go on to quit vaping as well, with 80% of quitters continuing to vape. These studies suggest that regulatory authorities should make e-cigarettes available as a prescription therapy for current cigarette smokers, rather than a widely available over-the-counter recreational product. However, the unknowns when it comes to the long-term effects of vaping make employing the technology in a therapeutic context risky. 

    Despite therapeutic potential for smokers attempting to quit combustible cigarettes, there is some evidence that e-cigarettes have the effect of introducing non-smokers to nicotine, which is counterproductive from a public health standpoint. Youth e-cigarette use doubled or tripled every year between 2011-2014, and by 2014 e-cigarette use in youths had surpassed traditional cigarette use. Twenty-five percent of youths using e-cigarettes did not match the risk profile of youth cigarette smokers, suggesting that they would not have been introduced to nicotine if it had not been for the novelty, flavor variety, and perceived harmlessness of vaping, all of which are cited as unique reasons that youths are attracted to vaping.

    Public Health Debates

    Despite the e-cigarette being a relatively new commercial product, there is public contention regarding whether the therapeutic benefits of e-cigarettes outweigh the public health risks. There are generally two camps when it comes to assessing the risks and rewards of e-cigarettes: The first is concerned with easing the health burden on people already addicted to traditional combustible cigarettes, the other is concerned with preventing nicotine addiction in the non-smoking population. According to available data, traditional cigarettes are almost unanimously viewed as more harmful to the user than e-cigarettes. For this reason, if therapeutic nicotine vapes are a successful aid for traditional cigarette cessation, then their availability would help decrease the negative health burdens of combustible cigarettes. On the flip side, widely available nicotine vapes can also expose non-users to nicotine for the first time. So, in analyzing how e-cigarettes should be regulated, public health officials must determine how different forms of regulation impact the health of these two separate risk groups.

    Regulating E-Cigarettes

    The primary law regulating e-cigarettes in the United States is the federal Tobacco 21 law (T21). It was signed into place in 2019 by former president Donald Trump, and prohibits the sale of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to anyone under the age of 21 years. Although some state codes still list 18 years as the legal age to purchase tobacco products, federal law prevails in this case. T21 is a blanket regulation for the entire country, but individual states can tax e-cigarettes and other products deemed harmful to the general public. This type of tax is often referred to as a “sin tax,” and these taxes fall under the authority of state governments. Some items that are typically taxed to correct for their societal harm include tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. By raising the prices on these items through taxation, state governments can deter people from purchasing them even if they are legally allowed to do so. Further, the money generated by this “sin tax” can hypothetically go towards undoing some of the damage these products do to society, such as helping to pay for state tobacco control programs. In February 2020, the FDA issued a ban on the sale of cartridge-based e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco and menthol, since the more novel flavors, like fruit- and dessert-based flavors, were shown to be one of the features that spurred youths to take up vaping. Some states have further regulations surrounding where it is acceptable to vape, such as rules prohibiting vaping in “smoke free” areas, or within 500 feet of a premises primarily occupied by youths.

    In 2006 when e-cigarettes were first making their commercial debut, they entered the market unregulated. As lawmakers were beginning to catch on to the risks of unregulated e-cigarettes, massive cigarette companies also entered the market, and their influence hindered legislative efforts. The initial opposition to state and local level regulation came from e-cigarette users and independent retailers, but the interference of large tobacco companies shifted the dynamics towards those of the tobacco control debates spanning the 1970s-1990s. These debates often cited “imminent” federal regulation which would render state policy obsolete, and used lobbying and campaign contributions to influence state-level regulation surrounding e-cigarettes.
    Another way that the government influences e-cigarette consumption is through projects like the FDA’s “The Real Cost” campaign, which uses scare-tactic advertising to mold the newer generation’s perception of smoking, targeting those aged 12-17 years. In 2017 the FDA pivoted from anti-cigarette messaging to launching a $60 million anti-vaping campaign, which follows the data revealing that e-cigarettes have been the primary form of nicotine consumption for youths since 2014. This campaign is some of the only federal intervention that targets the consumption side of e-cigarettes rather than the retail side, and has been compared to the 1936 anti-cannabis propaganda film “Reefer Madness”. This tactic may reduce vaping in youths, but it has the dual effect of spreading the inaccurate perception that e-cigs are equally or more harmful than traditional cigarettes, which can discourage adult smokers from using vaping as a quitting aid.

  • An Introduction to Human Rights and Armed Conflict

    An Introduction to Human Rights and Armed Conflict

    There are two bodies of law that guarantee the protection of human rights for individuals and groups on a universal scale, international human right laws and international humanitarian law.

    Defining Laws that Protect Human Rights

    International human rights law (IHRL) is a set of international standards, enforced via treaty and customary law, that ensure that certain rights must be respected and protected by their states and state actors. Customary law are the legal norms that have been established via a historical pattern of behavior and expectations of states, and many expectations under IHRL fall under the category of being “customary”.  International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of humanitarian protections put in place to help protect civilians in times of armed conflict. The ultimate goal of IHL is to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect individual human rights during war time. IHL is binding to all parties in an armed conflict and holds them to a standard of equality of rights and obligations to states involved in the conflict. IHL is integrated with jus in bello (law governing the conduct of war) and jus ad bellum (law allowing the use of armed force). These latin terms have been around since Medieval times when thinkers such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas began propagating theories surrounding “just war”. Some of these requirements for “just war” created the foundation for the modern laws governing when war and use of force is permitted. 

    According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN, it was historically held that the difference between international human rights law and international humanitarian law was that the former applied only in times of peace and the latter in situations of armed conflict. Contemporary international law now recognizes that this distinction is less clear than originally believed to be. It is widely recognized by the international community that since human rights obligations derive from the recognition of the inherent rights of all human beings under IHRL that these rights should come into play during both times of peace and war because of the fact that nothing in human rights treaties indicates that they should not be applicable in times of armed conflict. These two bodies of law are thus complementary in nature and at their core establish the same goal of securing the dignity and safety of all individuals.

    International Humanitarian Law

    IHL is also known as the Law of Armed Conflict (LAOC) and operates under two primary principles, which are defining legitimate means and legitimate targets during wartime. IHL, through international agreements such as The Geneva Conventions and the Hague Commissions, lays out ground rules that define what practices of war are acceptable to use during wartime. “Legitimate means” refers to the fact that certain types of weapons or military tactics are prohibited if they violate the principle of  unnecessary suffering and all acts of perfidy, defined as deceitful tactics or acts of deception,  are generally prohibited. When it comes to defining what a legitimate target is, protecting civilians and non-combatants is the priority. Any non-military objective should be protected, such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Customary law within the international community also implies that certain universal standards of armed conflict should be respected and not militarily targeted such as Prisoners of War (POWs), wounded soldiers, the white flag indicating surrender and anything marked with a red cross or a red crescent symbol indicating humanitarian aid. 

    It is widely accepted that war will inevitably take place and although the use of force is prohibited under the Charter of the United Nations, Article 51 allows for use of force in specific cases of self-defense when the threat is imminent, and Chapter VII spells out instances when use of force can be authorized via approval by the UN Security Council. These two exceptions are both cases in which IHL would come into full force and govern the conduct of the states engaging in armed conflict. 

    The laws of armed conflict have human rights standards at their core; the problems arise when enforceability is brought up. Because IHRL and IHL reside at the international level and there is no true international governing body, these laws of war rely on the fact that it is in each nation’s best interest to abide by these standards.

  • Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    There is not enough affordable housing to meet demand from middle- and low-income households. The federal government can play a role in incentivizing the private market to create new affordable housing to supplement the stock of naturally occurring affordable housing. In the United States, public-private partnerships have historically been the most successful policies in creating affordable housing.

    Current Project-Based Section 8 Voucher Policies

    A current federal program that incentivizes developers to construct affordable housing is project-based Section 8 vouchers. Similar to traditional Section 8 vouchers (read more about Section 8 vouchers here), project-based Section 8 vouchers assist low-income families in paying rent. Participating households contribute 30% of their monthly income to rent and the federal government covers the remaining amount. However, project-based Section 8 vouchers differ from traditional Section 8 vouchers in that the voucher is tied to a housing unit rather than moving with a household. Typically, developers seek out project-based Section 8 vouchers from local public housing authorities when figuring out the financial aspects of a project before the project is constructed. Developers actively seek out project-based Section 8 vouchers because they are a stable source of income for housing developments. Housing developments are usually not feasible if the rent is set at a rate affordable to low and middle income families. Many housing units are built at market rate rents, however, by applying the voucher, developers are able to make profit and invest in more housing developments. So, because of the vouchers, developers are still able to charge rents at market rate; they are able to make projects financially feasible while still providing housing units that are affordable to low-income households.

    Current limitations of Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Project-based Section 8 vouchers have a lot of potential as a policy but are limited in their usefulness because of policy constraints. Local public housing authorities are allocated a certain amount of Section 8 vouchers and they can assign up to 20% of their allocated vouchers to be project-based vouchers. This limits the development of affordable housing units and leads to public housing authorities seldom allocating Section 8 vouchers to be tied to a housing unit. If project-based Section 8 voucher is to be used as a potential policy to incentivize developers to create more affordable housing, the program will have to be expanded to allow for more units to be built through the program, and it will need to be separated from the administration of traditional Section 8 vouchers.

    Arguments in Favor of Expanding Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    • Project-based Section 8 vouchers can be used to develop mixed income housing developments, or a community where the residents are not of the same economic class. Many believe that mixed-income communities can help alleviate poverty, increase property values, and promote social tolerance. Mixed-income communities, as opposed to social housing in a separate area from high-income communities, can also reduce the stigma of public housing projects and address issues like education inequality.
    • The main alternative to project-based Section 8 housing is the low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) which can sometimes fail to support the lowest income households. The rent in properties using low income housing tax credits are calculated by taking 30% of the area median income, which is the midpoint of residents’ income in a region. This measurement can be inflated if a region has high income inequality, raising the area median income to a point where 30% of that income in a month is too high for households living in poverty. Project-based Section 8 vouchers are based on the individual household’s income, making the amount of rent they are required to pay under the program more realistic for households in poverty.

    Those in favor of expanding project-based Section 8 vouchers point to the fact that the infrastructure to administer such an expansion is already in place and would not involve developing a bureaucratic process. 

    Arguments against expanding Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers

    Cost is the main barrier to expanding project-based Section 8 housing. Covering partial rent for millions of households would increase the amount that the federal government spends on rental assistance, which was $51 billion in 2019. In addition project-based Section 8 vouchers do not have the same flexibility for households compared to traditional Section 8 vouchers. If a household must move for whatever reason, they will lose their benefits. While this consistency allows for the creation of more affordable housing units, it can also harm households accessing the programs.

  • Public-Private Partnerships in Housing

    Public-Private Partnerships in Housing

    Low-income housing, otherwise known as affordable housing, is a phrase used to refer to the various residential provisions available to individuals or families with a low household income. While a low-income status can look different from person to person, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing is affordable if it costs 30% or less of a family’s annual income. When it comes to affordable housing and providing economic and social support through policy, there is a debate when it comes to whether or not public-private partnerships are effective for affordable housing efforts and reducing the role of government in housing. Public-private partnerships (P3s) are arrangements between public agencies and private companies that exist to serve the public wherein both entities are sharing the risks and rewards. The public side of P3s typically takes the form of a government agency, and private entities can be non-profit organizations, developers or lenders, private civic organizations, or individuals. A toll road that is operated by a private company but is located on private land a classic public-private partnership. In terms of housing, P3s look like public housing authorities contracting private developers to construct affordable housing on private land.

    Historical Background for P3s

    P3s became possible with the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965, and the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act encouraged cooperation between the government and business by establishing the National Corporation for Housing Partnerships, a public enterprise that acted as a tool for private entities to initiate housing construction programs. P3s became more popular during the period of privatization and regulation in the 1980s because they represented a compromise between government services and private enterprises. 

    As a federal agency, HUD’s public-private partnerships have produced programs such as the Federal Housing Administration’s mortgage insurance programs and Section 8 project-based housing to provide people with affordable housing options. P3s allow the government to share risks with the private sector, leverage investments for greater effect, take advantage of efficiencies outside of the government, and employ broader knowledge and skills. On the flip side, policies and programs that have public-private partnership structures have their own drawbacks such as opportunities for corruption and increases in the complexity of housing policy due to new intermediaries.

  • Treatment of POWs and Civilian Captures: Background on the Geneva Conventions

    Treatment of POWs and Civilian Captures: Background on the Geneva Conventions

    The Geneva Conventions are a series of international treaties whose development began in 1864 and culminated in 1949. The goal of the first convention was to protect and preserve the health and dignity of captured persons during armed conflict. After the events of WWII, the 1949 convention took on new humanitarian importance and managed to gain ratification by every UN member state. The standards set forth by the Geneva Conventions remain the preeminent guidelines for international human rights during war. Additional protocols were added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977 which have not been ratified by the United States.

    Key Provisions

    The first exemplary component comes from article three, section one of the 1949 treaty. Regarding people who took no action in the hostilities, including soldiers who laid down their arms, were injured, or were detained, this clause prohibits acts such as:

    a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) taking of hostages; c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court.

    As these restrictions show, the conventions prioritize the twin pillars of physical health and moral dignity. Another excerpt from article twenty-seven of the 1949 treaty asserts a similar goal in stating:

    Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

    Though well intentioned, these protections only apply during periods of armed conflict. This is just one of the many limitations that affect the ability of the Geneva Conventions to adequately protect the safety and dignity of people affected by violent conflict. 

    Weak Enforcement of Policies

    The main body of enforcement for the Geneva Conventions is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which was established in 2002. For more specific information on the ICC, check out the ACE brief here. The ICC’s creation was an important step towards enforcement, however its effectiveness in holding violators to account has been constrained by its ties to the United Nations. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have used their veto power to constrain the ICC’s ability to investigate potential war crimes, even if the nations are not party to the ICC themselves. The UNSC influence has played a major permissive role in recent violations of the Geneva Conventions, as the following examples will highlight. 

    Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, British soldiers were accused of war crimes violations related to their treatment of Iraqi detainees. A report from ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda confirmed that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the British armed forces committed the war crimes of wilful killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and/or other forms of sexual violence.” Nonetheless, Bensouda concedes that British authorities lacked the necessary forensic evidence needed to secure convictions for the offenses. The UK did not directly prevent the ICC from investigating the conduct of its armed forces. However, the geopolitical influence wielded by the UK exempted it from the level of international scrutiny often faced by other states. 

    UNSC veto power has allowed Geneva violations stemming from the Syrian civil war to go unpunished. The Russian-backed Assad regime has been accused of intentionally targeting civilians throughout the conflict. While this should have provided the basis to refer Syria to an ICC investigation, Russia and China have both used their veto power to prevent this from happening. The Syrian government benefits immensely from its alliance with Russia because the regime has been able to commit war crimes and atrocities with limited accountability. Therefore, the ICC’s affiliation with the UN restricts its ability to enforce the Geneva Conventions because the P5 nations seek to protect their respective alliance commitments.

    Since the state’s creation in 1948, Israel has beena accused of trying to solidify its physical and cultural security by displacing the Palestinian Arab population in order to permit the settlement of Jewish immigrants from around the world. This could represent a violation of article forty-nine of the fourth Geneva treaty, which states that an occupying power may not transfer its own civilian population into the occupied territory. The same article also prevents the forceful transfer or deportation of protected persons from the occupied territories, an offense of which Israel has also been accused of. It is important to note that these arguments are highly disputed. Earlier this year, the ICC stated its ambition to investigate war crimes committed in Israeli and Palestinian territories since 2014. Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, issued a statement that the nation would not cooperate with an ICC investigation because he viewed it as rooted in antisemitism. The investigation is planned to move forward with or without Israeli support. It is unclear whether Israel’s Western allies, namely the United States, would leverage their influence to prevent the imposition of major punishments. 

    ConclusionAs these examples have shown, the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions by the ICC has been limited substantially by UN associations and other geopolitical relationships among states. The result has been that not every instance of violation is treated the same. Investigations can proceed freely, as long as they do not interfere with the interests and alliances of influential nations, such as Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. It is this conflict between humanitarian justice and national interests that continues to stunt the effectiveness of the Conventions in dealing with modern conflict. The United States’ refusal to ratify the additional protocols and the ICC represents an effort to distance national interests from court proceedings. In other words, leaders tend to favor flexibility (and the ability to avoid accountability) over binding commitments in the name of abstract values. As a non-party, the US is able to avoid direct scrutiny of its wartime conduct by bodies like the ICC. In recent years, the US government has gone so far as to take up a confrontational posture towards the court. The Trump administration attempted to further limit the court’s ability to investigate US activity, and even imposed sanctions on ICC officials (these have since been ended by the Biden administration and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken). While the current administration has seemed more favorable towards the ICC, full endorsement and ratification remain unlikely. While the Geneva Conventions remain an important component of international law and global human rights, competing domestic and international commitments have undermined enforcement on numerous occasions.

  • Charting the Start of the Environmental Justice Movement

    Charting the Start of the Environmental Justice Movement

    Introduction

    Racial minorities are more likely to be exposed to environmental hazards including, toxic waste, fossil fuel storage sites, transportation sites, industrial facilities, air, and light pollution, illegal dumping, and toxic runoff in nearby waterways. Research shows that minorities are disproportionately exposed to pollution through siting practices that maintain and differentiate between socioeconomic factors including race and income. 

    Village Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co.

    One of the earliest and most impactful events relating to environmental justice and land-use policy was the 1926 zoning case of Village Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. The case emerged following a real estate firm’s attempt to develop land for industrial use. The town of Euclid passed zoning restrictions to limit the land’s development, which prompted Ambler Realty to sue the town on the grounds that the new zoning provisions constituted an overreach of the town’s policing power and jurisdiction over private property. Many of the town’s middle-class homeowners harbored concerns that the construction of industrial developments on Ambler Realty’s land would attract lower-income people of color to their community to work in the factories. The Supreme Court sided with Euclid and its residents. This ruling is representative of countless examples in which zoning laws have been used to exclude people of color from wealthy white suburbs.  

    Memphis Sanitation Strike

    As the Civil Rights movement began to blossom in the 1960s, so too did concerns over environmental racism. In 1968, garbage workers in Memphis, Tennessee went on strike to protest unfair pay and poor working conditions. This protest, known as the Memphis Sanitation Strike, was the first time Black people in America mobilized as a national group to fight against environmental racism.

    Warren Country sit-in and Aftermath

    In 1982, awareness about the importance of understanding race-based disparities in the environmental justice movement was further galvanized by the Warren County sit-in. The protest emerged in response to the proposed siting of a toxic waste landfill in Warren County, a small Black community in North Carolina. The protest consisted of a large non-violent sit-in during which over 500 activists were arrested. Although the protest failed to stop the development of the landfill, it did produce a significant response. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study in 1983 following the sit-in which provided significant empirical evidence that landfills and other hazardous land uses were disproportionately located in poor Black communities. The study used data from the 1980 Census which showed that three out of four hazardous waste landfills were located in areas where the population was at least a quarter Black and living below the poverty line. 

    In 1987 a study was published by the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ (UCC). The study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States,” concluded that race was the most significant factor in determining the location of hazardous waste sites, even more so than socioeconomic status. 

    Towards the end of the 20th century, the Environmental  Justice movement began to pick up steam. The first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held in 1991, and the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) was established in 1992, among other federal and regional working groups focused on addressing issues of environmental injustice. In addition, further environmental justice-focused policy was passed, beginning with President Clinton’s executive order addressing the disproportionate negative environmental impacts on minority and low-income communities. 

    For more information on environmental justice, read ACE’s Environmental Justice Issue Paper by Clarisse Goetzen

  • A Brief Guide to the Domestic Politics of the Russian Federation

    A Brief Guide to the Domestic Politics of the Russian Federation

    The Russian political system is often described as being a “top-down” structure, meaning that power is centralized in the presidency. Occasionally, the Putin regime is described as a dictatorship, evoking associations with Stalin-era Soviet repression and a “cult of personality.” However, to simplify Russian politics down to these terms undercuts the complexities of Russian society, its institutions, and its active voting populace. Despite Putin’s authoritarian-leaning actions related to protest and LGBTQ+ people, he has enjoyed an approval rating consistently over 60%, with an average rating of 74% over the last twenty years. This is not to say Russia is a democracy or to deny the government’s repression of political dissent. However, to better understand US policy towards the Russian Federation, it is important to take into account the nuances of Russian domestic society. 

    Government institutions

    Adopted in December of 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation established a semi-presidentialist political system. Executive power is shared between the president and a prime minister (premier) who is appointed “by the president with the consent of the State Duma,” the 450-member lower chamber of the Federal Assembly. If the Duma rejects the appointment three times, the president has the power to dissolve the Duma, call for new elections, and appoint the PM anyway. The upper chamber of the Federal Assembly is the Federation Council. Instead of being an elected position, its members are appointed by chief governmental officials in the region they represent, along with several appointed by the president.

    Source: AP Comparative Government Russia 

    1. United Russia Dominance: Russia’s political makeup

    For nearly 20 years, the dominant force in Russian legislative politics has been the big-tent party United Russia. The results of the most recent State Duma election reinforces their primacy. Further, while the Federation Council is officially restricted from joining together by political factions, an overwhelming portion of its members are affiliated with UR. Casting itself as a party of unity and pragmatism, UR has consistently supported the current administration. Thus, with a large swath of control over legislative politics, the Federal Assembly has worked to meet the positions of President Putin.

    President Putin and Russian National Identity

    Voter fraud in Russian elections has been alleged by a variety of sources, including nongovernmental organizations, domestic rivals, and international media. Still, popular support for President Putin and UR should not be understated. In order to retain domestic approval, the current regime remains focused on the restoration of Russian national identity. This restoration revolves around a return to great power status, ensuring the primacy of the Russian language within the nation’s borders, and emphasizing an ethnically diverse Russia.

    The 90s were a tumultuous period for Russia; the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ineffective and embarrassing leadership of Boris Yeltsin, and a financial downturn made citizens of the once great power feel humiliated and ignored in the international system. Recent polls have shown that about half of the Russian population feel ignored by the West, and a majority of Russians have perceived that “developed countries” treat Russia as either a rival or an enemy. Putin and United Russia have been sure to portray his time in power as stable, a sharp contrast to the Yeltsin era. Additionally, they emphasize a desire to restore Russia’s prominence in world affairs. Putin has also repeatedly lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as a disaster. Appealing to the large percentage of Russians who desire a powerful, stable position on the world stage, as well as older citizens who may feel nostalgic for the Soviet era, bolsters the popularity of Putin and contributes to UR’s big tent. 

    Some political scientists consider language to be fundamental in forming a national identity. Putin has emphasized that “the unity of the country and the peoples of Russia directly depends on the knowledge of the Russian language by young people.” In 2015, the Ministry of Education began tracking the hours of instruction on the Russian language in all schools, ensuring that other regional or minority languages were not taught at the expense of the “state language.” Some have interpreted this as an encroachment on non-Russian ethnic groups, while others have seen this as a unifying idea intended to protect the Russian nation. 
    For President Putin, a fundamental component of Russia’s national identity is multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. On multiple occasions, he has condemned the ultra nationalist slogan “Rossiya dlya russkiy” (lit. “Russia for Russians”). Russkiy has an ethnic connotation, as in ethnic Russianness; Putin has often opted to use the adjective “rossiyskiy” when referring to Russians. This has the connotation of a citizen within the Russian Federation, regardless of ethnicity. This has also allowed Putin to cast a wider net of support for his presidency.

  • US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

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

    Terms of the Agreement

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

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

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

    Events Leading up to the Withdrawal

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

    Withdrawal and Aftermath

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