ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • What Changes the Biden Administration will Bring to International Trade

    What Changes the Biden Administration will Bring to International Trade

    In early March, the Biden administration released its 2021 trade agenda along with its trade report from 2020. Following a year where international trade saw unprecedented setbacks from a global pandemic, the Biden Administration’s Trade Agenda offered a glimpse of what is to come as the world returns to normal. On the campaign trail, President Biden was often critical of President Trump’s trade policy. However, despite the partisan divide, Biden and Trump’s trade agendas have shared certain elements.

    Rhetoric on Trade

    Both administrations also emphasized rebuilding infrastructure, labor rights and farmers. Biden’s first trade agenda states: “market opportunities reap the greatest economic benefits when they are pursued in alignment with the interests of American workers and innovators, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, fishers, and underserved communities. Under the Biden Administration, trade policy will encourage domestic investment and innovation and increase economic security for American families, including through combatting unfair practices by our trading partners.” Trump’s first trade agenda had similar themes: “we reject the notion that the United States should, for putative geopolitical advantage, turn a blind eye to unfair trade practices that disadvantage American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses in global markets.” When it comes to American manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers, the rhetoric from the two administrations is strikingly similar. The Trump administration prioritized American farmers through the negotiation of the USMCA agreement and the Biden administration has already affirmed that they will make sure the USMCA agreement continues to deliver on its promise to help U.S. farmers.  

    Manufacturing Tariffs

    Although President Biden critiqued Trump’s trade policy towards China, he has been reluctant to remove the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs. The metal tariffs were intended to aid American manufacturing companies trying to compete with cheap foreign imports mainly from China. Steel industry groups and newly Biden appointed Chief of Commerce Gina Raimondo lauded the previous administration’s tariffs as “effective”. Given the Rust Belt’s history of swinging presidential elections it might not come as a surprise that the Biden administration is prioritizing manufacturing workers in international trade policy.

    Diverging Values and Philosophy

    The philosophical differences between the two administrations can be seen in their attitudes towards trade alliances and governing bodies. The Trump administration showed preference towards bilateral trade negotiations, or trade negotiations where the U.S. engaged in talks with each country individually rather than sweeping trade agreements between multiple countries. Under President Trump, the US withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement between the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Australia, Vietnam, Peru, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. The administration was also hostile towards the World Trade Organization. The Biden administration, on the other hand, has signaled multilateralism, in which agreements are made between three or more parties, as its preferred method of international trade policy to strengthen the American middle class. Biden plans to attempt to re-enter some of the international agreements that the Trump administration withdrew from and provide more support to the WTO. 

    The Biden Administration’s trade 2021 trade policy agenda aims to use trade policy to impact climate change. The 2021 Biden trade policy agenda references incorporating climate change reducing initiatives into trade agreements 13 times, while the Trump administration’s 2017 trade agenda never mentions it. Biden plans to emphasise climate change through carbon border adjustments. The Biden administration also highlighted their plan to use trade policy to aid “disadvantaged communities” and “Communities of color”, which was not a point of emphasis in the Trump trade policy agenda.

  • Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

    Presidential versus Prime Ministerial Authority

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

    The Two Systems

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

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

    Source: CK-12

    Roles and Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

    Is one better?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Argentina

    Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Argentina

    Fact Sheet 

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

    History of Relationship Between the U.S. and Argentina

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

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

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

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Argentina

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

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

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

  • Introduction to Policing

    Introduction to Policing

    Historical Roots of Policing

    The first examples of policing existed in Colonial America, where informal, for-profit groups like the Night Watch attempted to discourage gambling and prostitution. In the 19th century, the US adopted the British system of policing which involved a professional, full-time, and central-organized police force. This force focused on preventing crime and preserving order. Boston was the first United States city to establish a modern police force in 1838. Commercial shipping was central to Boston’s economy, and merchant owners were concerned about cargo security. The police force was created to protect the merchant ships in the area. Shortly after, many Southern cities created police forces to catch runaway slaves and prevent revolutions. By the start of the 20th century, most major cities had police forces that focused on preserving social control and the economy, such as protecting the workforce from labor-unions and immigrants, and preventing labor strikes. Precinct captains and sergeants were selected by local political parties, and political interests subsequently influenced police activity. 

    During the 1920s, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover set out to better police forces by creating the 1929 Wickersham Commission to investigate ineffectiveness within law enforcement. The findings of this commission led to greater separation between police forces and political parties, and increased training for new officers. Police departments began to unionize and introduced the community policing model. Community Policing strengthened the ties between law enforcement and the communities they served, placing an emphasis on forming relationships with community leaders and discussing pressing issues within their communities. This is still the most widely used policing model today.

    State and Local Law Enforcement

    Non-federal police departments can be broken up into four subgroups: 

    1. Municipality departments, which govern cities, townships, or tribal areas, are responsible for the preservation of property, criminal investigations, and protection of life in their respective jurisdiction. 
    2. Sheriffs’ departments, run by the county, perform jail operations, court-related duties, and other law enforcement activities depending on department policies, such as, serving orders of protection and transporting prisoners. 
    3. State and highway police jurisdiction depends on the local legislative mandate. State officers have jurisdiction throughout their state; however, their duties depend on a state mandate. Highway officers are given specific duties to perform over highways, including traffic enforcement and/or criminal investigations. 
    4. Special departments that can include universities, parks and recreation areas, and transportation facilities. Their duties vary depending on mandates, but usually include traffic enforcement and investigations. These departments often cooperate with their partner agencies.

    Federal and International Law Enforcement

    The United States has two main federal law enforcement departments: the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. 

    The Department of Justice houses a variety of agencies with different specializations.

    • The U.S. Marshal Service apprehends federal fugitives, operates the Witness Protection Program, transportes federal prisoners in the judicial process, and manages seized assets that were acquired through illegal activities.
    • The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives enforce controlled substance regulations and laws and investigate the unlawful use, manufacture, and trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, respectively. 
    • The FBI has jurisdiction to “investigate all federal crimes that are not assigned exclusively to another federal agency.” Examples of these are threats to national security, violent crimes against interstate travelers, serial killers, white-collar crimes, and hate groups that pose a credible threat. In addition, the FBI investigates missing children, aids local law enforcement agencies upon request, and manages the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This program centralizes crime statistics submitted by various U.S. law enforcement agencies.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created to strengthen U.S. borders and prevent attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11. It consolidated 22 federal agencies and departments, becoming the largest federal law enforcement agency. These agencies include the Federal Protective Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Secret Service.

    • The Federal Protective Service is tasked with protecting critical infrastructures of the U.S. government and investigating any criminal activity against these locations. 
    • ICE and CBP are similar since both operate at the border and are tasked with deterring and investigating cross-border criminal activity. 
    • The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, and foreign visitors of importance. They are also in charge of investigating threats to United States financial organizations. These include credit card fraud, ransomware, and computer network breaches. The Secret Service also offers forensics assistance to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

    Finally, when crime is committed in more than one country, the International Police Organization (INTERPOL) aids and connects the participating law enforcement agencies. INTERPOL was created in 1914 as world leaders sought a more integrated way to solve crimes across countries. The organization consists of 194 countries who share intelligence, forensics services, and assistance to fellow countries. Its main mission is to combat terrorism, cyber-crime, and organized crime, which are the gravest threats to international security. Its jurisdiction is created through mutual agreement with the member countries.

  • Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Chile

    Introduction to U.S. Engagement with Chile

    Fact Sheet

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

    History of Relationship Between the U.S. and Chile

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

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

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

    U.S. Strategic Interests in Chile

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

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

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

  • Introduction to Environmental Justice

    Introduction to Environmental Justice

    Introduction

    Environmental justice is concerned with the unequal distribution of environmental benefits and costs/damages amongst different social groups. “Environmental justice” typically refers to 1) the body of research aimed at identifying and understanding such inequalities, or 2) the social movement seeking to extend equal social participation in decision making processes to ensure all communities are able to have a say on activities that impact their environment. Environmental justice is an intersectional concept, combining notions of social justice with environmental advocacy, and holds that we are unable to care for the planet and combat climate change until we address the human lives that are put at risk from environmental degradation. 

    Environmental justice only became a mainstream movement in recent years. As a result, generations of impoverished individuals and/or people of color have faced disproportionately large ecological risks, often resulting in property loss, problematic health conditions, and/or death. In recent years, environmental justice has become increasingly relevant as climate change has exacerbated and created new environmental challenges which impact communities across the Country. By bringing these communities to the forefront of conversations about climate change and natural resource extraction and use, advocates hope to create a more inclusive and equitable environmental movement. Though the merits of environmental justice are refuted by some, who tend to dispute the existence of climate change or the ways in which communities of color are disproportionately impacted by policy failings, proponents highlight how discussing past and present instances of environmental injustices are critical in moving towards a more environmentally equitable future.

    Factors which led to the Environmental Justice Movement

    Issues of environmental injustice within the United States date back to some of the earliest appearances of European settlers. For example, European colonizers removed indigenous peoples from their land and forcibly relocated them onto unfamiliar, relatively unproductive territory. Settlers engaged in strategic buffalo killings, slaughtering them to near-extinction as a way to limit Native Americans’ food supplies, and European Americans consistently silenced indigenous peoples during attempts to speak out against their mistreatment and the mistreatment of the environment. Anti-indigenous sentiments held by the earliest European settlers still carry into the present day, as many Native Americans remain subjected to some of the worst environmental and health conditions in the nation. The 20th century in particular brought unique challenges for various vulnerable peoples. Urban planners placed the majority of waste incinerators in marginalized communities, leaving residents with harmful respiratory illnesses. Uranium mining companies created hundreds of mines on Navajo territory which greatly increased their lung cancer rates. Chemical plants were built in historically black and/or low-income neighborhoods, polluting their drinking water. 

    Though the environmental justice movement did not emerge as a coherent discourse until the 1980’s, these historical injustices fueled civil rights movements in the 1960’s which emphasised the continuing public health dangers faced by communities of color. In 1968, African Americans organized the Memphis Sanitation Strike to obtain better working conditions for Memphis garbage workers, largely considered one of the first attempts to advance issues of environmental justice within the US. This momentum carried through to 1982, when civil rights activists attempted to stop North Carolina from dumping 120 million pounds of PCB-contaminated soil (a persistent organic pollutant) into a county overwhelmingly occupied by African Americans. While the protest was ultimately unsuccessful, it led to several high profile prosecutions, and is seen to be the catalyst for the Environmental Justice Movement.

    Arguments For Environmental Justice

    Proponents of the Environmental Justice movement, specifically those directly impacted by environmental degradation and those who understand the urgency for climate action, seek societal and governmental change to rectify historical injustices and prevent the continued harming of marginalized communities. Government intervention is considered necessary because many of the problems occurring from injustices arise from federal and state policy failings or omissions. The growing threat of climate change is expected to disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities further. 

    • Inequalities in the ability to recover from wildfires worsened by global warming will leave many lower-income individuals homeless. 
    • The placement of low-income and minority housing in floodplains will cause them to experience higher death tolls under severe sea level rise. 
    • Disparities in emergency preparedness mean marginalized communities will face disproportionate risks as hurricanes become stronger and more frequent. 

    Overwhelming capitalist interests, systemic racism, class discrimination, and more, effectively devalue the worth of certain human lives over others and contribute to such environmental injustices.  

    Advocates argue that without adequate societal, cultural, and political changes, those bearing the brunt of the climate crisis will continue to be the country’s most vulnerable individuals.  Marginalized communities already face discrimination and exclusion in various forms, putting them at a severe social, cultural, economic, and political disadvantage. More specifically, because marginalized communities have less time, resources, and political power to resist unequal environmental conditions, improving public awareness and motivation to tackle environmental injustices is an important first step. Not only does the power to address environmental injustices lie with policymakers, wealthy company owners, government agencies, etc., it lies with informed and democratically-engaged citizens. Whether through participating in citizen groups and activist organizations, voting for certain political candidates, or reaching out to elected officials, everyday citizens can create tangible differences in their communities, their states, and beyond.

    Arguments Against Environmental Justice

    The Environmental Justice Movement faces criticisms from those who believe that increasing government intervention is unnecessary, and simply gives politicians more power to control and harm American citizens. They claim the stricter rules and regulations following environmental justice advancements would inadvertently prevent the creation of jobs and reduce economic output. One example cited by environmental justice critics is the EPA’s 1998 blockage of the construction of a new plastics factory in Convent, Louisiana. What may have brought economic prosperity and 2,000+ jobs to a poor, predominantly African American town was instead halted by supposedly unfounded cancer concerns. Additionally, while many Americans can agree that pollution is an issue, some critics believe that the effects of pollution on the health of marginalized communities are negligible, citing behaviors such as increased smoking rates and drug usage as reasons for reduced minority community health.

    Overview of Environmental Justice Policies

    Since the 1980’s, local, state, and federally elected officials have attempted to address environmental injustices via legislation and policy changes. On the federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to take environmental justice into consideration when engaging in governmental activities. State involvement in tackling environmental justice issues vary widely, with some states establishing strong environmental justice policies, and other states such as Oklahoma and Arkansas having none at all. Among some of the most important state regulations regarding environmental justice are the policies outlined in the Virginia Environmental Justice Act, the goals set forth by the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the protections codified by New Jersey’s 2020 Environmental Justice Legislation. Policies on environmental justice can also differ at the local level, with some cities such as San Francisco choosing to consider the environmental justice implications of land use development in contrast to other areas of California, or Atlanta’s focus on public health implications. 

    While such policies have had some successes, a number of policies have limited and reversed attempts to address EJ issues. For example, the Trump administration’s first proposed budget diminished the EPA, including funding cuts to environmental justice programs. Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator under President Trump, marked a significant change for the Agency because Pruitt was well known as an adversary of the EPA who, as Oklahoma Attorney General, repeatedly sued the EPA in opposition to environmental regulation and openly advanced the energy industry’s agenda. President Trump also issued an executive memorandum directing the Secretary of the Army to take all legal steps consistent to approve permits necessary to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. At a global scale, the Trump Administration’s rejection of climate science and repudiation of the Paris Agreement represents a conscious refusal to take steps to prevent and protect against climate change impacts.

    With a new presidential administration, many policy changes are already being discussed regarding environmental justice. The Biden administration is expected to implement environmental justice across all federal agencies, especially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The new EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, seems inclined to incorporate environmental justice as well. He created an Environmental Justice and Equity Board during his time as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), which made beneficial changes including a community mapping system used to inform agency decisions by considering demographic and health information—and which could serve as a model for EPA decision-making. Additionally, the Biden administration is expected to withdraw the Department of Justice’s current prohibition on Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”). These are voluntary projects with environmental or public health benefits which were previously used as a component of enforcement settlement actions. Although they were considered to be a valuable tool in the Obama-led Department of Justice, they were nixed by the Trump administration due to administrative cost concerns. To proponents, not only are these a valuable compliance tool, they frequently contain a public accountability component which makes them even more effective and responsive to community needs. SEPs are expected to return as a component of EPA settlements in 2021. 

    In spite of widespread EJ implications from the Trump Administration’s heavy environmental protection and public health setbacks, state and local movements towards a more equitable future are gaining traction. While the federal response to addressing issues of environmental justice is historically poor, local communities have still had numerous successes. San Diego County’s overwhelming approval of an Environmental and Climate Justice Office, Michigan’s creation of the Office of the Environmental Justice Public Advocate, and the 2021 Massachusetts climate law prioritizing environmental justice are only a few recent examples of strong local efforts to ensure the health and safety of vulnerable residents. Such achievements are a testament to the changing attitudes and growing support towards environmental justice issues. 

    International Impacts

    There is much work to be done before all communities experience equal distributions of environmental benefits and costs, especially on a global level. For example, the continued extraction and use of fossil fuels has astronomical impacts on the natural environment, as oil sand drilling, fracking, arctic drilling, and deep water petroleum sources contaminate fresh water, devastate marine systems, cause seismic activity, and exacerbate global warming. Another example is the implications that arise from fisheries around the world. Because of these fisheries, fish stock is decreasing causing concern of overuse and fish shortages. Small-scale fishing communities are reclaiming their rights for access to and control over aquatic commons. Some examples are the ones by intensive fish farms in Turkey or in Chile, big port projects in India and polluting industries in Ecuador. Climate change is a global problem which requires collaboration with other countries to find effective solutions. 

    Conclusion

    For those interested in becoming involved in environmental justice, educating yourself and others is arguably the most important step, so sharing this page and additional ACE resources with those in your community can contribute towards a more environmentally equitable future. For more information on Environmental Justice issues check out the EPA website, or to find out more about how advocacy groups are getting involved, check out the Environmental Justice Foundation or We Act.

  • Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

    Primary Actors in the Ukrainian Conflict

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

    Why did Russia annex Crimea?

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

    Next Steps and Peace Agreement

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

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

    Image source: Council on Foreign Relations

    Pro- Ukrainian Actors

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

    Pro-Russian Actors

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

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

  • Introduction to NATO

    Introduction to NATO

    Introduction and Purpose

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

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

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

    History of NATO

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

    Structure of NATO

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

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

    NATO Missions 

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

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

    Current NATO Debates

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

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

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

  • Intro to Biden’s Infrastructure & Corporate Tax Plan

    Intro to Biden’s Infrastructure & Corporate Tax Plan

    Announced on March 31st, 2021, President Biden’s American Jobs Plan aims to rebuild America’s infrastructure while creating millions of new jobs and modernizing various sectors of the American economy. In addition to repairing the nation’s outdated roads, bridges, airports, and electric grids, the plan calls for investing in social services, promoting racial equity, boosting wages, and expanding high-speed internet access across the country. 

    With an eye towards meeting the challenges of climate change and an increasingly competitive China, the plan also endeavors to “innovate for the future” by jumpstarting manufacturing, improving job training programs, and revitalizing research & development into key technologies. 

    The bill calls for almost $2.3 trillion in new spending. In tandem with the American Jobs Plan, President Biden is proposing a new Made in American Tax Plan that would offset the infrastructure package’s hefty price tag and eventually reduce the ballooning budget deficit. By raising close to $2 trillion over 15 years, this plan would specifically:

    • Increase corporate tax rates from 21% to 28% (though this is still markedly lower from the 35% rate that existed before Trump’s 2017 tax reform bill);
    • Establish a global minimum tax of 15% on income earned overseas for U.S. companies;
    • Eliminate loopholes that encourage companies to move profits to overseas tax havens.

    The Biden administration is spearheading negotiations on a broader global minimum tax rate for corporations with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The goal of a global minimum tax rate is to establish a tax system where a company will pay a certain percentage of its profits in taxes to its home country, regardless of where those profits are being earned. In other words, an American company that moves some of its operations offshore to a low-tax jurisdiction would have to pay the US government the difference between their minimum rate and whatever the company paid on its overseas earnings. For example, if a company from a country with a global minimum rate of 15% earned overseas profits that were taxed at 5%, the government would be entitled to bring the company into compliance by charging it an additional 10%. This new global tax regime would apply to multinational companies irrespective of where they’re headquartered and hopefully deter countries from competing for business by lowering tax rates. 

    Proponents of this tax plan argue that not only will it reward investment at home by offering a tax credit to firms that move jobs back to the US, it will also incentivize investment in green energy and American manufacturing. Most notably, it would finally ensure US-based multinational firms, like Amazon & Netflix, pay their fair share by closing legal loopholes that corporations exploit to dodge paying federal taxes.

    Opponents of the tax plan cite the post-pandemic timing of the proposal as dangerous for a country trying to recover from a recession. They believe the tax increases will slow economic recovery and make the US a less attractive investment option on a global scale, especially after just lowering the corporate rate from 35% in 2017.