ACE

Category: Foreign Policy

  • Failures and Success of International Fisheries Management

    Failures and Success of International Fisheries Management

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

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

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

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

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

    Critiques of Fisheries Management Strategies

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

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

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

    Successes of Fisheries Management Strategies

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

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

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

  • Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Failures and Successes of the Paris Agreement

    Introduction

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

    Background

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

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

    Introduction to the Paris Agreement

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

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

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

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

    Successes

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

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

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

    Failures

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

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

  • Effects of War in Ukraine on the Global Space Industry

    Effects of War in Ukraine on the Global Space Industry

    The space industry is a collaborative, international field of study. Space agencies rely on states’ diplomatic efforts to establish and sustain partnerships that facilitate manned and unmanned missions to space. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 had significant diplomatic ramifications, particularly because Russia is a major player in the space industry. Waves of US and EU sanctions led states to reduce their reliance on Russia for essential equipment and technology, and establish domestic space capabilities. Days before Russia’s invasion began, European Union (EU) astronauts published a manifesto pushing for Europe to pursue a domestic crew launch vehicle to ensure its independent access to space.

    Impacts on Space Missions

    The European Space Agency (ESA) is experiencing the consequences of depending on the US and Russia for human launch capabilities. With the unavailability of Russia’s Soyuz, the US Dragon spacecraft remains the only option for EU astronauts to travel to the ISS. Additionally, ESA had to cancel its Soyuz launches and delay flagship missions after Russia withdrew its crews from launch sites in response to EU sanctions.The US is taking steps to ensure its own launch capabilities by replacing Russian engines and Ukrainian designs in its fleet with domestic alternatives. In the past, the US had bought Russian engines known for their performance and reliability as part of a space partnership between the two countries. However, in response to Russia’s invasion and the subsequent US sanctions, there is now a shift towards a more nationalistic approach in the space industry. Since the war, Russia has adopted a nationalist approach, creating challenges in NASA’s collaboration with Roscosmos on the ISS. The relationship between the two space agencies has been strained due to heightened tensions, issues with spacecraft, and ambiguous statements from Moscow regarding Russia’s commitment to the station. Russia now claims that it will withdraw from the ISS in 2024, adding to the complexities of the partnership.

    Satellites and Space in the War

    Russia’s invasion has featured the use of satellites and space infrastructure from the beginning, a unique aspect of modern warfare. Just before the invasion, the Kremlin attempted a large-scale hacking operation targeting satellites used by Ukraine. As the war has unfolded, the balance of satellite power has shifted in favor of Ukraine. Companies worldwide have stepped up to provide various satellite services to Ukraine. Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet constellation has been instrumental in providing connectivity and countering communication infrastructure disruptions caused by Russia. Additionally, satellite imagery companies like Maxar and Planet Labs have offered high-resolution imagery from their Earth-observing CubeSats for free online. This not only documents the progression of the war but also equips Ukraine with valuable tactical information for troop positioning, monitoring enemy movements, and countering Russia’s misinformation campaign about the war.

    Future of Space Collaboration

    Despite disruptions to global cooperation in space, there have been promising collaborative developments. NASA and Roscosmos successfully negotiated a seat swap during the conflict, with two Russian and two American astronauts flying to the ISS on Dragon and Soyuz spacecraft, respectively. Americans flying on the Soyuz returned home safely in compliance with international laws. After leadership changes in both space programs, tensions have eased, and there is hope that this niche of cooperation will continue despite diplomatic tensions.

    While the war continues, predicting the future of this East-West space partnership remains uncertain. However, space will undoubtedly remain an important aspect of the relationship between these two countries.

  • Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Background

    Following the Second World War, the United States and Western European powers have built a strong relationship based on shared values such as democracy, free trade, and human rights, culminating in the New Transatlantic Agenda. The New Transatlantic Agenda was an agreement signed between the US and the EU in 1995, which outlined commitments for increased bilateral trade, shared foreign policy visions, and combating global issues like climate change. The US Department of State summarized the following goals:  

    • promoting peace, development, and democracy around the world
    • responding to global challenges
    • contributing to the expansion of world trade and closer economic ties
    • building bridges across the Atlantic by encouraging closer communication between people

    Effects

    The non-binding agreement marked the beginning of contemporary US and EU relations. In the decades following the NTA, the US and the EU have maintained many of these promises.

    Since the signing of the NTA, embassies have been created on both sides. The US mission to the EU is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium and the EU delegation to the US is located in Washington D.C..

    Pro-NTA

    Those in favor of expanding the relationship between the US and EU see the shared values and pursuits between the two as mutually beneficial. Some may also see the alliance between the US and EU as acting as a global stronghold to defend these values, establishing what is sometimes referred to as the “liberal international order”, as opposed to other rising powers in the world including Russia and China.

    Anti-NTA

    Others do not view deepening the US-EU alliance as beneficial to the US. While the European Union is home to many of the world’s most advanced economies, economic growth has been slow in recent decades in comparison to other trading partners. Some believe the US should prioritize relations, especially trade relations, with rapidly growing economics like Brazil and India, and focus on countries with sectors and resources which are strategically important, like Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. In addition, the US has historically shouldered much of the burden for defense spending in Europe through NATO, so prioritizing the relationship does have tangible costs.

  • Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Introduction

    The North Atlantic Trade Organization, NATO, has maintained a strong relationship with Ukraine since the 1990s. NATO allies uphold that Ukrainian sovereignty is a shared security goal. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 furthered cooperation, especially through the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP). This aid package has aimed to improve Ukraine’s security and defense sectors through military improvement programs. Since Russia’s February, 2022 invasion, NATO has been a crucial partner in organizing support and aid for Ukraine. Aid includes both lethal and non-lethal aid, from medical aid to bullets to armed troops. However, the scope of aid from NATO lies mostly in weapons as Ukraine cannot invoke the necessary articles to request troops because it is not a NATO member. Individual countries have also provided substantial aid and implemented sanctions against Russia. 

    NATO Aid in 2023

    • January 20th: NATO announced a joint effort with the United States to provide air defenses and armored vehicles. This is seen as crucial support to counter frequent Russian missile attacks.
    • February 7th: Denmark, Germany, and Netherlands announced the Leo A5 Initiative to give Ukraine 100 Leopard 1 A5 battle tanks and training. This in addition to recent agreements from Germany to supply Leopard 2 tanks. Both Leopard tanks are easy to use and train soldiers to operate. 
    • February 8th: NATO leadership disclosed in a press conference that NATO allies are sending additional aid including armored infantry vehicles, Javelin anti tank missiles, artillery, ammunition, and rockets for HIMARs, an American rocket launcher.

    US and Other Support

    The United States has given the most aid thus far to Ukraine. The Biden Administration has announced three major military aid packages:

    • January 6th: The Biden Administration committed to a $3.075 billion security package including artillery rounds and ammunition, air defense capabilities, and armored vehicles. The package includes financing towards capacity building and modernization of Ukraine’s Army.   
    • February 3rd: The Biden Administration authorized a Presidential Drawdown of $425 million and $1.75 billion in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). USAI allows the federal government to procure materials or weapons from industry rather than Department of Defense supplies, allowing the government to maintain support without depleting US military supplies.     
    • March 3rd: The Secretary of State announced a $400 million aid package to Ukraine including ammunition, equipment, and air defense capabilities. 

    Aid from Europe

    • The European Union has provided lethal aid for the first time in its history. Recent aid has included arms and military training. 
    • Other individual countries have sent aid and support to Ukraine. Finland, a country seeking to join NATO, announced a $400 million package on January 20th which included heavy artillery and munitions.

    Key Benefits

    US support for Ukraine indicates to American allies that the United States upholds its security promises. The war in Ukraine has revitalized defense efforts from European countries and caused them to increase their contributions to NATO. The increased cooperation has strengthened both diplomatic and military trust between European nations through organizations like NATO and the EU. In addition, as European nations turn away from Russian oil and gas imports, nations are potentially increasing the use of alternative, low emission energy sources like solar and wind that are better for the environment. As a result, European nations may achieve their climate and clean energy goals sooner than expected.  

    Key Concerns 

    There are noted concerns from policymakers and the larger American population, alike, about funding a war without a clear end. 

    • With fears of a recession, some may believe the current flow of aid may be unsustainable for the US government long term. American military spending annually outpaces any other government, and continued aid may be unsustainable politically.  
    • The greatest concern for NATO allies is the implications of escalation. US and Russian leaders have discussed nuclear weapons. Concerns about avoiding escalation informed the decision not to enact a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would have effectively prevented air strikes but global leadership feared risking nuclear retaliation from Russia.   
    • US spending on Ukraine could have implications for other potential conflicts such as the ability to respond if China moves to forcibly reclaim Taiwan, which remains a national security concern.    

    The Future 

    The end of the war in Ukraine is so far uncertain, but there are moments for hope for peace in Ukraine. There are many calls for peace talks and a ceasefire as casualties continue to rise, which include a recent UN resolution that calls for an immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. The General Assembly has voted to successfully pass the resolution, which may carry political consequences for Russia and their allies. The resolution is a declaration of the General Assembly’s will or opinion, and not legally binding. However, the resolution may be used to encourage a ceasefire, peace talks, or even justify continued aid in the future. 

  • The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and US-EU Relations

    The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and US-EU Relations

    The Inflation Reduction Act 

    The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) was signed by President Joe Biden on August 16, 2022. The bill was designed to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels in the transportation and manufacturing sectors. It will also create clean energy jobs, and is projected to create up to 9 million jobs by 2030. 

    Consumer spending on gasoline and energy has risen sharply since 2016. The IRA reduces transportation costs for Americans by offering incentives to consumers and businesses to purchase electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Under the law, citizens can claim tax credits of up to $7500 for the purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Vehicles and citizens must meet certain requirements to qualify for the full credit, including:

    • 50% of battery components must be assembled in North America. 
    • 40% of critical raw materials used to make the electric battery must be extracted in the United States or a country with which the US has a trade agreement. 
    • Single filers must have an annual modified adjusted gross income of less than $150,000, or $300,000 for married couples filing jointly. 

    In addition to incentives for consumers, the IRA provides $1 billion to fund zero-emission buses, trucks, and other commercial and government-owned vehicles. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 helps the United States achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty created to limit global warming to less than 2°C, which it formally rejoined in January 2021. The European Union and its twenty-seven Member States also signed the Paris Agreement. To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, the European Union created The EU Green Deal. With the United States and the European Union both committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, leaders were optimistic that the relationship between the European Union and the United States would be strengthened. 

    European Response

    To meet the Biden Administration’s Buy American guidelines, the IRA limits tax credits for hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles to those that have final assembly in North America. European leaders expressed concern that the IRA would have a negative impact on EU automobile and auto parts makers. Germany, France, and Italy have significant auto industries and economists predicted job losses if automakers relocate some of their operations to North America to take advantage of the IRA’s generous subsidies.

    Auto industry leaders appealed to the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, to raise their concerns with the Commission and the Biden Administration. President Emmanuel Macron of France traveled to the United States in late November to discuss the matter directly with President Biden. Biden committed to try to “tweak” the IRA to be more inclusive of European automakers. Breton also began to challenge the European Commission to act quickly to modify its internal market rules to protect the automotive sector in Europe. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who protects the level playing field of the Single Market, expressed concern about matching US subsidies. She ensures compliance with State Aid rules contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Articles 107-108 of the treaty specifically address State Aid. Public subsidy of industry by an individual Member State can incentivize businesses to relocate to Member States that provide subsidies, either in the form of funding, favorable taxation, or other means. Subsidies can potentially cause tension among Members and weaken the European Union. State aid disproportionately harms Member States with smaller economies that are not capable of providing direct funding or foregoing tax revenues, so aid that disrupts competition is prohibited. Although it is common practice in the United States for local and state governments to offer incentives to industry to relocate, it is prohibited in the European Union. The European Union is not a federal government. It is a supranational government whose members are independent countries. If Member States fail to cooperate and honor the treaties of the European Union, there is a risk of fragmentation of the Union. 

    Breton, Vestager, leaders of Member States, and industry representatives agreed the European Union needed a response to the IRA; however, they disagreed about what form that response should take. Proposals from Breton, Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz strongly favored creating EU funded subsidies and allowing Member States to extend national subsidies to industry. Commissioner Vestager and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte expressed the concerns of 11 smaller Member States who opposed relaxing State Aid rules, arguing subsidies could place them at a disadvantage within the European market. The European Union has a complex decision-making process, which makes rapid policy responses difficult. In the United States, Congress can quickly propose laws and pass legislation, as it did in the case of the IRA, which was announced on July 27, 2022, and signed into law on August 16. In contrast, the Green Industrial Plan designed by the European Commission was not proposed until nearly six months after the IRA went into effect. It will accelerate the transformation of Europe’s automotive manufacturing network by speeding up regulatory decision-making. 

    Some IRA provisions had unintended consequences for the European Union and its relationship with the United States. Initially welcomed by EU leaders as a positive step toward meaningful climate action, business leaders quickly identified subsidies that could harm European manufacturers. The fear of European job losses strained US-EU relations. The IRA also caused disagreement among Commissioners and Member States about how to design and finance its own subsidy plan. Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen urged compromise and maintaining good relations with the United States. 

    Common Goals, Aligned Actions

    Leaders of the European Union and the United States have relied on their strong relationship and shared values to reach limited compromises on the interpretation of the IRA. On December 29, 2022, the United States Department of Treasury announced that Americans will be able to use the IRA tax credit to lease electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles from European automakers. The U.S. Department of Energy created an online tool that allows taxpayers to verify where an automobile was assembled to ensure they can claim the credit. American policymakers continue to review the law and adjust the tools as they refine their interpretations of it. The law may benefit European automakers who have North American assembly plants and provide American consumers with more choices. Finally, talks between US and EU leaders about the IRA have prompted increased dialogue among leaders to coordinate efforts to combat climate change by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Comprehensive, coordinated policies like the IRA and the Green Deal Industrial Plan help the US and the EU work together to achieve their shared climate goals.

  • US Involvement in the Lithium Triangle

    US Involvement in the Lithium Triangle

    Lithium, also known as white gold, is an important component in rechargeable batteries. These batteries are used in portable technology such as cell phones and laptops, as well as large scale electrical components. Specifically, Lithium-ion batteries store energy for solar panels, electric vehicles, and wind turbines making the resource essential for shifting away from fossil fuels. As a result, demand for lithium is on the rise, and the global consumption of lithium increased by over 40% in 2022.

    Lithium is mostly extracted from brine lake deposits or salares, as these locations have the highest concentration of the mineral. While there are several salares in the United States, the most lithium-rich salares are in Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. In fact, the overlapping area between these countries is home to over half of the world’s lithium, garnering this region the title of the “Lithium Triangle.”

    The US has several domestic lithium projects such as Abermale’s mine in Silver Peak Nevada or Lithium Americas’ upcoming Thacker Pass mine on the Oregon-Nevada border. Even so, these mines cannot match domestic demand, hence why the US has already started working with Lithium Triangle nations and imported over 90% of its lithium from Argentina and Chile between 2016-2019. 

    Demand for Clean Energy and Lithium

    The Biden Administration recently passed legislation investing in clean energy and the lithium industry. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included an emphasis on electrical vehicles and clean energy technologies. Specifically, the deal contained a $65 billion investment in innovations within the sphere of clean energy as part of the overall goal to become a zero-emissions economy. The following year the administration passed the Inflation Reduction Act which provided funding to domestic-based clean energy projects and battery production. These two bills represent a conscious effort to enhance US energy production, thus requiring more lithium.

    Several Republicans are skeptical of the Inflation Reduction Act, claiming that the subsidies for battery production would end up supporting Chinese companies. Republican Frank Lucas wrote a letter to the Department of Energy questioning a grant for Microvast, a company with Chinese ties. These concerns highlight the larger issue of competing with China for control of the lithium industry.

    Competition with China 

    China is the US’s main rival in lithium battery technologies, as well as the electric vehicle sector. In a recent speech, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken reaffirmed that the US strategy towards China is based on economic competition, especially through technological production and foreign influence. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are at the forefront of battery production and several Chinese mining companies have purchased shares in Lithium Triangle operations.

    The Department of Energy recognizes a Chinese dominance on the lithium-ion battery supply chain. This power is increased through investment in the mining process. The DOE approved National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries highlights working with allies to ensure a steady supply of the critical mineral and create more domestic processing sites. Investing in the Lithium Triangle could help the US compete by counteracting China’s recent acquisitions. 

    Extent of Involvement

    In June of 2022, the US announced its Minerals Security Partnership in hopes of addressing the rising demand for critical minerals used in clean energy; however, the Lithium Triangle countries were not included in this partnership. Although the US recognizes a need for lithium importation, it is not set on partnering with these South American countries. This leaves involvement in the Lithium Triangle to the private sector through companies such as Abermale and Lithium Americas. 

    In examining this involvement, it is important to note that China has already beat out US involvement in Bolivia as the government has recently partnered with several Chinese firms to manage the country’s lithium mining. Meanwhile, Chile’s mining sector is heavily state controlled with only two companies allowed to operate, again limiting options. Argentina is more open to foreign companies with 36 projects as of 2023. The success of American owned company Livent demonstrates an opportunity for more private involvement in the region. Still, additional companies in Argentina may need US financial support because of the overall risk in doing business within the country. 

    The Inflation Reduction Act provides a potential for these partnerships. The plan includes tax cuts for foreign companies within the battery production industry. That being said, this financial support only applies to countries with US free trade agreements which neither Argentina nor Bolivia have. Several Republicans, on the other hand, prioritize supporting domestic mining projects rather than expanding these financial partnerships to the rest of the Lithium Triangle.   

    Ecological Damage

    Another issue to consider with these lithium mines is the local ecological threat. Throughout the Lithium Triangle, mining operations resulted in a decrease in the Flamingo population as well as general harm to the nearby wetland nature reserves. Additionally, the process of water evaporation needed to extract lithium is hurting transandean Indigenous populations by depleting their water supply. With increased US involvement in the region, the mining operations would only grow to match American demands and as a result the potential for further harming the environment and local communities would increase as well.

    The debate around American involvement in the Lithium Triangle boils down to whether the private and domestic sectors can provide enough to match US demands or if the government has to invest more. No matter what, the International Energy Association predicts that the demand for lithium will rise over 90% if countries hope to meet the Paris Agreement in the next couple of decades, so the importance of the lithium industry is not going away.

  • Successes and Failures of US Response to Ukrainian Refugees

    Successes and Failures of US Response to Ukrainian Refugees

    Background

    In February of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, a continuation of Russian expansion that began with their annexation of Crimea in 2014. The invasion was not localized—like the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula—and Ukrainians were forced to leave the country on a large scale (8.1 million fled as of March 2023) in order to escape the Russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities. In response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, multiple countries have admitted Ukrainian refugees, including the US. In addition, the UN estimates that 17.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance as a direct result from the war.

    The Biden Administration announced its plan to help Ukrainian refugees on April 21, 2022, two months after war broke out. The plan, “Unite for Ukraine,” involves US citizens who volunteer to sponsor and host Ukrainian refugees. Unite for Ukraine grants Ukrainian refugees an expedited immigration process and makes government assistance available to them while on parole. This program is set to last for two years. Through Unite for Ukraine, the Biden administration promised to admit 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, a mark reached in five months after the program’s launch.

    The US response to Ukrainian refugees was unprecedented in recent history. The United States played a major role in establishing the international refugee system after World War II and admitted vast numbers of refugees, especially from Vietnam, Soviet states, and Kosovo. However, since the early 2000s the US had pursued a more restrictive refugee policy. The current response to the refugee crisis is significant, both because the US mobilized to quickly accept a large number of refugees, and because this response includes generous humanitarian aid to those displaced. The White House announced, “we are prepared to provide more than $1 billion in new funding towards humanitarian assistance for those affected by Russia’s war in Ukraine and its severe impacts around the world, including a marked rise in food insecurity, over the coming months. This funding will provide food, shelter, clean water, medical supplies and other forms of assistance.”

    Policy as a Success

    Many view the program as a success of public-private partnerships, because it reached the stated goal of resettling 100,000 refugees so quickly. The supply of US citizens volunteering to host Ukrainian refugees outstripped demand, demonstrating the support and enthusiasm of US citizens. Additionally, the Cato Institute argues that the policy empowered ordinary US citizens  because it largely removed the government from the refugee policy. The Cato Institute further argues that this policy should be a model for US refugee resettlement. Unite for Ukraine has limited bureaucracy and the form to apply to host a Ukrainian refugee is on one website, making the process easy for those willing to host.

    In the usual regular refugee resettlement system, displaced people register with the United Nations and are screened and vetted for security risks. The President decides on an annual refugee cap, and the UNHCR works with nine national nonprofit organizations in the US to resettle the agreed-upon number of refugees across the country based on factors such as medical needs, local support (i.e. family or community in the area), and linguistic resources. Refugees are put on a path to qualify for permanent residence in the US. The entire process, from registering with the UN to reaching the US, takes on average two years. In contrast, Unite for Ukraine moved more quickly.

    Policy as Weakness

    Some criticize the Biden Administration’s response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis as too slow. The plan was announced two months after war broke out. Some Ukrainians attempted to reach the US before the plan was announced via the border with Mexico. They now must go through the regular US immigration process rather than Unite for Ukraine because there is no provision in the policy to allow for Ukrainian resettlement from ports of entry. Some argue the response to Ukrainian refugees is hypocritical, when displaced people from Central and Latin America are not given the same treatment. At Unite for Ukraine was announced, the US-Mexico border was closed to asylum seekers due to Title 42. Similarly, the US has not mobilized to take in displaced people from other countries, like Venezuela, Sudan, and Afghanistan. One anonymous Democratic aide stated, “You see the president really highlighting how many refugees Poland has taken, and then on the same day, there’s a rollout to very actively reduce the number of people who can even access our asylum system.”

    In addition, the two year duration of the program has been met with some critique. The future of Ukrainian refugees resettled to the US through Unite for Ukraine is unknown. As a result, some companies are hesitant to hire refugees, which makes it difficult to find employment. In addition, Ukrainians qualify for one year of government assistance, which some also believe is too short when accounting for the numerous challenges refugees face when finding their feet in a foreign country.

    The Future

    As the war in Ukraine continues, the Biden Administration will need to make hard decisions about the future of the Ukrainian refugee program. Current provisions have a two year expiration, and the debate continues over whether the US should take in more Ukrainian refugees or focus on displaced people from other conflicts.

  • Introduction to US Relations with Panama

    Introduction to US Relations with Panama

    Source: GIS Geography 

    Panama was the first Spanish colony on the Pacific and is home to indigenous groups including the Guaymí, Kuna, and Chocó. The country is historically known for the Panama Canal, one of the world’s most used passages that cut down travel time between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. In 1903 Panama gained its independence from Colombia and became the independent Republic of Panama. 

    Fact Sheet 

    History of US-Panama Relations 

    Following independence from Colombia in 1903, Panama and the US officially established relations when they signed the Bunau-Varilla Treaty, allowing the US to build and operate a canal vital to global trade and national security. The key location of Panama and the Panama Canal made it a critical partner to the US in battling illegal drug trade. The US would eventually give Panama control of the Canal zone in 1979 and control and responsibility for the Canal to Panama in 1999. 

    Panama was strategically important to the United States during the Cold War, due to its proximity to the US, influence over the Panama Canal, and role in combating the illegal drug trade between North and South America. In 1968, a military coup took place and a new dictatorship came to power, led by General Omar Torrijos. The dictatorship was accused of numerous human rights violations and electoral fraud in subsequent elections. Initially, the US worked with the military dictatorship as a partner in the region. However, widespread protests began in 1988, and the US eventually invaded in 1989 to unseat the government, which was condemned by the international community. Many thousands of people were displaced by the conflict. 

    A democratically-elected, coalition government came to power following the end of the invasion. The US and Panama have continued to cooperate since 1989.

    US Strategic Interests 

    Corruption: The US stepped up efforts in recent years to combat corruption especially when it affects business and trade with the U.S. and other international investors, and has found a partner in current President Laurentino Cortizo. Corruption in Panama affects the justice system and the highest levels of government. The US accused former President Martinelli of falsely awarding government contracts, and arrested Martinelli’s two sons in 2018 on US soil for their role in a massive bribery and money laundering case. The Biden administration has since unveiled the first national security strategy memorandum focused on corruption. The National Assembly rejected Cortizo’s proposed constitutional reform package which would have allowed the Attorney General to investigate judicial and legislative leaders.

    Migration: Panama and the US recently signed a bilateral migration protection agreement with a focus on Panama’s southern border with Colombia. This border is a major pathway for irregular migration, with asylum seekers and migrants from South America crossing the border in an effort to reach Mexico or the United States. Cooperation on this front is twofold: the US aims to provide protection and resources for vulnerable migrants as well as support Panama’s border security efforts.

    US-China Tensions: China began investments in Panama in 2013 as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This has raised concerns that Chinese companies may try to gain influence over the Panama Canal’s operations. The Panama Canal is considered highly important to the US economy. Panama’s key geographic position created a stronger trade relationship with China than many other Latin American nations share. However, President Cortizo suspended or canceled multiple Chinese investment projects, generating uncertainty about the future of relations with China and causing some setbacks for Chinese projects.

  • The West Sanctions Russian Energy

    The West Sanctions Russian Energy

    West Sanctions Russia to Deter Aggression Against Ukraine

    The United States and its allies imposed sanctions on Russia when the country annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The US believed annexation threatened to reverse post-Cold War borders in Europe and endangered security, the rule of law, and human rights in Europe and beyond. However, the sanctions were limited in scope, and President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine eight years later on February 24, 2022. This time a much stronger package of financial, trade and travel sanctions was imposed to curtail Russia’s ability to wage war and deny it access to finance and technology to upgrade its military capabilities. The sanctions froze much of Russia’s foreign reserves held abroad and targeted  oligarchs, financial institutions, export-oriented companies, and state actors. The energy sector was not sanctioned. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil and natural gas exports made up 45% of Russia’s federal budget.

    Dependence and Disunity: the Challenge in Implementing Sanctions

    Infographic on US and EU energy dependence on Russia

    The United States is not a major consumer of Russian oil and gas, but decided not to implement energy sanctions because European allies depend on energy supplies from Russia. When asked whether the US was considering energy sanctions, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Duleep Singh acknowledged at a White House press briefing, that “our measures were not designed to disrupt in any way the current flow of energy from Russia to the world.” At that time, rising domestic inflation and spiraling energy prices threatened the post-Covid economic recovery. The US Treasury prohibited financial transactions with Russian financial institutions, but included an exception for fossil fuel exports from Russia through “a general license to authorize certain energy-related transactions with the [Russian] Central Bank”.

    European countries were divided on energy sanctions. The EU as a bloc is highly dependent on Russian energy and receives 25% of its oil imports and 45% of its gas imports from Russia. European nations have found it more difficult to achieve energy independence because supplies from Russia are integrated into their energy infrastructure. Many EU members receive energy via pipelines connected to Russia, which take years to build.

    President Biden signed an Executive Order in March  2022, which broadened sanctions to the energy sector. He recognized that “we’re moving forward on this ban, understanding that many of our European Allies and partners may not be in a position to join us.” The US measures took immediate effect, prohibiting the import of Russian crude oil, petroleum and petroleum products, liquified natural gas and coal as well as any new US investment in the Russian energy sector. 

    On March 2, the European Commission applied sanctions against Russian financial institutions, but omitted two of the largest banks—SBERbank and Alpha Bank. The decision was likely taken to allow energy import payments. The US, on the other hand, sanctioned both banks and their subsidiaries. On June 3, the Council of the European Union adopted its 6th package of sanctions which targeted Russian oil and additional Russian banks, including SBERbank. EU members agreed in the 6th package to prohibit “the purchase, import or transfer of crude oil and certain petroleum products from Russia to the EU.” However, the sanctions will not be applied immediately, they will be implemented gradually; within six months for crude oil and eight months for other refined petroleum products.

    Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia raised concerns over the proposed energy embargo and urged the EU to extend the timeline or to allow other flexibilities. These countries negotiated an exception for the continued use of the Druzhba pipeline. Germany and Poland agreed to stop using oil from the Northern branch of the same pipeline. The EU noted that “as the majority of the Russian oil delivered to the EU is seaborne, these restrictions will cover nearly 90% of Russian oil imports to Europe by the end of the year.” So far, Russian gas has not been sanctioned.

    Impact of Sanctions

    The sanctions imposed after the invasion impacted the Russian economy immediately. The rouble plunged as overseas assets held by the Russian Central Bank were frozen. Key machinery and technology needed to maintain industrial production could not be imported. More than 1,000 foreign companies left the country, creating a vacuum of goods and services. Inflation grew, and prices for scarce items kept rising. The long-term forecast for the Russian economy was dire. However, the economy did not collapse, the rubble recovered after its initial dip, boosted by earnings from energy exports, because the majority of payments were done in rubles. Restrictions on Russian energy also impacted the economies of sanctioning countries. Reuters reported from Moscow on July 18 that President Putin claimed that “it was impossible to cut Russia off from the rest of the world, and that sanctions imposed by Western countries would not turn the clock back on Russia’s development.” 

    Russia withstood sanctions because the energy sector, its biggest source of export revenue, was able to operate freely for months following the invasion. Oleg Ustenko, the Chief Economic Adviser of the President of Ukraine, in an article in the Financial Times, criticized the energy sanctions since Russia still “can sell oil, gas and coal directly to every country except the US.” He added that “the measures the West has taken so far cover less than 5% of Russia’s pre-war crude oil exports.” In spite of this criticism, the energy sanctions have stopped new foreign investments in Russia’s energy sector, disrupted the flow of critical technology from the West that supports the fossil fuel industry, and caused a slow but gradual drop in Russian energy export volume. However, higher energy prices mean Russia can earn more from its energy exports than before the invasion.

    Increasing the Effectiveness of Sanctions

    Several strategies have been proposed and/or implemented.

    • The sixth EU package of sanctions prohibited EU operators from insuring and financing the transport of oil to third countries. This came into effect at the end of 2022. The United Kingdom and Norway joined the EU sanctions. The maritime insurance industry is concentrated in these two countries and Luxembourg—an EU member. If oil tankers are uninsured, Russia will be unable to ship oil by sea to major third party customers such as China, India and Turkey.
    • The US Treasury Department is considering implementing a price cap on Russian oil to ensure that revenue from energy exports goes down while global supplies remain stable. This has not gained traction among the G7 and EU countries. 
    • It would be possible to implement secondary sanctions on countries which purchase Russian energy. However, this strategy has also failed to gain traction.

    Despite their limitations, the current sanctions will have long-term impacts on the Russian economy. The West is counting on the sanctions to gradually bring Russia to the negotiating table, while the Russian government is counting on waning public support in the West.