ACE

Category: Foreign Policy

  • U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    U.S Response to the Rohingya Crisis

    Click here to read this paper as a PDF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • U.S Role in International Development

    U.S Role in International Development

    Read this brief as a PDF

    International development encompasses the knowledge, resources, and financial assistance employed by various international actors to improve economic, educational, health, and human rights conditions in developing countries. These actors include states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international governmental organizations (IGOs), philanthropists, foundations, and even individual donors. International development assistance comes in the form of direct bilateral payments between states and recipients, multilateral payments between IGOs and recipients, loans, material resources, technical assistance, information sharing, and training.

    Following the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in the inception and advancement of international development. In 1948, the first large scale international development initiative was enacted by President Truman to provide technical and financial assistance to Europe in order to rebuild the continent’s economy, infrastructure, and governmental capacities. This initiative was known as the Marshall Plan, named after then Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. At the same time, the United States would play a lead role in the creation and promotion of IGOs, none more important than the United Nations (UN). The UN would go on to develop their own international development programs through offices such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Health Organization (WHO).

    President Truman saw international development as a means of effectuating the foreign policy agenda of the United States. In 1949, he proposed a foreign aid program that would become the 1950 Point Four Program to support technical assistance and capital projects abroad. This program had two strategic goals:

    • The creation of economic opportunity for the United States by opening markets in developing countries through poverty reduction and economic development initiatives
    • Limiting the influence of communism by promoting capitalism in developing countries through economic incentives

    Thus, President Truman saw international development as a long-term investment to boost global economic opportunities, while also holding the United States’ geopolitical rival, the Soviet Union, at bay. 

    In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law, creating USAID via executive order. This act introduced USAID as an autonomous federal agency that could implement international development assistance as its sole directive. The USAID Administrator would lead the agency, a position that is still appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, although it is not a cabinet-level position. President Kennedy institutionalized international development as he believed it was vital to the United States’ foreign policy objectives. In this way, USAID could advance the moral, economic, and strategic considerations of the United States as a bulwark against totalitarianism and instability around the world.

    During the 1970’s, USAID began to shift focus from technical and capital assistance programs towards programs that focused on basic human needs. These basic needs can be characterized as food and nutrition, population planning, health, education, and human resources. Today, this is referred to as human capital development. By adding this facet to its strategy, USAID widened the scope of what was considered part of international development. Thus, giving us the more comprehensive definition of international development, we have today.

    The 1980’s would largely see the United States retain its strategy of using international development to encourage economic growth and combat the influence of communism. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, one of the major motivators of U.S. foreign aid would cease to exist. During the Presidency of Bill Clinton, foreign aid was viewed as an unpopular political topic that left USAID and the funding of international development in limbo. 

    The events of September 11th and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would see the U.S. invest heavily in the rebuilding of those two countries and the resurgence of international development. U.S. international development is now seen as focusing on four main areas: long-term development aid, military and security aid, humanitarian aid, and political aid. These areas of focus highlight the areas the U.S. believes it must invest, to tackle the political and economic challenges of the future.

    The federal budget request for USAID is combined with the U.S. State Department within the federal budget. On a year to year basis, the United States has provided more foreign assistance than any other country in terms of a total dollar amount but falls short of other countries as a percentage of its gross national income. Foreign assistance is generally about 1% of federal budgets, although the public believes it to be much higher. Historically, the public has also believed foreign assistance is favored more by the Democratic Party, but this too is a misconception. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have shown strong support for foreign assistance with some of the most rapid increases in such aid occurring under Ronald Regan and George W. Bush. It is worth noting that the Trump administration broke this bipartisan trend of favorability towards foreign assistance. The administration threatened to cut budgets on multiple occasions which would have abandoned programs in up to 27 countries. This was highly irregular compared to past Republican and Democratic administrations. 

    As the United States looks to the future, the influence of China in the international development sector will be one of the most important factors in our approach to foreign assistance. International development has become a larger part of Chinese policy in recent years as strategies like the Belt and Road Initiative seek to fund infrastructure projects in developing countries to spread China’s influence. In this way, international development as part of U.S. policy will again be a response to a geopolitical rival like it was during the Cold War. As we look to the future of the United States’ role in international development, the two main goals that drove its creation, opening economic markets and containing the political influence of a geopolitical rival, have returned to the forefront. 

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

    Nixon’s Trip: Establishing US-China Relations Brief

    Read this brief as a PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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