Biz Peabody

While the parameters reached yesterday qualify only as “an understanding” to what will hopefully become a fully-fledged agreement within the next three months, and while this understanding currently holds for only 15 years, it is remarkable that such an understanding even exists after more than 30 years of sanctions. Now that Western sanctions on Iran will be loosened and potentially lifted, the Iranian people can expect a significant economic upturn.

15 years seems like a short amount of time for an agreement that regards nuclear capabilities and therefore the safety of the region. However, let’s remember that the Islamic State (IS) only first reared its ugly head last summer, and is now a major global issue. Events such as regime changes, land grabs, alliance breaks and regional squabbles evolve rapidly in the Middle East, and the Iranian government under President Rouhani has proven itself (thus far) to be fairly rational and even-keeled relative to other governments in the region, many of whom are US allies.

Iran could, if it hasn’t already been doing so, assist in the battle against IS. Regardless of whether Israel and Saudi Arabia are uncomfortable with this nuclear deal, and regardless of whether the US would rather have the Sunni Gulf monarchies take down IS instead of Iran, the fact remains that a regional coalition will be needed to restore peace. At this point, peace in the Middle East should be the most pressing goal–a peace that involves the input of all the powerful regional actors, regardless of religion or ethnicity. Perhaps this is a naive hope, but this nuclear arrangement with Iran could move the region in the right direction if the other regional powers can somehow get on board.

As President Obama said yesterday: “when critics of the deal sound off, ask this simple question: do you really think that this verifiable deal is worse than the risk of another war in the Middle East?”

Nathaniel Haas

Don’t disable the Google alerts for “Iranian nuclear talks” just yet. The “deal,” not codified until June 31, is as good as monopoly money until then. Be they 47 Republican senators or the stubbornness of Prime Minister Netanyahu, a myriad of “wild cards” remain.

If the deal does go through, then consider the $1.6 billion a month in oil revenue — hardly monopoly money — that Iran would accrue as a result of the lifted sanctions. With that, expect Iran to scale up its influence for Shiite minorities around the Middle East, be they the President Assad-led government in Syria, or the Houthi minority in Yemen. Continuing to support Shiite governments (and rebel Shiite groups, in the case of the Houthi’s), whose continued exclusion of Sunni Muslims from the governing table has given momentum to the growth of IS, is a most dangerous game of which anyone who hopes for stability in the Middle East must remain aware.

The agreement is only for 15 years–a blip on the screen for a country like Iran, which has been bent on accruing nuclear capabilities for decades. If a permanent agreement is not possible, then world powers can be expected to hope (and tacitly encourage) an eventual regime change in Iran to remove the constant threat of a nuclear theocracy with breakout capabilities.

The way the media has covered the talks, you’d think the Peace of Westphalia has just been signed. As it stands, the deal is a good, albeit temporary one, but leaves much to remain cognizant of in the Middle East. Reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran is important, but certainly not the endgame. Now, consider modifying the Google alerts: “Iranian sphere of influence.”

Jack Anderson

President Obama has wanted to get the US out of the Middle East since taking office. This automatically leaves a military power vacuum that could be filled by Iran. Pulling out of Iraq and the wider Middle East to a substantial degree without coming to some kind of accommodation with Iran would have been disastrous for the US and its Sunni allies in the region. The Middle East has not had to worry about overt Iranian incursions since before the time of Saddam Hussein, as he and other rulers retained Sunni power in the majority of nearby nations. Israel and the Gulf states can easily withstand covert Iranian efforts and the works of its proxies, but overt influence from Tehran is about to become a real factor.

Iran is not the sum of the headlines it generates, and neither is Israel or Saudi Arabia. All three use extreme rhetoric to appear tougher in the international arena. This deal is about structuring a balance of power in the region that Saudis, Iranians, Israelis and Americans can all live with, regardless of how it tastes. The key is stability. States need to prosper in order to be stable, and Iran has not been prospering. This deal seeks to give Iran a chance at prosperity and internal stability, even with a nuclear industry, in exchange for less aggression and regional calm. If it works, then Obama would actually deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Dan Morgan-Russell

This is not that big of an accomplishment. There is no deal yet; there is only an agreement on the framework of a deal. Baby steps don’t count when nuclear weapons are involved.

Furthermore, is this drawn-out and likely fruitless diplomatic effort even worth it?

President Obama is wasting too much time, effort and political capital on this deal with Iran to call this a victory. The risks of a nuclear Iran are not that great. While I normally disagree with neorealists like American political scientist Kenneth Waltz, I agree that letting Iran get the bomb would not radically change the Middle Eastern political landscape. Israel, with its sizeable nuclear arsenal, will still be there in the morning. Saudi Arabia, Syria and other regional powers will not begin building their own weapons. The president needs to save his political capital in the Middle East for combatting IS or encouraging the Palestinian peace process.

If Iran will not come to the table so the US can focus on bigger fish, then leave the table and let the sanctions and the centrifuges continue.

Jason Tse

I tend to be a bit of an optimist about US-Iran relations. While it is true that this is at most a medium-term agreement with plenty of barriers to a final agreement by June, today’s news was an encouraging step in the process.

Others have spoken on security implications, so I’d like to present other reasons why the US should continue pushing towards an agreement with Iran, and why the lifting of sanctions is good not only for Iran, but also for the US.

The reasons are twofold: commercial and cultural. Iran’s economic woes are pronounced due to the sanctions. Conversely, the economic potential of Iran is robust. Consider that in 2014, the IMF calculated Iran’s nominal GDP as 32nd in the world, ahead of countries such as South Africa, Malaysia and Chile. 2013 UN data estimate Iran to be 27th, ahead of even Taiwan and Thailand. If Iran achieved this under crippling isolation, I can only imagine what greater integration into the global economy will yield for both ends of the economic relationship.

More intangibly, increased exposure between Americans and Iranians can inspire new and currently unimaginable ideas. Iran stands on a rich history, whereas modern American culture holds strong appeal among Iranians. There is much to learn from each other. Greater connectivity also tends to reduce the chances of serious conflict, much like how chances of conflict between China and the US are significantly mitigated given the levels of contact between everyday peoples.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Correction: The previous version of Jack’s response erroneously mentioned “Sunnis, Shia, Jews and Americans” as key players in the nuclear agreement. The article has been corrected to list Saudis, Iranians, Israelis and Americans.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: Iran Nuclear Agreement appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In late March 2014, after bloody fighting in Ukraine, the government of Russia approved the annexation of Crimea following an organized referendum by the residents of the peninsula. A vote held in the Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, was widely expected to be a symbolic and meaningless approval of a decision already made. It was; members of Parliament (MPs for short), hardly eager to disagree with Russian President Vladimir Putin, endorsed the annexation by a count of 445-1. Called a “chilling message” by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, and a “robbery on an international scale” by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Putin announced the thinly veiled land-grab on March 18, 2014.

Ilya Ponomarev, an MP from Novosibirsk, the largest city in Siberia, cast the single dissenting vote to the acquiescence of 445 of his fellow legislators. In an exclusive interview with Glimpse from the Globe, Ponomarev offered his plans as an opposition leader for the political and economic future of Russia, a revolutionary perspective on Putin, and a scathing criticism of US policy towards Russia.

At the age of 14, the Moscow-born entrepreneur began working for the Institute of Nuclear Safety. By 23, he was Vice President of Yukos, an oil company run by the billionaire oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a staunch political opponent of Putin who was imprisoned by the leader for nearly a decade beginning in 2003. Yukos’ assets were seized and sold by the Russian government, and Ponomarev narrowly escaped the company and avoided being thrown in jail. After he left Yukos, Ponomarev launched an illustrious political career that has included a five-year stint as Chief Information Officer for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and culminated in his election to the Duma in 2007.

Since his vote against the Crimea annexation, Ponomarev has been officially banned from Russia on charges that he used money from the Skolkovo Foundation, which supports technology startups, to fund anti-Putin protests. Foreign Policy reported that he still votes in the Duma by having friends smuggle his voting card into the country. Ponomarev currently lives in Santa Barbara, California, fearful of imprisonment – or worse – if he returns to Moscow. The recent shooting of fellow opposition leader and Putin-critic Boris Nemtsov within sight of the Kremlin proves that his fears are not entirely unfounded. In Russia, it is historically dangerous to be a man like Ponomarev. Before Nemtsov, the poster child was ex-spy and known Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko, assassinated in London after drinking a cup of tea filled with radiation poison allegedly by Putin henchmen.

But Ponomarev isn’t phased by any of that: from behind bright blue eyes that betray his eagerness and ambition for change in Russia, the 39-year old began by dispatching the conventional wisdom surrounding the psychology of a man who has kept Russia under his thumb for over a decade: Vladimir Putin.

Once a Spy, Always a Spy

“There is a misconception in the West that the guy is a long term thinker and great strategist with strong character,” Ponomarev told Glimpse. “I think he is none of that.”

For Ponomarev, understanding Putin begins by understanding his background, and specifically his time at the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, better known as the KGB, the police force of the Soviet Union until its breakup in 1991. During the 1980s, Putin worked in East Germany as a paper-pushing officer based in Dresden.

“His professional training as a KGB officer was targeted specifically to him not being able to make any decisions, but to make short term analysis of the data he was given from personal conversations with people, and relaying that data upwards for his superiors and the political leadership of the country,” Ponomarev explained. “None of the KGB officers were ever supposed to make any decisions. They were the implementers of policy, but not those who designed the policy.”

According to Ponomarev, the KGB served as a front for the Soviet Union to employ people who were judged unfit for crafting public policy.

“The policy was designed in the communist party, not in the security forces,” he elaborated. “The KGB was a process to pick up those who were not prepared to be in the policy process.”

Ponomarev said Putin’s shortsightedness as a leader stems from a KGB culture that preached making snap decisions and acting reactively instead of proactively. He pointed to Putin’s management (or lack thereof) of the Ukrainian Civil War as a crowning example.

Massive protests began in Ukraine in November 2013 when the cabinet of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych scrapped a trade agreement with the EU and publicly advocated closer ties with Moscow. In 2014, the protests turned deadly, with pro-European Ukrainians clashing with both the government and pro-Russian rebels in the country’s east. Much to Russia’s disappointment, however, the pro-European movement won control of Ukraine’s government in national elections. In response, Putin orchestrated the annexation of Crimea, a predominantly ethnic Russian peninsula in Ukraine’s south. Ponomarev, the only MP in the Duma who voted against the annexation, said seizing Crimea was more of the same short term thinking that has come to define Putin’s reign of Russia.

“I think that from the very beginning our foreign service totally overslept the whole thing with [the]European association of Ukraine,” he argued. “When the revolution in Ukraine happened, he [Putin] went into Crimea without thinking of the long term consequences for that, but just with one desire: to overshadow the defeat he experienced in Kiev.”

Ponomarev said Putin’s propensity to react rashly is visible in other policy decisions, like his response to the Magnitzky Amendment, a round of sanctions passed by the US in 2012 and imposed on select Russian officials to punish them for human rights violations—namely the 2009 death of a lawyer named Sergei Magnitzky in a Russian prison. Putin responded by passing a law banning Americans from adopting Russian children—a reaction that distracted the media, captivated and diverted public attention, and had nothing to do with the original initiative on the part of the US.

“That’s very powerful manipulation technology that Putin is a master of,” Ponomarev told Glimpse.

Ponomarev highlighted the most powerful manipulation weapon in Putin’s arsenal: his recurring narrative to the Russian population that acknowledges his corruption and oppressiveness as a leader, while reminding Russians that he is infinitely superior to the post-Soviet Union Russian leaders of the 1990s like Boris Yeltsin, whose resignation in 1999 ironically paved the way for Putin’s first presidency. The strategy has worked; in Russia today, the 1990s evoke memories of a dismal economy and political turmoil, difficulties that many Russians blamed the US for due to its role in breaking up the Soviet Union. Polling data from as recently as 2010 reveals that 59% of Russians still believe the Yeltsin years brought “more bad” to Russia, when given “more good” and “don’t know” as alternative responses. Ponomarev said Putin tacitly acknowledges his shortcomings—but thrives on knowing Russians believe Yeltsin was worse.

“He [Putin] never says, ‘I am good.’ He always says, ‘Yes, I am bad, but others are worse than me,” Ponomarev continued. “He [Putin] has this example of [the]90s where he says to Russians: ‘A lot of my people are corrupt, but look at what was going on in [the]90s. Do you want to go back to that?”

As a result of pro-Putin public sentiment – both genuine and manufactured – opposition leaders are forced to work behind the scenes to avoid criticism and punishment. Ponomarev, who’s face appears on Putin-ordered posters in the center of Moscow behind the banner “NATIONAL TRAITOR,” prefers an opposition that seizes the headlines to one that works from the shadows.

“I think that’s one of the reasons why it is so hard to be successful and to receive enough direction in the general public,” he said. “It would be dangerous in the long term opposition of Russian interests to convince them [opposition leaders]to step back and go into the shadows and not be in the front lines of the newspapers, because people are afraid of them and think they will go back to Yeltsin types.”

With this observation, Ponomarev began to tell his story of opposition and outline his ultimate goal: to unseat the master of manipulation.

The Fates of Thousands

In 1905, the first of three Russian revolutions resulted in a limited constitutional monarchy that reduced the power of the Czar and established a parliamentary body called the Duma, of which Ponomarev is now an MP. Beginning in 1917, rebel forces in the second Russian revolution capitalized on a population exhausted from war, oppressive labor laws, economic depression and widespread government corruption to depose Czar Nicholas II and install a provisional government. A few months later, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, a smaller and more radical revolutionary sect, overthrew the provisional government and eventually formed the Soviet Union in 1922, marking the end of the third revolution in two decades.

During his time in the KGB, Putin kept a picture on his desk of Yan Berzin, a Bolshevik revolutionary who founded the Soviet military intelligence agency. In 2000, he marveled at the similarities between the Bolshevik rise to power and his own ascent to the head of Russia’s government.

“I was most amazed by how a small force, a single person, really, can accomplish something an entire army cannot,” Putin said. “A single intelligence officer could rule over the fates of thousands of people. At least, that’s how I saw it.”

Ponomarev plans to reincarnate the Bolshevik strategy to unseat Putin.

“A small group of political activists, if they are radical enough and if they have messages which are popular enough, can organize with people, crack the power, and seize all of it,” Ponomarev argued. “There was a very marginal sect of Bolsheviks who at best in 1914 had 10,000 members in the organization. Three years passed, and that small political sect was able to claim the power because of economic crises the country went through, power [shifts]the country went through, because of the war, and the crisis in management. This is exactly the crisis we see developing now in Russia.”

Ponomarev recalled the writings of Antonio Gramsci, a founder of the Italian Communist Party who was imprisoned during the Fascist regime of dictator Benito Mussolini. In his “prison notebooks,” Gramsci reflected on the success of a communist revolution in Russia and the failure of similar attempts throughout Europe. Ponomarev summarized his writings as follows:

“He was pointing out that when you have solid civil society and institutions, they balance the power and they create a lot of internal communication channels between the power and society and channel people’s activity in a productive manner.”

Ponomarev indicated that creating those institutions in Russia is essential to the success of the opposition’s effort to replace Putin. He said his personal future in a potential transitional government depends on it.

“The ultimate goal is to change the system in Russia and to come to power,” he declared. “That is the obvious goal for every politician. I myself am no exclusion.”

But in Putin’s Russia, Ponomarev said achieving change through a parliamentary takeover is nearly impossible.

“I am [an]elected official member of the parliament, so I am not neglecting usual normal political ways of getting into power,” he remarked. “But I can also testify that the role of the current parliament in modern Russia is so diminished so it is virtually impossible to accomplish anything, even if you control the entire parliament…even if by some miracle we [the opposition]achieve this [revolution], we would still be able to do nothing without controlling the executive.”

He holds the same realistic attitude toward achieving change through local and municipal elections. Ponomarev described a recent local election in which the elected opposition figure had his entire budget stripped by Putin:

“This spring, despite fraud and pressure and injustice, we managed, for example, to come to power in the largest municipality in Russia,” he said. “As soon as he took an oath in his office a couple of months later, they [Putin] changed the law that regulates income for the city and diverted the income from the city to regional authorities, which are controlled by United Russia [the current ruling party in Russia]—so now our elected mayor is sitting penniless.”

As Ponomarev told these stories, it became clear that the chances for achieving change in Russia through conventional political means are slim. Ponomarev said that given those conditions, change in Russia must come through more drastic measures:

“All our hopes for real changes are with a revolutionary way of changing,” he told Glimpse. “I hope it will not be a violent revolution, but still a revolution nonetheless. What I’m working on is in creating the basis for it, and I think that the basis consists for two parts: organizational structure and political platform.”

He said the organizational structure is being created and refined by his former boss and friend at Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. While he lives in the US, Ponomarev is developing a plan to “organize former USSR dissidents and entrepreneurs to create a political platform and future of Russia after Putin.”

“We believe in a small government, we believe in power to the people and to the local communities, which would be the ultimate source of power, we believe in the separation of powers, we believe in the rule of law, we think that we have to de-monopolize the economy and foster as much competition as possible,” he said.

“We think that the main value in the society is innovation and technological development which is coming out, and lastly we think that Russia does not need that almost-czar style president, but that it needs more of a parliamentary republic and a federalist system and the power cannot be concentrated in one hands.”

The success of that platform rests on the future (and continued failure) of the Russian economy. If profits from oil sales continue to decline, then the possibility of deposing the current leadership increases. Ponomarev said that regardless of the revolution’s (and the economy’s) success or failure, the organization of Russian civil society is cause for extreme concern.

The Deterioration of Russian Society      

According to Ponomarev, the Russian economy faces a turning point.

“What was proclaimed all the time by Russian leadership in general…was to try to capitalize on oil generated wealth to diversify the economy and to modernize it and to go forward in innovations,” he began.

The cracks in that plan are clear: any discussion of continued oil wealth in Russia is mostly smoke and mirrors, and modernization in Russia has ceased; entrepreneurs like Ponomarev have moved their businesses abroad in search of a more politically and economically friendly environment. An entire generation of Russian businessmen and women fear financial and personal ruin, in the style of Yukos and Khodorkovsky, if they are perceived by Putin to be as politically threatening as they are economically successful.

“Right now, what we fear is that all of these discussions about modernizations have not just stopped, they have actually reversed because Putin is seeing all those entrepreneurs and medium/small sizes businesses as the political opposition,” Ponomarev lamented. “The middle class is his natural enemy.”

Demonizing the middle class has come at a great price: Putin’s oppression of political dissidents (and as a consequence, many entrepreneurs) has caused a brain drain of scientists and businesspeople, those who could ordinarily use their skills to stimulate the Russian economy.

“The emigration from Russia this year went up five times than it was last year,” he said. “I am very much afraid that it is a conscious decision by Putin – he is not Stalin and turning people to labor camps in Siberia – he [Putin] is incentivizing them to leave the country and is building a welfare state that relies on oil generated income and nothing else,” Ponomarev said.

But Ponomarev is faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, the Russian economy is rotting from within. On the other hand, the havoc wreaked by the brain drain and declining oil prices increases the success of efforts to topple Putin. If Russian history is any indication, the one thing rotten economies do produce, en masse, is political unrest. For Ponomarev, it’s a necessary evil.

“It is very bad for [the]country, but it is not that bad for the opposition actually because it just speeds up the process of deterioration of society and collapse of the current power,” Ponomarev explained. “Really, I feel very much sorry for my country [since]when I see all those talented, most capable and bright [Russian] individuals in the US or Europe. I meet them outside Russia.”

In the midst of his efforts to organize opposition to Putin, Ponomarev said policymakers in the US seeking to rein in Russia’s corruption and human rights abuses can and should reassess their current policy.

Towards Effective US Intervention in Russia

As Ponomarev sees it, US politicians who design policies to pressure Russia pander to the political desires of their constituents rather than designing effective sanctions, Ponomarev said. While predictable, he contended that the desire for politically “sexy” headlines has clouded their judgment of effective intervention in Russia.

“US policies in general are very much focused on the internal perception of the public, you know, what needs to be done,” he noted. “All the stories are more like [the]US pretending that something is happening, but is really not what is needed to change the situation.”

Ponomarev pointed to a preferred buzzword of politicians: sanctions, a longtime favorite policy of lawmakers seeking to prove to constituents that they are doing something, anything, to resolve an international problem that often deserves a far more nuanced solution. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, both international economic penalties and US sanctions, approved both by President Obama and Congress, cut off Russian banks from US financial markets, imposed travel bans and froze assets of select individuals in the Russian government. Ponomarev said the sanctions are used by Russian elites, namely Putin, to reinforce their power and construct a narrative of anti-West hatred that is readily gobbled up by the Russian public.

“The sanctions, the way they have been structured right now, they tend to hurt rather than to help, to consolidate the elites and the general public against the West and around himself [Putin],” he said. “They help to propagate [a]very simple message to people: ‘America is our enemy, the prices go up because of America’s wrongdoings, they want to put us on our knees.’”

Ponomarev cast the personal sanctions that hit a select few Russian officials in a strictly counter intuitive light. He explained how Putin distributes money to sanctioned individuals from the budget, and even said that Russian officials whose names didn’t show up on the sanction list secretly compete with each other to make their name known in the US so that they too will be sanctioned and compensated by Putin with Russian taxpayer dollars.

“People inside the country are competing to be on that list because when you have say, 100 people, it’s easy to compensate them with government contracts and appropriations, and that is exactly what is happening,” he explained. “Those people on the sanction list either receive promotions or financial help on behalf of our taxpayers.”

To correct the backfire, Ponomarev urged US policymakers to broaden sanctions to a wider circle of individuals in the Russian government and send a clearer message of support to the Russian public.

He put it plainly: “Frankly speaking, I don’t understand the American logic. “If you [US policymakers] say, [‘punish] everyone who is involved in Ukrainian crisis,’ well the government has voted for the war in Ukraine. You are supposed to have all Russian deputies to be on the sanction list, but that is not the case. To make them move, you need to apply those sanctions against a wider circle of people, including those who do not have any visible connections to the decision making process. If you sanction all government [officials], at least then those people who have nothing to do with Ukraine would start asking questions. Those questions would not go to US, they would go to national leadership because they are the source of the problems to them.”

Ponomarev advised combining this with a policy that makes it much easier for regular Russian citizens to travel in and out of Europe and the US, to paint the West in a more positive light to Russians.

“I would, for example, restrict all government workers traveling to US and to European but make those travels as easy as possible for regular people to create the grounds for transitional changes, and position America as a friend rather than an enemy,” he said.

In the ultimate sign of counter productivity, Ponomarev said the ineffective and incoherent connection between US leaders and the Russian public is manifesting itself in the Russian public’s view of the Ukrainian revolution.

He described the backfire this way: “No one in Russia believes we are fighting Ukrainians, they believe we are fighting Americans and protecting Ukrainians.”

It is precisely that insight – and the ability to interpret it – that makes you believe Ponomarev isn’t just an everyday blustering politician with too much bark and no bite. He is, after all, the only man who dared to vote against Putin in the annexation of Crimea. He has a deep understanding of Putin and an acute awareness of the problems that plague Russia. But expectations must be tempered with reality: for as much as he understands Putin, Ponomarev knows that his political and unabashedly revolutionary strategy locks horns with a man who has kept a stranglehold on power for far longer than anyone would have expected. But one thing is for certain: situational factors in Russia are unsustainable. Win, lose or draw, something big is going to happen for the opposition in Russia, and Ponomarev is the man to watch.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Dissolving Putin’s Russia appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Nathaniel Haas

President Obama’s address to the nation on Tuesday night was a timely and timeless reminder that not only is the state of the union strong, but so too is Obama’s resolve to leave a legacy and craft a vision for the future of the Democratic party. On a host of domestic issues from the economy to education, the president smartly balanced his (perhaps too populist) calls for higher taxes on the wealthy with welcome reminders that the economy is recovering and gas prices are at record lows. He laid the groundwork for what will be a powerful case for Democrats to retain the White House in 2016.

Critics will undoubtedly attack the president for the partisan nature of the speech during a time when Democrats have complained about Republican standoffishness and political gridlock. Despite outlining a wish list of proposals upon which to work with Congress, Obama unleashed a record number of veto threats (four–the most any president has ever outlined in one speech to Congress). He also landed several jabs to Republicans on climate change and the Keystone pipeline, in addition to the ad-libbed “I won both of them” remark in reference to his two presidential campaigns, all of which turned Boehner a deeper shade of orange. Was the president being partisan? Undoubtedly. But the Obama camp has realized that motivating the base is perhaps more important than appeasing a Republican party that Democrats have appropriately given up on working with. The president’s tactic is smart, and reflects the correct belief that the next two years of Democrat policymaking will not be legislative in nature, but rather executive. For that, the Democrats need strong public opinion–not Republicans in Congress. 

Luodanni Chen

Economy, economy of the world, who is the most competitive of them all?

Paul Krugman’s 1994 paper “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession” pointed out the common trend for great economists and world leaders to forget about the concept of comparative advantage, and instead fixate on events like how China’s has overtaken the American economy. Comparative advantage is an economic law that proves international trade would only increase the size of the whole pie, and the world economy is not a zero-sum game. Trade is beneficial for both countries involved when they are trading goods and services for which they have the respective comparative advantage. For example, the US has the comparative advantage in manufacturing planes, and China in apparels. When these two countries trade, they are helping each other by avoiding the high opportunity cost of producing goods for which they do not have the comparative advantage. Through this process, each country gains access to more varieties of goods at fairer prices because of the exposure to international competition, among other benefits. Simple, good economics. However, Obama’s call for the “in-sourcing” of jobs excites the American people. Rhetorical hostility and hypercompetitiveness towards China is often both useful and necessary in US domestic politics. Nevertheless, Americans should see past the president’s political grandstanding and recognize the benefits of comparative advantage economics.

Luke Phillips

I have to hand it to him; President Obama delivered an excellent piece of oratory at his State of the Union address. Most pundits have been right to compare this speech with the president’s earlier campaign speeches–inspiring, uniting and supportive of the timeless American ideal of equal opportunity for all, and sheerly riveting in its rhetorical power. It was a beautiful thing to watch.

Unfortunately, the parallels with the president’s earlier campaign speeches go a step beyond mere beauty, and into purpose. And for all intents and purposes, this was a partisan speech. The president hasn’t exactly been an exemplar of bipartisanship in recent years (though, to be fair, neither has the Republican Party.) This speech merely repackaged the partisan policies of the last couple years to make it appear that the economic growth we see today is entirely thanks to the wisdom of St. Barack. There was no thoughtful discussion of the actual policies in question, nor was there much inspiring talk about long-term planning for the future (though the quip about staying on Mars makes up for the whole thing.)

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with the president. I’m glad he touched the right nerves in the body politic’s decaying corpse. I’m also glad he got the rhetorical strengths and values of the US correct. But, I didn’t see an honest discussion of actual policies and hard decisions; I saw a self-congratulatory orgy of back-pats and snipes. Although my belief in our president as a speaker has been rekindled, my belief in him as a statesman has been dampened.

The only thing worse than President Obama’s speech was Senator Joni Ernst’s Republican rebuttal. If President Obama was insincere, Senator Ernst was seemingly insane. If President Obama tried to cloak his partisanship with a silver tongue, Ernst made no such attempt and instead appealed to the partisan passions of half of the US. We have a lot of work to do to fix the political dysfunction of our ruling class. My fellow Americans, let’s get to work.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: The State of the Union appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Luke Phillips

Finally. Decades after the Castro regime ceased being a true geopolitical threat, the US and Cuba will finally begin the long, slow process of formalizing their relationship, thawing it out of the Cold War-era stalemate and opening the way for something new and potentially fruitful.

A quick look at the map of the Caribbean reveals that, if controlled by a hostile power, Cuba could be a dagger pointed at the heart of the US. But, if controlled by a power friendly to US interests, it could easily prove a huge boon to the economy of the Greater Caribbean–the necessary piece for a great network of ports, refineries and passageways from which the mineral and agricultural goods of the US and Mexican heartlands might be improved and offered to the world. This network was the diamond in the eyes of pre-Castro US and Latin American statesmen, but the Cuban Revolution halted it in its tracks. Now that there can be real economic and political progress between the US and Cuba, expect all the Caribbean countries, especially the US, Mexico and Cuba, to reap the benefits of a rejuvenated trade network in the Greater Caribbean Basin.

Jack Anderson

It’s nice to see that Cuba is no longer a potential destination for the Marine Corps. Cuba now needs to become a destination for the Peace Corps. Under US embargoes, Cuban economic development stalled for years. For instance, stories of well-educated doctors abandoning their medical profession to drive taxis were commonplace. Furthermore, the Castro regime’s reform efforts have not been able to bring many improvements. Revived US-Cuba and Latin America-Cuba relations may provide the spark needed for development (and possibly the emigration of Cubans from Miami to Havana).

Additionally, this reconciliation gives Cuba greater international recognition for its role in the Colombia-FARC negotiations, which have been traditionally held in Havana. Reconciling with the US and brokering a peace settlement in Latin America’s longest running conflict may very well put Raul Castro in contention for a Nobel Peace Prize, if he can pull it off successfully.

Biz Peabody

Obama noted that reopening the US-Cuba relationship is geared towards “renewing our leadership in the Americas” and that this sudden policy change — if it gets through Congress — is clearly going to boost what has been a steadily declining economic situation for the Cuban people.

But let’s look at this issue from an international perspective: the US, though certainly correct to pursue this policy shift for the good of Cuba, its people, and US business and ideological interests, needs to be wary of how the international community will view the new partnership. US allies in other parts of the world are bound to question this 180-degree policy shift towards a regime that has been an ideological enemy for fifty years. Our allies in the Middle East, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which are primarily concerned with IS’s territorial advancements and the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, have relied almost exclusively on US commitment to their causes. Now, after a few years of watching the US teeter back and forth between potential rapprochement with Iran and, more recently, flirt with an official alliance with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in the face of the IS crisis, long-term US allies have to watch as the US fixes its relations with an oppressive, communist regime without demanding or requiring any real changes on Cuba’s part. Who’s not to say the Obama administration will pull another wildcard from its deck and do the same with Iran — and this time, at the expense of valuable, long-standing alliances?

Nathaniel Haas

While the decision by the Obama administration to normalize relations with the Cuban government is important for both geopolitical and economic reasons, it is mostly significant for an entirely different reason.

Beginning to normalize relations did not happen in a vacuum isolated from domestic political factors. US policy towards Cuba has been obsolete for years; the 1996 Helm’s Burton Act that codified the embargo was only passed after the Cuban air force shot down two civilian planes operated by a Miami-based Anti-Castro cohort. If normalizing relations was so important from an economic and foreign policy perspective, then it would have been done long ago. Instead, the unique political position of the Obama administration made steps toward normalization both possible and practical.

The political genius of Obama’s decision is threefold. First, with midterm elections out of the way, the announcement at reconciliation signals Obama’s desire to leave a legacy as a President not afraid to act on his own and who refuses to be encumbered by Congressional gridlock. Second, with an incoming Republican majority in both houses of Congress and an upcoming Presidential election, the decision could not be more timely. While the President was able to unilaterally ease some travel and trade restrictions, only Congress can totally lift both the travel ban and the embargo on economic activity originally put in place in 1996. Doing so has already exposed divisions between potential Republican Presidential nominees: it was assailed by Florida conservatives Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, but embraced by Libertarian Rand Paul. Third and finally, polls reveal the decision is widely popular among the young Latino voting base, not just in the Cuban-heavy and perennially important swing state of Florida, but across the country–another valuable contribution to the Democrat effort to hold the White House come 2016.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: The Thawing of US-Cuba Relations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

“It’s all for nothing if you don’t have freedom.”

-Mel Gibson as William Wallace, Braveheart

In one of the most historically inaccurate films of all time, director and lead actor Mel Gibson managed to get one thing about Scotland’s relationship with the UK right, particularly when it comes to increasing Scottish influence in the international community: without freedom, those efforts are mostly in vain.

The politics of the Scottish independence referendum reveal a populace more interested in domestic economic advantage than foreign influence. Notwithstanding, independence from the United Kingdom is a necessary prerequisite for Scotland furthering her international interests. In “The Ties That Bind: Towards a Greater Scottish Role in Europe and the Regions,” Alexander Beck takes a somewhat different perspective, arguing that Scotland, a region with a cohesive national identity, can reform its relationship with the United Kingdom to further both its international prestige and influence.

While Beck offers a comprehensive discussion of regional politics in the European Union and the history of Scotland’s relationship with the UK, his discussion begs the question: what do the people of Scotland actually want, and what is the best way for them to get it?

On September 8^th, 2014, Scotland voted by a 55-45 margin to remain in the United Kingdom. If American political veteran and campaign consultant James Carville were around, he might have summed up the election as follows: “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Scotland has a bigger GDP than France and Germany when including oil and gas consumption. The Financial Times even noted that Scotland could have been more financially salient than the UK had it become independent. One article for The Guardian, which even borrowed Carville’s quote for the headline, said the economy outstripped all other issues in popularity, giving significant credence to the argument that a discussion of regional influence will likely take a back seat in the coming years.

A BBC poll asked Scots to rank their priorities. Unsurprisingly, the economy was number one. While Scotland and the UK’s relationship was number four, that dynamic is much different from the issue of Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the world, which didn’t even make the list. The Guardian also cited another, more detailed poll, which showed the issues most important to Scottish voters were the economy (30%), healthcare (11%), and pensions/benefits (10%).

Ironically, Beck’s priorities for Scotland mirror closely the priorities of Scottish politicians, despite public polling evidence to the contrary. According to Thomas Hunter, a millionaire businessman and philanthropist who has extensive work in the region, “Only 3% and 2% of those polled respectively said EU membership or currency was most important to them in deciding how to vote in the referendum yet our politicians see these issues as priorities.”

James Knightley, a senior expert at ING in international economics began from the premise of local control, arguing that returning critical economic drivers like tax and welfare reform will create a more equitable society. Left unanswered, though, is how a society that doesn’t even set its own taxes or have an immigration policy be a significant power in the EU without meeting these basic requirements.

The answer? Scotland can’t become a significant power without independence. The real question then is twofold: is independence a more suitable alternative to Beck’s vision for Scotland, and will Beck’s recommendations and/or independence ever lead to Scotland having greater international influence?

At the outset, it should be noted that Scottish are even more divided on foreign affairs than they are on domestic affairs. For example, it was only in 2012 that the Scottish National Party ceased opposition to Scottish membership in NATO. After a close and intense debate, two higher ups in leader Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party (who controls the parliament) resigned in protest.

While membership with the UK may be beneficial for Scotland, such benefits ignore the opportunity cost of becoming independent. Ultimately, a post-independence currency union and security partnership with NATO would resolve most of these issues, which were also dispelled in 2007 as scare tactics by now-Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway,” Cameron said. “It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.”

Beck’s argument that Scotland’s ties to the UK bring it influence through the UK’s magnitude is perhaps the paper’s strongest moment, but fails to pass the “independence would be better” test.

First, even Beck acknowledges instances where the UK ignored or misled Scottish officials seeking to participate, and unduly forced its influence on nuclear power upon Scotland. This is corroborated by the UK’s forcing of Scotland to be a base for the Trident Missile System, which has remained a sticking point in the relationship. As long as micro-issues continue to plague the relationship, increased cooperation will remain tenuous. Second, according to a professor of European Law at Oxford, Scotland’s EU membership “should be assured” [1] following potential independence. This would also cement Scotland’s place in the Council of Ministers, a much simpler path to that seat than Becks’ proposal to lobby for a change to the Lisbon Treaty.

Third, an SNP white paper suggested opening 100 embassies if independence happened, a significant step in the direction of establishing influence. Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, said this presence would increase Scotland’s diplomatic footprint: “Our presence would be, in terms of physical presence on the ground, comparable to other small independent countries,” she said.

The last question that must be asked is, at its most influential, what could Scotland do? A discussion of niche diplomacy, the idea that smaller nations select niche issues to publicize and affect, is useful for context. Scotland would likely be a middle power, and likely find success in the international arena following Canada’s campaign to ban land mines or protect the ozone layer, or Norway’s campaign for world peace. As the world’s hard powers remain focused on high politics security issues, Scotland’s ties to the UK will be irrelevant in influencing broader geopolitics, so a complete break might also offer Scotland greater mobility to push its personal agenda.

Scotland is anomalous in Europe in that it is region that also maintains a unique culture, but that unique culture and autonomy has stayed for 307 years too long. If Mel Gibson were to rewrite one of Wallace’s more famous quotes, perhaps would conclude something like this: “Scotland has rope burn, and the ties that bind aren’t worth retying, they’re worth cutting. FREEDOM!”

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Other Works Cited

The post The Ties That Bind Are Giving Scotland Rope Burn appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Jack Anderson

The view from abroad is that President Obama has further lost credibility to represent the interests of the American public. Obama will find it extremely difficult to get his chosen ambassadors appointed by a Republican Senate, which won’t help diplomatic efforts overseas. His upcoming trip to China, Myanmar and Australia will be rough. He is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, then attending the East Asia Summit and the US-ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, followed by talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Australia. He needs to publicly get bipartisan support on foreign policy issues now in order for this trip to be effective. Without re-establishing his weight in Washington, Obama will be in no position to display leadership on East Asian or Eurasian issues. Recent leaks, such as his secret letter to Ayatollah Khameini and Robert O’Neill coming forward as “The Shooter,” serve to further undermine his leadership credentials. In short, Obama will be the biggest loser talking to a lot of winners. Those conversations will not be easy, and if interactions in Washington are any indication, then negotiations are not Obama’s strong suit.

Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon

Now that the GOP controls the Senate, it is likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will push the FCC to strike down Net Neutrality. The issue, which was hanging in the balance before the election, may now sway in the favor of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which want to make profits from tiering internet service. Technically, the FCC has the deciding power on policy. Additionally, three of its five commissioners are Democrat-appointed; however, the legislative power the GOP now controls can significantly alter the debate. The end of net neutrality would continue to make the United States an outlier among developed countries in maintaining the open and democratic nature of the Internet. The glimmer of hope is that President Obama has officially endorsed the position of defending Net Neutrality championed by Fight For the Future (FFTF) this past week.

Benjamin Jury

Climate change deniers rejoice: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the new Chairwoman of the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, claims that “emissions that are being put in the air by [a]volcano [in Iceland]are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe.” The causal link between climate change and increasing unrest around the world is still a hotly-debated topic, but new research in the field shows at least tangential connections between the two. With the Peru and Paris UN Climate Change Conferences fast approaching, division and denial of climate change by ranking members of the US Senate will unquestionably delay any universal agreement on climate change for the near future.

Nathaniel Haas

In the spirit of finding a silver lining in light of Jack, Alessandro, and Ben’s pessimism, one issue of both national and international importance that will move forward because of the midterms is comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons why are two-fold. First, GOP obstructionism — which blocked reform in 2013 and also shut down the government — will not be tolerated by a 2016 electorate that will feature a younger and more diverse and liberal electorate than the anomalous and abysmally low 2014 midterm turnout. Republicans’ feet are now being held to the fire, and they will likely succumb to pressure to produce legislation. It will be more moderate than the bill they killed in 2013, and likely not include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants who currently reside in the United States, but it will likely include important visa and border security reforms. The second reason to be optimistic on immigration is simple: as his second term winds down, President Obama is no longer in reelection mode, he is in legacy mode. He knows that failing to take executive action on immigration over the summer, like he promised, was a grave mistake, and that Latinos are an ever expanding and powerful political bloc who won’t blindly follow the Democrats. Look for executive action in the near future on a pathway to citizenship. It will both cement Obama’s legacy, and pave the road for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Luke Phillips

I actually feel a lot more positive about the recent elections than do my colleagues, which probably has something to do with the fact that I’m a moderate Republican and a whole ton of moderate Republicans just got elected. Oh well, I never claimed objectivity anyways. I think the new class of Republican Congressmen and Senators will actually prove more willing to work with President Obama than did their Tea Party predecessors who swept Congress in 2010. The Tea Party Caucus and its allies, committed as they were to rigidly ideological conceptions of the purpose of government and the sacredness of austerity, could essentially do nothing but block legislation. Their libertarian leanings do not easily reconcile with anything inside the Beltway. But the new class of moderate main-street Republicans has less ideological baggage, less vehement antipathy against the President and a much more powerful incentive to work with Democrats on such critical issues as immigration reform, the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP. Obama, for his part, can expect a lot more support from GOP moderates, and has no choice but to trust them–his legacy needs action if it is to transcend his currently shattered reputation. I see, then, an active, stable and forward-moving two years leading up to the 2016 elections, and we are all the better for it.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: 2014 Elections appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

When scholars talk about political revolutions happening overnight, they usually speak figuratively. And yet, at 3am on May 22^nd, Thailand suddenly became a military dictatorship.

Yingluck Shinawatra, who was elected Prime Minister of Thailand in 2011, had been removed days earlier by court order. The Thai military, led by Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha, took over on May 22^nd and created a junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to rule the country. Thai citizens awoke to tanks on street corners.

The most recent takeover is the 18^th successful coup since 1932, when Thailand became a Constitutional Monarchy. This is largely a result of the military’s large role in the political sphere combined with the constant failure of democracy to flourish in a meaningful capacity.

The United States should maintain aggressive responses to dictatorships like the NCPO in Thailand. The dictatorship in Thailand might not be incredibly violent or pose a large threat to the United States, but as a matter of principle and establishing credibility to deal with actors that are violent and threatening, the dictatorship in Thailand should be opposed with equal force.

One of the first things Congress should do upon their return is to revoke all military aid unless things change for the better. Each year, Thailand receives $10.5 million in “security-based” foreign aid, an umbrella term that includes military and direct economic aid. Thus far, the strongest signal the US has sent the new dictatorship is cutting only $3.5 million in “Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds.” Cutting health, counterterrorism and nonproliferation aid, which the country also receives, is less important. North Korea, for example, receives food aid from the United States for fear that its people will starve otherwise. But strong reasons remain for the continued suspension of military exercises and aid: it is ethical, required by law and proven to be effective at deposing the military dictatorship.

The ruling military government has shown a complete disregard for democratic freedoms. They engaged in a full-scale censorship campaign that includes removing former leaders’ names from new editions of history books. Additionally, The official in charge says the removal is an unexplained mistake. The country now joins China and North Korea in the circle of Asian countries who have vied to erase past leaders from the historical record.

Additionally, the NCPO upheld a prohibition on all forms of government criticism. In the months since, organizations like Human Rights Watch have detailed the detention of over 300 opposition party leaders and activists and the massive censorship over the media. Those detained included Kritsuda Khunasen, an opposition leader who described being beaten until she lost consciousness during her one-month detention at a military camp. Actions punishable under lèse-majesté (a French term that refers to violating the dignity of the sovereign) law by a two-year prison term include playing the French national anthem, covering one’s mouth with duct tape and reading 1984 in public.

How can the United States consistently and credibly oppose human rights violations at the hands of actors such as IS, North Korea and Syria (none of which receive security-based aid), if we continue to prop up Thailand? Not only will the countries we do decide to forcefully oppose take our actions and threats less seriously, but we will also be unable to convince allies and international partners to join us in that opposition if we selectively ignore the actions of small nations like Thailand. Though small, the effectiveness of United States diplomacy and soft power will be particularly reduced in the ASEAN region, a critical area for US geostrategy.

Irrespective of the treatment of Thai citizens and ethical questions, the Congressional 1961 Foreign Assistance Act requires the suspension of aid. In section 508, in no uncertain terms, the law mandates that the US cut aid to any nation where a “duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup,” pending the return of civilian rule. This policy was strengthened to include countries that commit human rights violations by the Leahy Amendments, which were passed in 2008. In the past, the US has evaded the law’s mandate by refusing to dub certain overthrows as “coups,” most recently in the case of Egypt. But even Egypt eventually saw its entire security aid budget disappear as the nation descended further into chaos, and so too should it be in the case of Thailand.

Proponents of maintaining some aid cite diplomacy as a more credible approach than sanctions, especially with a nation like Thailand, which remains a military partner in Asia for huge naval exercises like Cobra Gold, which plays a large role in East Asian readiness. However, this is a feckless strategy that ignores recent history: the total suspension ($29 million worth, compared to the $3 million that’s been suspended since May) of development and military aid in 2006 (health and counterterrorism aid were some of the few projects that were understandably maintained) led to the end of military rule in just 18 months, and even some scholars say that action wasn’t harsh enough.

The central tension at home seems to be between think tanks and the State Department on one side – who, today as in 2006, favor further aid restrictions and the cessation of military exercises – and the military, which has historically been vulnerable to threats from the Thai military to move closer to China in the event of an aid cutoff, and thus more willing to support continued military engagement. Those defense officials, and, to some extent, high-level government officials like Secretary of State John Kerry, fear China will exert more influence over Thailand in the event of a suspension of ties. But the US can’t have its cake and eat it too. As long as the historical record shows that the suspension of aid has been successful in restoring civilian rule in Thailand, that is the policy that should be maintained: supporting a military dictatorship and clinging to an outdated, Cold War-era military posturing strategy should not.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Face Off: For Cutting Aid to Thailand appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Darren Wilson, a white police officer, shot and killed Michael Brown on August 9. Brown was 18, unarmed and black. His body lay in the street for four hours. According to Brown’s autopsy results, the teenager was shot from the front, with the shot to the top of his head likely the cause of his death. While much can be disputed about autopsy results – including the distance between the shooter and the victim and whether or not they were moving forwards or backwards – the medical examiner for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and the director of autopsy services at the Yale School of Medicine both agree with the conclusion that Brown was facing Wilson when he was shot.

It’s always compelling to start with the facts, and no more words should need to be written to argue that the alleged excessive use of force on the part of Officer Wilson is likely another chapter in a long and ugly history of police brutality against black men in the United States.

Police work is undoubtedly a difficult profession with little pay. Being a police officer, like putting on a military uniform, is an honorable profession. But something has gone tragically awry in Ferguson: the evolution of the police force from a protective to offensive force. The killing of Michael Brown is potentially emblematic of a wider trend: according to a USA Today study of FBI data, 25% of the deaths involving a police officer that are reported to the federal government by municipal departments are white-on-black shootings. 70% of SWAT team deployments are for minority suspects. The reality is that minorities – and especially blacks – are disproportionately the victims of shootings by police.

Make no mistake: I’m a white man writing about bad things white people have done, and the color of my skin – and my gender – give me certain societal privileges that mean I will never ever truly understand the plight of being black in America. But a look into the world of police brutality in several other countries offers a deep sense of perspective for all races, and makes the Ferguson tragedy look even more disgusting than it already is.

The revolution in Egypt began on National Police Day in mid-2011. The uprising against military dictator Hosni Mubarak was partially catalyzed by a public sick of a long history of police brutality. Sadly, in the years after the revolution, little has changed. Instances of kidnapping, torture and ill treatment during custody combined with a light sentence for the rare legal action taken against police has left many wondering if the revolution was successful. In December 2013, the BBC interviewed Hussein Fekry, the head of the human rights division of Egypt’s Interior Ministry—who runs the police.

“Torture and cruelty are part of human behavior that doesn’t stop by pushing a certain button,” he told them.

In Mexico, like Egypt, police brutality is often politically motivated. Following the inauguration of Enrique Peña Nieto in 2012, The Guardian summarized the results of an investigation by Mexico’s human rights commission: four cases of alleged torture and nearly 25 unjust arrests. When MVS Noticias interviewed Luis Gonzáles Placencia, the head of the investigating commission, he indicated this was representative of a trend in the Mexican police force to “encapsulate a person, take them away, and then try to justify some kind of link with criminal activities.”

There are three important points of comparison.

The first is institutionalization. In Egypt, where the instances of brutality include systematic rape and kidnapping, there is no apparent ethnic disparity between the police and civilians. In Mexico, where there is also no significant difference between police and victims’ ethnicity, police brutality stemmed from clashes of police and protesters following significant political events. But other than political differences (and the fact that police in Egypt and Mexico vigorously defend the established power), nowhere is two-plus centuries of racism ingrained as deeply into police brutality as in America.

Ferguson makes 25% of its revenue from court fees—and traffic citations and arrests are handed out to blacks in percentages that exceed their share of Ferguson’s population. (Two-thirds of the Ferguson population is black and 94% of its police force is white.) The disproportionate conviction rates in Ferguson and huge diversity gap on the police force leave no doubt: police brutality in America runs much closer to the bedrock of human interaction because it is a manifestation of the worst form of human interaction that began during slavery, continued through sharecropping and the Jim Crow era, and now infects the police and legal system.

Police brutality in all forms is reprehensible because it is an abuse of power and a fracturing of the social contract by those whom society trusts to protect them from harm. But race-based police brutality in America is uniquely shameful because at its foundation are preconceived assumptions about people of color. Eliminating those assumptions must be the cornerstone of any strategy to eliminate police brutality. How can there be a conversation about police dealing with political protests if the police holster a 200-year-old history of prejudice along with their guns?

Hypocrisy is the second point of comparison. Police forces in Egypt and Mexico don’t try and hide behind the guise of democracy, due process and equal protection. Our uniformed police who discriminate people of color hide behind the American Constitution. Police forces in the above mentioned countries destroy evidence of brutality and concoct stories to discredit the accusations. In Ferguson, with the evidence in plain sight (under a blanket on the concrete for a few hours, incidentally), the police, in despicable fashion, chose to release a tape seeming to show Michael Brown robbing a store and then to let the media concoct stories on their behalf.

The third and final straw is the imbalance between those willing to speak out against police brutality and those willing to support it. In Mexico and Egypt, police brutality is often the struggle of the many against the powerful few. In other words, the police usually win because they have the guns, not because they have the support of a significant amount of the population (see any other Arab spring country for an explanation of why this is true). In America, not so: donors have contributed more to a GoFundMe account supporting Officer Wilson than the Michael Brown Memorial Fund.

In the best (and most unlikely case), maybe the imbalance in funds raised is just a manifestation of the bystander effect. Maybe, the optimistic among us might think, people in America who recognize and oppose discrimination against blacks are surely in the majority, but less willing to vocalize their position than the few and far between radical racists among us. That’s not good enough: anyone who doesn’t speak out on the Ferguson tragedy in some capacity is standing complicit with the undercurrent of institutional racism in America.

Which brings to light a more practical explanation: maybe the fund imbalance is more descriptive of how the nation feels about Ferguson than we might think. For example, compare the results of two polls taken by the Pew Research center in August of 2009 and May of 2013. In one poll, 29% of white people interviewed said they felt in touch with the dead. 17% said they had interacted with a ghost. In the other, when asked “Is there discrimination against blacks?” just 16% of white people said “a lot.” 41% said “some.”

More white people believe they have been connected to the dead than believe there is a lot of discrimination against people of color.

If only those white people could interact with the ghosts of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. What would they say? Martin and Brown would say the ghosts that haunt people of color in America are not just from our nation’s past, and they aren’t dead. Sometimes, they carry a badge and a gun.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Police Brutality Abroad Makes America’s Even More Shameful appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Jesus is 2,000 miles from home, and he and his mother are another 34 hours from Mississippi, where he will finally meet his father. Jesus is 14, and he hasn’t seen his father in 13 years. He and his mother are two of the thousands who have made the perilous journey north in what has become a wave of refugees crossing America’s southern border.

In the context of recent years, the refugee flow is enormous. A brief written by the Center for American Progress (CAP) pegged the number of children who have arrived illegally in this fiscal year at 57,000 – which is twice the number that crossed the border last year. The total is expected to increase to 90,000 by the end of the 2014 fiscal year (which has three months to go). The same report cited Department of Homeland Security statistics that revealed they have detained five times as many families in this fiscal year than all of last year.

This is in stark contrast to data gathered earlier this year by the Economist in February. “Barack Obama has presided over one of the largest peacetime outflows of people in America’s history,” they wrote. They cited statistics that documented the removal of 369,000 migrants in 2013 by “America’s deportation machine,” which is nine times the amount removed 20 years ago.

These children and their families (mostly single mothers) aren’t being deported, either. Instead, they are being housed in various facilities around the United States as they wait to be seen in court. As space in these facilities run out, families with documentation showing they have relatives in the United States are given a court date and released on parole.

The Obama administration has asked Congress for $3.7 billion to address the crisis in the form of more detention facilities, immigration judges and stricter enforcement, which has been reduced by $1 billion by Senate Democrats on the Appropriations Committee in an attempt to garner support from Republicans. Congress failed to approve the funding in any capacity before adjourning for a five week recess, and Republicans – who had just voted in the House to sue Obama for using too much unilateral action – found themselves asking the President to do just that to solve the immigration crisis. “There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries,” House Republicans said in a statement.

The majority of the children are, like Jesus, arriving from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador – the so-called “Northern Triangle” of Central America. Unlike undocumented migrants (using the term “illegal alien” is disgusting and demeaning) from Mexico and Canada, who are quickly deported, a 2008 Human trafficking law signed by President Bush allows the cases of undocumented migrants from countries that aren’t Mexico and Canada to be reviewed by an immigration judge.

As the United States condemns violence upon civilians from Ukraine to Israel, it’s time to show the rest of the world that we can walk the walk. Violence upon civilians has forced thousands of refuges to our southern border, and turning them away will show our international partners that we are merely willing to talk the talk. For a country that spent just over a billion dollars per week on the Afghanistan war, this request and a broader push to resolve the roots of the refugee crisis is a no brainer that boils down to a single observation: the failure of conventional wisdom to explain the wave of migrants coming across the southern border.

The immigration narrative has undergone a subtle change in recent years as undocumented Mexican migrants are deported in record numbers while record numbers of immigrants from south of Mexico are given shelter. 2012 marked the first year that the majority of undocumented children arrived from south of Mexico. On the whole, blistering depictions of migrants as job stealers who come to America and benefit from taxpayer dollars have declined, but calls to deport those migrants have remained constant.

The motivation to cross the southern border has changed, and our policy should change with it. Undocumented migrants aren’t showing up here because of some warped welfare state vision. In other words, they aren’t coming here because our place looks so good, but rather because their place looks so bad.

We also aren’t alone in the crisis. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of migrants from the Northern Triangle who sought asylum in neighboring Central American countries increased by 712%. It is for this reason that calls to deport undocumented migrants and reform the 2008 law to make that deportation easier should get in line behind resolving a crisis that has serious implications for stability in Latin America.

In the ultimate example of short sightedness, Texas Governor Rick Perry has ordered 1,000 National Guardsman to the southern border – but unlike past deployments, the troops will bolster the ranks of the Texas Department of Public Safety to confront what Perry has outlined as a national security crisis. However, since the federal government didn’t call them in, they will not be able to enforce federal immigration law.

The thousands of family units streaming across the border don’t pose a threat to America, which makes Perry’s move look more political and less practical. In 2013, The United Nations released the rankings of their “most dangerous countries in the world” – and Honduras (with the highest per-capita homicide rate on the globe), El Salvador and Guatemala were three of the top five. Rampant organized crime combined with a rotting economy gives youth in the Northern Triangle a stark choice: a life of crime, or a dangerous journey north. (A hint that the talking heads, and certain governors of southern states who think the undocumented migrants are criminals might take: the children who choose a life of crime don’t usually end up fleeing the country.)

There’s a lesson in all of this. Most folks on the home front are confident to see rising numbers of undocumented migrants show up on the news, and attribute it to the same worn out narrative that has been spoon fed by the media for the last decade. But as times change, the world has to be careful not to associate old causes with new effects, and the crisis at the southern border is a prime example.

The previously mentioned Center for American Progress report described the failure of public security institutions in the Northern Triangle to combat rising organized crime. In the Triangle, CAP argues, the “public, private, and civic sectors” have failed to come together to fund government backed security and judicial institutions. Adding credence to such a solution is the case study of Colombia, whose elites agreed to pay more taxes in exchange for robust public security, and brought the country from one of the world’s most dangerous to one of the Latin America’s most advanced economies.

The United States can, through continued engagement and investment via the Inter-American Development Bank and the US Agency for International Development, support these efforts and encourage a long-term solution to the crime crisis that plagues the Northern Triangle. However, CAP cautioned against reliance on assistance alone: “International actors, including the United States, can and should assist in the creation of these institutions, but all the assistance in the world will not succeed absent a whole-society commitment to building and sustaining those institutions.”

While waiting for this “whole-society commitment” to pan out, Congress should take a long hard look at approving the necessary funds to care for the refugees already in the United States. Calls by politicians to keep deporting the refugees without any substantive discussion to stem the tide of refugee flows resemble trying to fill a bucket with holes in it without plugging the holes. We can certainly take a more balanced approach. It isn’t a question of one or the other: the United States has a humanitarian and ethical duty to resolve the refugee crisis at the source and simultaneously ensure the wellbeing of refugees fleeing a blood soaked Central America.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Same Effects, New Causes: Why Today’s Immigration Problem is Different, and Our Solutions Should Be Too appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On June 11, hundreds of fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) swelled into Iraq from its northern border with Syria. In days, the fighters toppled the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit, cities that United States forces had fought for years to stabilize. The Iraq Security Forces (ISF), trained by the United States, crumbled.

The Iraq war hawks of old were quick to the punch. Pundits like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who had lost all credibility for constructing the fallacious existence of weapons of mass destruction that ultimately fooled the public and Congress into supporting the war, were now making rounds on the Sunday talk shows preaching the same outdated nonsense: more military intervention, and fast!

The extremely complicated Iraq situation could become a major talking point in the 2016 midterm elections, possibly requiring currently elected officials to act decisively before the elections in support of military or diplomatic intervention. For these reasons, anyone planning to vote in the upcoming election should keep three things in mind that offer overwhelming evidence against candidates or incumbents that support another large-scale military intervention. After 2016, we voters won’t get another chance for two years. “Fool me once, shame on you,” the saying goes. If we are fooled twice, the shame is entirely ours.

First, President Obama is not to blame for the destruction of the house that then-President Bush built. Folks like Senator John McCain think otherwise, blaming the withdrawal of forces under President Obama on the current crisis: “Lindsey Graham and John McCain were right,” said McCain, who sometimes speaks in the third person, on the ISIS crisis. “Our failure to leave forces on Iraq is why Sen. Graham and I predicted this would happen.”

McCain’s statements should be taken with a grain – no, a shaker – of salt. On New Year’s Eve 2011, the last of 40,000 US troops rolled out of Iraq. Though the withdrawal happened under the watch of President Obama, it was then-President Bush who had tied the hands of future administrations to maintain troops in the country past the end of 2011. In November of 2008, the Iraqi parliament and Bush agreed to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that allowed continued presence of US troops until the end of 2011, after the expiration of the mandate to occupy that was issued by the UN Security Council. More importantly, pursuant to the SOFA any presence past that deadline had to be approved by Iraq, which rejected the Obama administration’s proposal to keep 3,000 troops behind in the country to continue to mentor the ISF.

According to Middle East historian Juan Cole, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

Discussing fault is politically sexy, but is also a serious distraction from the real elephants in the room: the premise that the 2003 invasion was a good idea in the first place, and the uncertainty of how to prevent Iraq from dissolving into a hotbed of anti-American, anti-West extremism that Obama has acknowledged could pose a major threat to national security. Besides offering plans that can’t be taken seriously or no plans at all, no one seems to know what to do, which brings us to observation number two:

The situation is extremely complex. The consequences of any action are hard to predict, and even the most airtight and straightforward of plans always fail to account for all of the details. There won’t be an easy solution, and it certainly won’t come in the form of “precise and targeted” (or more grandiose, for that matter) military action.. This rather basic worldview is the most compelling case for no military action at all, but it has an entire industry of defense contractors and grand strategist neocons reeling at the possibility that the most sure-footed solution is to the resist the urge to find one.

At this point, one of several carefully selected quotes from Senator McCain or Iraq architects Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld calling for Iraq War 2.0 could be inserted and summarily picked apart.

But what about the opinion of the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal, widely circulated to the American public? Recently, they wrote: “The alternative is to stage an intervention similar to what the French did in Mali in early 2013, using a combination of air power and paratroops to defeat or at least contain ISIS…Mr. Obama’s policy in Iraq has failed, that his claims of retreat without risk from the Middle East were false and naive, and that his premature withdrawal now demands an emergency intervention.” Such an opinion is a perfect embodiment of what is sure to be increasing calls for the United States to come to the rescue of the Middle East once again. They will seem simple, and they should be rejected for that reason. Anyone who thinks a few paratroopers and airstrikes, and “presto, no conflict!” is missing the real point.

Third, the disintegration of Iraq is, according to international terrorism scholar Nafeez Ahmed, a “neocon’s dream.” No one should lose sight of the fact that in a region beset by religious conflict, the primary objective of all actors is, and always has been, how to secure control of oil supplies. Look carefully through the news coverage and the statements of politicians, though, and you’ll be hard pressed to find any discussion of it. Calls in the United States to plant the “seeds of democracy” and stave off terrorism are really Trojan horses for doing the dirty work of securing dirty energy. The sooner policymakers recognize that, and act accordingly to move this country toward independence of foreign oil, the sooner a solution to the Middle East won’t be tainted black by petroleum.

The Obama administration’s decision to decline sending any troops to Iraq that would fulfill a combat role is a correct one. Left on the table, however, is “targeted and precise military action,” most likely in the form of air strikes. Vaporizing ISIS with drones isn’t going to prevent their continued recruitment of radicals, nor is it going to fix the mess that is the Iraqi government.

Here is what we shouldn’t do: commit more military forces to a conflict that we have never understood fully from the beginning. Politicians and voters on the home front should recognize that the issues that are within our grasp are more sustainable energy and increased domestic security from a very threatening and unstable region of the world. That region, unfortunately, will be unstable whether we like it or not.

Need another plot twist to convince you? The regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad (who violated a United States red line when it used chemical weapons to exterminate revolting Syrians) is also fighting the Islamic State along side the United States. This defacto alliance is so strong that officials inside the Obama administration have called for easing pressure for an Assad regime change.

The long and the short: what the United States spent over ten years doing in Iraq was undone in one month. Any American voter should be extremely suspicious of another snake oil, fix all solution based upon the same flawed tactics that have cost countless lives and over a trillion dollars. Protecting our embassy and the American citizens who work there is a priority. Trying to nation build with our military is not. Continued discussions with allies, watching and waiting, and remaining cognizant that other unsavory powers like Syria, Russia, and Iran hate ISIS as much as we do is a far more prudent solution. Using our military to prevent the region from descending into the chaos the neocons are trying so desperately to convince us is just around the corner (and have been for 10 years) won’t work. Voters won’t subscribe to the vison that a crisis in an unstable Middle East is just around the corner anymore, because the region has been unstable for centuries.

“Some men just want to watch the world burn,” Alfred tells Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises.” The reader will criticize this article for failing to propose a “grand strategy” to stop the Islamic State, and discrediting those who do. Here’s the plan: watch them. They can’t be stopped, but they can be stopped from threatening American lives if we refuse to put those lives in harm’s way: adding more fuel to the fire will show an unfortunate amnesia of history, and that history will repeat itself.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Dear American Voters: Here Are Three Reasons Not to Elect More Iraq War Hawks appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.