ACE

Blog

  • Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Introduction to the International Atomic Energy Agency & Nuclear Safeguards

    Read this brief as a PDF

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous international organization within the United Nations system that is responsible for the verification of safeguards for nuclear weapons material. Along with promoting nuclear energy for civil purposes and nuclear safety education, the IAEA is chiefly responsible for implementing safeguard agreements. These safeguards are intended to make sure that nuclear materials and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes and not being diverted in any way for secret weapons development. While all nuclear weapons states have accepted some safeguards on their civil nuclear activities, the IAEA safeguards are primarily implemented in non-nuclear weapons states.

    Founded in 1957, the IAEA was established just as nations were beginning to trade in nuclear technology and materials. Spurred by burgeoning Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, the idea for the organization was born out of the Eisenhower Administration’s mission to stem nuclear proliferation. Under the IAEA Statute, the US is named as the depository, or custodian, government of the organization. In 1980, the US agreed to a voluntary offer safeguards agreement (VOA), which subjects civil nuclear facilities of its choosing to the same inspections as non-nuclear weapons states.

    IAEA safeguards are measures used to monitor nuclear activities, through which the agency seeks to verify that nuclear facilities and materials are being used in accordance with established guidelines. Uranium and plutonium are the main nuclear materials that are monitored, and states are required to record and compile a list of domestic nuclear activities and submit it to the IAEA for recordkeeping. Traditional safeguards offer IAEA inspectors reasonable assurances that what states have reported to them is correct, complete and true. This type of safeguards includes in-person inspections, material inventory & accounting review, and surveillance methods including surveillance cameras, tamper-resistant equipment, records auditing and statistical samples. In addition to verifying that states have reported their nuclear activity accurately, this class of safeguards also act as a deterrent against possible undercover nuclear weapons programs by increasing the risk of detection.

    Although there have been some failures with the traditional safeguard measures in the past (e.g. Iran), modern safeguard approaches aim to detect covert nuclear activity in addition to solely verifying declared activity. Modern safeguards include information gathered from various open sources, such as intelligence and visitor accounts, and can paint a more complete picture of nuclear activity in a state outside of what is being officially reported.

    It is important to note, however, that despite their name, safeguards don’t actually provide for physical safety or guarding. The goal of safeguards is to detect any undeclared diversion or production of nuclear material in their infancy stage. Since there isn’t an enforcement department of the IAEA, agency inspectors can’t forcibly prevent states from using material covertly; instead, their significance lies in being able to alert the rest of the international community to suspicious activity.

    Most UN members joined the IAEA at its inception in 1957. While IAEA membership at the time was not required, states were strongly encouraged to join in order to have access to information regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1961, all non-nuclear weapons states are required to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The IAEA currently has 172 members.

  • 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.

  • Warren Washington – Environmental Policy

    Image source: https://www.popsci.com/warren-washington-nobel-prize-of-climate-change/

    Warren Washington is a brilliant and celebrated atmospheric scientist whose efforts have garnered him a multitude of prestigious awards, including the National Medal of Science and the Nobel Peace Prize. Washington was born in Portland, Oregon in 1936, a time in which African Americans comprised only 1% of the state’s entire population. Although he was the target of racial discrimination throughout his life, Washington never let those difficult barriers hold him back. After becoming the second African American to earn a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, Washington went on to work for the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Over the years, he has worked to develop highly advanced atmospheric models aimed at better understanding the effects of climate change. His never-ending research dramatically expands our knowledge of the world around us, and Washington continues to be an inspiration to all. 

    Learn more:

    1. https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/wmw/
    2. https://www.popsci.com/warren-washington-nobel-prize-of-climate-change/
    3. https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/warren-morton-washington-41
    4. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/medalofscience50/washington.jsp

    This blog post was written by Clarisse Goetzen, an ACE Student Fellow at the University of California – Davis. Clarisse’s work at ACE focuses on environmental policy.

  • Margie Richard – Environmental Policy

    In 2004, Margie Richard, a powerful and persistent environmental activist, became the first African American recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize. Born and raised along a region of the Mississippi River often referred to as “Cancer Alley,” Richard watched as many in her community developed health issues ranging from bronchitis to bacterial infections to cancer. After recognizing that many of those ailments and deaths were linked to pollution from the nearby Shell power plant and oil refinery, Richard knew she had to take action. Over the next few years, Richard led a community campaign against Shell. Despite it being a long and difficult battle, Shell finally agreed to reduce its emissions, provide a $5 million community development fund, fully relocate all residents within Richard’s neighborhood, and more. This Black History Month, we honor Richard’s hard work and extraordinary accomplishments for both people and the environment.

    Learn more:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20101022054404/http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/100

    https://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/margie-richard/

    https://multiplier.org/2017/02/black-history-month-honoring-marjorie-richard/

    This blog post was written by Clarisse Goetzen, an ACE Student Fellow at the University of California – Davis. Clarisse’s work at ACE focuses on environmental policy.

  • Dr. Robert D. Bullard – Environmental Policy

    Image from: https://www.jodisolomonspeakers.com/speaker/robert-bullard

    Dr. Robert D. Bullard is widely recognized as the father of environmental justice, and one of the most prominent environmental activists of the last century. Bullard began examining systemic environmental injustices in the late 1970’s after noticing that every landfill in Houston was located in predominantly black neighborhoods, despite African Americans only accounting for 25% of the city’s population. Since then, Bullard has gone on to publish a wide variety of books addressing environmental issues, serve as a Professor of Urban Planning and Environmental Policy at Texas Southern University, and even contribute towards Bill Clinton’s 1991 Executive Order ensuring that all federal agencies include environmental justice as part of their overall missions. This Black History Month, we congratulate and sincerely thank Bullard for his significant contributions towards a more environmentally equitable future.

    Learn more:

    1. https://drrobertbullard.com/biography/
    2. https://www.unenvironment.org/championsofearth/laureates/2020/robert-bullard
    3. https://grist.org/article/dicum/

    This blog post was written by Clarisse Goetzen, an ACE Student Fellow at the University of California – Davis. Clarisse’s work at ACE focuses on environmental policy.

  • Celebrating Black History Month

    ACE is celebrating Black History Month by recognizing Black achievements in our fields of research. From environmental policy to public health to foreign policy, achievements by Black Americans often do not receive the attention they deserve.

  • Micro and Macro Evaluations of Global Labor Migration

    The past ten months have revealed to government officials and citizens the vulnerabilities of particular groups and individuals’ access to healthcare, education, food security, relief measures, and protections necessary for survival. The COVID-19 pandemic has largely not created but instead revealed the severity of inequalities groups face every-day, exacerbating the effects for not only themselves but their communities at large. My experience interning for the International Catholic Migration Commission working for the Future of Work, Labour After Laudato Sí expanded my understanding and knowledge of the diverse driving factors, consequences, and individual experiences of global migration in both a world preceding and in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    The work ICMC is centered around incorporates principles informed by Catholic Social Teaching of human dignity as well as applying these principles of decency to all individuals, regardless of faith, ethnicity, or citizenship. I found my work very rewarding as I was able to navigate between both the micro and macro levels of examining fluctuating patterns of labor migration as well as centering the research around individuals, seen in ICMC’s photojournalism project Driven by the Depth of Love. The research conducted by ICMC and its partners have proven of increasing importance as my experience has revealed that the collaboration of NGO, IGOs, and agencies such as the UN rely on the expertise and research in order to inform governmental decision-making on behalf of groups such as labor migrants. 

    A crucial part of my research was understanding both the common and diverse experiences migrant workers face, in which many countries rely on migrants’ labor within their informal economy, yet lack the privileges of legal, financial, and health security. The driving factors of internal and external migration differ, but the dependency of many nations’ economy relies on labor migration. One of the most rewarding aspects of my internship was writing advocacy notes to government officials outlining the necessary steps of providing legal frameworks, social protections, and direct responses that ensure migrant workers’ livelihoods are secure. It was an incredible experience to be able to contribute to the important work ICMC and other organizations are producing in order to effectively serve as a change agent for migrant workers at both the global and local level of influence. 

    Madeline Kardek is a Senior at Colgate University double majoring in Political Science and English. While studying in Geneva, Switzerland, she interned for the International Catholic Migration Commission and has continued her work virtually throughout the Covid pandemic.

  • Introduction to US Refugee Policy

    Introduction to US Refugee Policy

    Read the One Pager as a PDF

    The landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and 1980 Refugee Act codified the right of any person who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of  persecution on account of 5 factors: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, to seek safety in the US as refugees. There are currently 29.6 million refugees globally (the most in history), and most are hosted in developing countries. The United Nations coordinates resettlement in countries like the US for the most vulnerable 1% of refugees, and the annual number of refugees resettled is decided by the President. The US was instrumental in creating the international refugee resettlement system, and has led the world in refugee resettlement. It has accepted more refugees historically than any other country, and, from 1982-2016, made up 69% of all refugee resettlement. Usually, the President and advisors decide how many people to take based on the number of displaced people globally. 2016-2020 marked a break from tradition, as the US accepted record low numbers of refugees during the global crisis.

    Resettlement Process

    Refugees are registered and vetted by the United Nations, and go through further screenings and background checks once they are selected for the US by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and other agencies. The process takes an average of two years. After refugees arrive in the US, they are resettled by one of nine national non-profit organizations which work closely with the federal government and local partner organizations all over the country. The federal government allocated a one-time grant of $2,125 per refugee to the national organizations in 2019 to support housing, language training, medical care, and provide a stipend until the refugees are financially independent. Refugees also utilize public services like education, and non-profits supply additional resettlement resources. There are several different paths to becoming a US permanent resident, and refugees have made up 5-10% of new permanent residents for the past decade.

    Global Compact on Refugees

    The majority of refugees are not resettled, and are instead hosted in developing countries neighboring conflict zones until they are able to return home. In 2018 the United Nations proposed the Global Compact for Refugees which advocates for an international plan to support developing countries bearing the burden for the refugee crisis. In exchange, host countries would work to better integrate the refugee populations.

    If you like this page, please consider sharing it

  • Deciding the Refugee Cap

    Deciding the Refugee Cap

    Download the One Pager as a PDF

    The number of refugees resettled in the US every year, also known as the refugee cap, is decided by the President. The United Nations works to resettle the most vulnerable 1% of refugees in safe countries, with more than half of that number annually coming to the United States.

    Arguments for resettling fewer refugees
    1. Cost to the public: Refugees represent a significant upfront cost, which the US could instead invest in schooling, healthcare, or housing for citizens, which would likely pay dividends. However, the upfront cost of resettling refugees in the US is offset over time by their tax contributions.
      Net contribution of an immigrant in their first 20 years in the US is $21324
    2. Crime: Some Americans have concerns that refugees are susceptible to radicalization. However, the US has resettled more than 3 million refugees without a single terrorist attack. Refugees undergo a rigorous, years-long background check to ensure that no one with links to terrorist organizations or who has committed crimes are resettled in the US. There are also concerns that refugees might perpetrate other types of crimes. Of the 10 US cities who resettled the most refugees (2006-2015), 9 experienced a decrease in violent and property-related crime during that time which was more significant than the decrease in the rest of the country.
    3. Loss of “American culture”: Some are concerned that immigration and changing demographics diminish “American culture” (i.e ethnic whiteness, the English language, Christianity, and respect for Constitutional ideals). Although refugees make up about 5-10% of permanent immigrants to the US, they are often made the face of America’s demographic changes. For the last several decades, refugees have been primarily non-white and have not spoken English as their first language. However, a plurality of refugees in the US are Christian.

    Arguments for resettling more refugees:

    1. Maintaining population growth: Immigration is essential to maintain economic growth in the US. The 2010 decade experienced the lowest population growth since the first recorded census in 1790, leading to projections of low economic growth in the coming decades. Immigration boosts America’s declining population and relieves the pressure on the labor force of supporting retirees.
    2. Urban rejuvenation: Many cities in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions have experienced economic and population declines in the 20th century, and resettlement is a successful method of urban rejuvenation. Cities like Utica, NY and St. Louis, MO accepted thousands of refugees to stimulate the economy and reverse population decline. Declining industry and population have characterized the region and resettlement is a proven and  effective countermeasure.
    3. Nation of immigrants: Since the founding of the country, the United States has stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity, and attracted people from around the world in search of a better life. While many countries define themselves in terms of a religion or ethnicity, the American national identity is often connected to the shared experience of immigration. Because of this, the US has traditionally set a goal of resettling 0.5% of the global refugee population annually, but the 2019 cap was set at just 0.1%—the lowest in US history. In addition, the American example leads other countries; the US can be a model for generous resettlement policies or provide justification for other countries to close their borders.