Democracy dies in darkness. In the wake of several brutal crackdowns of environmentalists and human rights advocates, few places better exemplify this than Vietnam. While many Vietnamese and international observers had hoped that this one-party communist state was beginning to show signs of democratization, Vietnam is conversely becoming increasingly authoritarian and has cracked down even harder on environmentalists, human rights advocates, and trade unions in the process. With this increasingly fraught domestic background, Vietnam is quickly finding itself caught in the middle between Chinese and American ambitions and unsure which country Vietnam should strengthen ties with.

Inklings of Unrest

With an abysmal human rights record, as of 2018, Vietnam ranks 175 out of 180 countries for press freedom. Despite this, there was hope that Vietnam could begin a process of democratization due to the 2016 protests over a chemical spill at a Formosa Ha Tinh Steel plant. Due to plastic chemicals entering the waters, Vietnam’s $7 billion dollar seafood industry was greatly threatened by what has been considered Vietnam’s worst environmental disaster. As many of Vietnam’s rising factors are owned by Chinese firms, so too is Vietnam’s increasing environmental problems.

These anti-Chinese protests also feed Vietnamese geopolitical concerns as well. China’s rise in the South China Sea has made many Vietnamese nervous about the nation’s encroaching influence and has been a site of continued protest as well. For a large number of Vietnamese, rejecting China means rejecting anything Chinese. Although Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 was caused by Taiwanese and not Chinese mismanagement, many in Vietnam are concerned about the increased involvement from mainland Chinese people in the country. For many in Vietnam, there is little distinction between Taiwan and China; during the Formosa Ha Tinh incident protesters stopped buses and pulled out Chinese passengers, who were then beaten.

Although there is a shared authoritarian commonality between the two countries and hardliners in the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) want to emulate China’s authoritarianism, many in Vietnam are not only skeptical, but they are downright sinophobic. With the Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 and protests in 2014 and 2018 around the disputed South China Sea, many younger and more moderate Vietnamese are increasingly ambivalent or even outright hostile towards China compared to older generations.

The 2016 Formosa Ha Tinh incident placed the CPV in a precarious position. On one hand, the Party has tried to downplay the economic influence of China, while on the other hand, it has increasingly expressed concerns about China’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea. Both Politburo’s of these Asian communist nations work hard at maintaining some semblance of shared solidarity, yet both the CPV and the CCP are also finding each other in disagreement with each other. Additionally, a growing segment of the population finds Vietnam’s relation to its large neighbor a source of aggravation or even a reason to push for greater Vietnamese rights. As Vietnam found itself in this rather precarious position vis-a-vis China during this time, the CPV found a friend in the Obama administration.

Writing the Rules For a New Friendship

At the end of 2015, 12 Pacific Rim countries – including Vietnam – announced their intention of creating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the United States’ then-President Obama and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe leading the charge. The goal was to reduce trade barriers across the Pacific, as well as ensure certain health and regulatory standards across the region. Although Vietnam was invited, it was very clear that China was not welcomed.

While many observers have acknowledged that the TPP was the Obama administration’s attempt to counter a rising China by allowing the United States “to write the rules” of trans-pacific trade, the TPP was also part of Obama’s Vietnam strategy. Beyond the now-famous video of Obama and Anthony Bourdain eating Bun Cha in Hanoi, the Obama administration worked hard in pushing for stronger American-Vietnamese ties during the final years of his administration. For example, in June 2015, the Obama administration signed an agreement with Vietnam to deepen “greater operational cooperation” in response to China’s actions in the South China Sea. Then in May 2016, the Obama administration agreed to lift an arms embargo for Vietnam and sent two US Navy ships into the strategic Cam Ranh bay as part of growing naval and military ties between the two nations.

The TPP was part-in-parcel with the Obama administration’s outreach to Vietnam, and the hope was that with increased military ties might come growing economic ties as well in order to pull the country away from China. The Obama administration’s goal was two-fold: tighten regional cooperation with Hanoi and pressure the CPV to adopt reforms around labor unions, human rights, and environmental protection. As part of the 2016 agreement on the arms embargo, Hanoi agreed to allow independent labor unions to form as part of a side letter to the TPP. For environmental and human rights activists, China-skeptics, and reform members of the Communist Party, the TPP represented the beginning of a new Vietnam emerging from the protests against Formosa Ha Tinh.

“The TPP could have been some wind in the sails of Vietnamese activists, trade unionists and environmentalists,” said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch, to the South China Morning Post.  “Pulling out of the TPP has been a big setback.”

Make Vietnam Great Again

President Trump is no fan of trade deals, especially Obama-era trade deals. In fact, one of Trump’s first acts as President was to pull the U.S. out of the TPP. Yet despite its rhetoric, the Trump administration in many ways has continued the Obama strategy of courting Vietnam to counter China. However, the absence of the TPP has strengthened hardliners in the CPV and weakened moderates in both the party and the country.

“As soon as America withdrew from the TPP, you saw a radical change in the way [the Vietnamese]government treated workers, labor activists and unions,” said Do Thi Minh Hanh, in a statement to the Washington Post.

While crackdowns against activists began back in 2016 before the Obama summit, they dramatically increased in 2017. Approximately 27 activists were arrested and charged with “activities aimed at overthrowing the People’s Administration” according to Amnesty International. On April 5, 2017, Brotherhood of Democracy founder Nguyen Van Dai was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but due to health concerns and international pressure, Nguyen was able to go into exile in Germany. Additionally, approximately 100 “prisoners of conscious” are imprisoned in Vietnam for speaking out against the CPV’s mismanagement of environmental disasters, demanding democratic reforms, and practicing their faith.

The U.S. State Department has stated that it is “deeply troubled” by the increased crackdown yet continues to build ties with the CPV despite these concerns. Much like with North Korea, where President Trump has become silent on human rights abuses in the DPRK due in part to “falling in love” with Kim Jung-un, the Trump administration has moved away from traditional US foreign policy of promoting human rights to find new friends abroad. In October of this year, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis visited Vietnam to boost military ties between the two nations. Trump’s tough rhetoric on China has won fans across Vietnam, and though he is not quite as popular as Obama, support for the current US president is still quite high.

While deepening military and economic ties during the Obama administration led Vietnam to agree to some measures of liberalization, the Trump administration has fostered those same military ties at the expense of human rights. This change in stance has deeply affected Vietnam and may have effectively snuffed out Vietnam’s opportunity to peacefully transform from a dictatorship to a democracy like South Korea or Taiwan before it could take hold. There is every right to be skeptical of a “Vietnamese Spring” occurring because of the TPP. However, the Obama administration proves that strengthening military ties should not come at the expense of human rights, and the Trump administration’s relative silence is deeply troubling. Ultimately though, the problems that brought the Vietnamese out on the street back in 2014 and 2016 have not been addressed, and concerns around environmental degradation, a rising China, and Vietnam’s place in the global geopolitical world order will only continue to grow in the coming years.

The post Death in Darkness: Vietnam’s Overlooked Democratic Crackdown appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Power of ‘Xi Jinping Thought’ 

Last October, the 19th National Congress of the People’s Republic of China took place in Beijing. Over the course of the week-long congress, top Chinese leaders met to discuss reforms, elect new leadership and define national priorities. Occurring only once every five years, the event is of critical importance not only for China but for the entire international community. This year, however, the Congress made a decision that extended beyond its normal functions: in an unprecedented move, it voted unanimously to incorporate “Xi Jinping thought” into the Chinese constitution.

This decision signals much greater change than adding symbolic phrases to a document – it radically transforms the role of the President within the Chinese government, expanding his influence over the population. Although the President has always had a great degree of power over national decisions, he has also largely relied on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) approval and guidance. But now, the codification of “Xi Jinping thought” into the constitution has granted him expanded influence and control over national governance; he is now the only President aside from Mao Zedong to have his name and agenda written into the Constitution. This move is significant not only because it concretely cements Xi’s growing autonomy, but also because it elevates his symbolic status to the same level as that of Chairman Mao. From now on, any challenge to his power will be seen as a direct threat to the Communist Party.

Benevolent Father or Tyrannical Monarch?

President Xi now has expanded agency to further his initiatives, many of which are nationalistic in nature, like increasing control over Hong Kong and Taiwan, expanding government control over the army, and boosting China’s international economic power. With this agenda, Xi will most likely continue China’s trend of growing more involved in international affairs over the past several decades.

On one hand, China’s push to establish itself as a world leader has had many positive effects, including renewed efforts to improve China’s environmental policy and lessen its carbon footprint. This demonstrates that President Xi is in many ways a very forward-thinking leader seeking to cooperate with other countries. On the other hand, he still holds firmly to many communist/authoritarian ideologies that clash with liberal Western ideals–for instance, his rule has brought a dramatic increase in nationalistic propaganda and a crackdown on human rights. To promote the Belt and Road Initiative, he has issued a series of so-called “Bedtime Stories” which portray him as a kindly “Daddy Xi,” father of all Chinese men and women. Although this is not inherently malevolent, the amount of effort the government expends in shaping Xi’s image does demonstrate that it is willing to take large and costly measure to achieve Xi’s goals. This is good news for some, such as Chinese companies, but spells trouble for those the government identifies as opponents or dissidents.

Christianity in Crisis

One such group that has had a rocky relationship with the government and is sometimes seen as a threat to the state is the Christian population in China. Although the Chinese Communist Party is grounded in Confucian ideology and unassociated with any religion, it looks down upon and heavily discourages certain faiths. In particular, the Christian community in China has felt the force of the CCP’s disapproval.

While the CCP has not explicitly stated its opposition to the faith, it certainly has discouraged its spread using more covert measures, such as mandating churches to install cameras. This allows for the government to monitor and “ensure that their sermons do not broach taboo topics.” However, not only does the definition of what the government considers taboo cover a wide variety of subjects, it actually asks that churches preach Communist ideology. Churches that do agree to this must compromise on their core values, making many Christians question whether this doctrine is sound or even can truly be considered the same religion.

Other than these state-sanctioned Christian churches, there are also underground churches that refuse to compromise on their values. Despite the government’s disapproval, a large underground Christian community has taken root and continues to grow. While the conditions have never been favorable for these Christians, the government has increased its crackdown in the past couple of years. This is caused by President Xi’s desire for China to replace the United States not only as an economic giant, but also as a cultural and thought leader.

Looked down on as a “Western influence,” Christianity specifically contradicts Xi’s desire for the population as a whole to fully throw off outside ideology and take pride in their Chinese heritage. Because of this, Christianity faces significant opposition from the government and missionaries face experience numerous barriers to entry.

One missionary, who wishes to remain anonymous for her own safety and that of her organization’s, said that it is much harder to bring Bibles into the country now than it was even two years ago. Based in Hong Kong, her organization works to bring Bibles into mainland China by smuggling them across the border via Shenzhen, then distributes the texts across the country. Though the organization has been largely successful in dodging government scrutiny, last November one of the workers was caught, arrested, and sentenced to two months in prison.

It’s China’s World, We’re Just Living in It

The full extent of Xi Jinping’s newfound status has yet to be revealed and its implications clearly extend beyond what has already taken place. The question now is how the president will exercise his power and how this will influence his own country and the international community. Already, people around the world are feeling the force of Xi’s increasingly powerful China on an economic level. Sipping “cheap Chinese beer” and wolfing down dumplings, Pakistani citizens illustrate the tangible benefits that increasing Chinese presence can bring for a foreign country. However, others are not quite so keen to embrace a world in which China is a great power. The US especially feels its current power is being threatened. Whether opposing new Chinese initiatives, such as the Belt and Road, or competing to control the Arctic region, or levying harsh, punitive tariffs, the US has adopted a guarded, at times antagonistic approach towards China.

Yet China is only continuing to grow, and the US should not deny or fight this change. If the US continues on this trajectory, it may risk sinking into international irrelevance even sooner. Instead of accelerating its own decline, the US should swallow its pride and realize that it has much to gain by cooperating with China. If the nation embraces China and adapts to the current situation, it actually has the potential to grow its economic and political reach both now and in the future.

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

The post The Modern Mao: Xi Jinping’s Rising Authority in China appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On a spate of issues, Democrats in America love to idealize the liberal policies of other countries. Whether on healthcare, education or the prison system, there is no shortage of left-wing pundits and politicians admonishing American practices and praising those of other countries.

Canada is a frequent recipient of this praise. On a recent trip to Toronto, for example, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) lauded the Canadian healthcare system, proclaiming that “Our job in the U.S. is to learn from Canada and learn from other countries in the world.” But if the U.S. can learn so much from the healthcare system in Canada and the Scandinavian welfare states, why shouldn’t it do the same with regards to immigration?

Canada boasts one of the most well-integrated and economically successful immigrant populations in the world. The per-capita immigration rate in Canada is one of the highest in the world and about three times greater than America’s – even after accounting for illegal immigrants in the U.S. figures. In spite of increasing immigration levels, economic challenges and the pervasive threat of terrorism in recent years, support for immigration in Canada has not wavered. On the contrary, it recently reached an all-time high. Over 80 percent of Canadian voters view immigration as beneficial to the national economy, and over two-thirds consider multiculturalism as one of Canada’s “key positive features.

Many on the left in the US attribute the success of Canada’s immigration policies to a perception that our neighbors to the north are simply better-natured and more accepting of others than are most Americans – at least, the deplorable basket of Americans. As can be imagined, and politics aside, the reality is both far more nuanced and far more instructive.

In his compelling book The Fix: How Nations Survive and Thrive in a World in Decline, Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman points out that Canada was not always such an immigrant-loving country. It may be surprising to some, but until 1960 Canada strictly adhered to a “White Canada” policy with regards to immigration so as to not “make a fundamental alteration in the character” of the country.

That policy distinguished between three types of would-be immigrants: “preferred,” “non-preferred,” and “excluded.” Canada actively sought immigrants from the first bucket, which included the British Isles and Northern Europe. The second bucket referred to applicants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The third was comprised, in effect, of everybody else.

So what happened? How did Canada go from institutionalizing “White Canada” and arguing that “Canada’s Northern environment is only suited to … white Northern races,” to embracing multiculturalism so staunchly just 50 years later?  

According to Tepperman, Canada’s 180-degree shift on immigration was largely the result of societal and economic necessity–“the country embraced immigration because it had to.” By the 1960s Canada was facing an existential crisis. Socially, ethnic tensions were coming to a head. In addition to cries for equality from the Francophone population, a new rainbow coalition of foreign-born Canadians was beginning to take shape. This so-called “Third Force” made up approximately 26% of the country’s population at the time, and, along with Canada’s Francophones, were demanding equal treatment under the law as well as equal opportunity in fact.

Economically, Canada was booming. GDP grew from 5.7 billion in 1939 to 36 billion in 1962, but a sparse population and tightening labor market were threatening to stall continuing expansion. The situation was so dire that in 1957 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker famously warned that “Canada must populate or perish.” To make matters worse, the U.S. economy was growing at an even faster clip, and in so doing, attracting the so-called “preferred” immigrants.

Canada’s answer was to transition to a merit-based immigration system. The new system did not stress either race or birthplace, but rather graded applicants on the basis of nine criteria – factors such as education, age, fluency in English or French, and “whether or not their skills fit Canada’s economic needs.” The results, we now know, have been impressive. According to the OECD, Canadian immigrants are almost 10 percent less likely to live in poverty than their American counterparts, and more than half enter the country with a college degree (vs. 27 percent in the U.S.).

Compare this to America’s professedly compassionate but practically bone-headed immigration policy.

Nearly 70 percent of immigrants come to America on the basis of what is called “family reunification.” No other developed nation employs this factor to such an extent. On the surface, the policy may seem socially constructive and even progressive. That said, one does not have to be a bigot to believe that deciding who becomes an American on the basis of sheer luck and increasingly tenuous connections does not make for an altogether rational system. Nor is it the best way to fuel economic growth or to supply America’s tightening labor market with the skilled workers it desperately needs.  

Another contentious facet of the American immigration system that is rife with Obama-era virtue signaling is the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. The program allocates 55,000 green cards annually to individuals from “underrepresented countries.” This is nearly 10 percent of America’s annual intake of  immigrants. In sum, nearly 80% of immigrants arrive as a result of family ties or ethnic draw. It bewilders me to think that the best way to build this country is through such overwhelming reliance on any form of lottery.  

America claims the most advanced, dynamic economy in the world. Unfortunately, the structure of the current immigration system undermines many of its exemplary features and hampers the American economy by perpetuating income inequality and slow wage growth for the working class – ironically two key Democratic policy objectives.

Diversity lottery and family-based immigration programs supply the U.S. economy with many workers who lack the tools needed to succeed by creating at least two problems. First, many immigrants’ lack of tools – such as proficiency in English, a college education, relevant job experience, etc. – makes economic mobility exceedingly difficult. Second, a flow of working-class immigrants into America has been suppressing wage growth for so-called “rank and file” employees, even as pay levels have increased at their fastest rate since 2009 for management and skilled workers. These structural problems have produced a regrettable outcome wherein immigrant families are now 20 percent more likely to become dependent on America’s growing welfare state than non-immigrant households.

It is against this backdrop that many Americans rightly question whether or not their country’s immigration system is in its best interests. Regrettably, some wrongly translate that rational concern into racial anxiety. In Canada, by contrast, where immigrants “create more businesses and typically use fewer welfare dollars than do their native-born compatriots,” attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism are, unsurprisingly, less tense.  

As America enters an era of heightened economic and geopolitical competition, it should be doing everything in its power once again to attract the best and brightest, even as it continues to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for “the tired, the poor and those yearning to breathe free.”

In conclusion, here’s some quick and easy advice for America’s immigration policy-makers: For some better ideas and some better results, look north.

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

The post Take it from a Canadian – The American Immigration System Needs an Overhaul appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau delivered those tongue-in-cheek remarks in the spring of 1969 while addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C.  Although there is a different, younger Trudeau currently residing in the Prime Minister’s official residence, this image of Canada-US relations remains as accurate as ever.

It is a fact of life for Canadian administrations that they must pursue policy agendas that are sufficiently attuned to the occasionally sudden changes of heart – the “twitches and grunts” – of the US body politic. The reason is that there is simply so much at stake. Canada and the US share over $1.4 trillion in bilateral trade and investment annually. Roughly 300,000 people freely cross the border every day. At 5,525 miles, the two nations preside over the longest undefended border on the planet. And while the closing of this border for trade purposes might disrupt elements of the US economy, it would without a doubt devastate Canada’s, which sends 76 percent of its exports to the US.

Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney put it this way: “[I]f the elephant rolls over, you are a dead man.”

Following President Donald Trump’s election win in November 2016, Canada was surprised to find that its relationship with its southern neighbor had suddenly become more challenging. Now, as it quickly became apparent, Justin Trudeau’s administration was lying with a considerably grumpier elephant. A whole spate of tensions flared up almost immediately. Trump’s immigration and climate policies were clearly at odds with Trudeau’s. The NATO alliance was being called into question, with Canada’s military spending (or lack thereof) surfacing as a possible pressure point. Most troubling to Canada were Trump’s off-handed threats regarding pulling out of NAFTA, which was, in his words, “one of the worst deals ever made by any country.”

The Trudeau administration responded by going on the offensive, implementing what has been likened to an all-out diplomatic blitz. Even before President-elect Trump’s inauguration, Canada’s Prime Minister reshuffled his cabinet with a view to putting in place a team best able to address the new reality of Canada-US relations. This included promoting Chrystia Freeland to be Canada’s point-person, its Trump czar, in her new role as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. The paranoia wrought by Trump’s tweets and other pronouncements have also brought into Trudeau’s fold no less than Brian Mulroney and his then-ambassador to the US, Derek Burney – the Canadian architects of NAFTA and scourges of the first Prime Minster Trudeau who opposed NAFTA at the time – to lobby American elites on Canada’s behalf and to supply Minister Freeland and her officials with key contacts in the White House. Understanding the far-reaching political and economic implications of the relationship, Trudeau reached out beyond party lines and has done a laudable job of cutting through typical partisan pettiness.

Trudeau also commissioned chief-of-staff Katie Telford and principal secretary Gerald Butt to build rapport with key Trump aides such as his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, then-political strategist Stephen Bannon and chief-of-staff Reince Priebus and economic adviser Gary Cohn.  Whereas previous Canadian and US administrations discussed trade and other diplomatic initiatives through formal channels, such formal negotiations are now supplemented by widespread informal talks.

Hardly a day has gone by since without some Canadian envoy in Washington DC or in State capitals preaching Canada’s case on trade and Canada-US cooperation generally. In May of this year, Minster Freeland reported that, “since Trump’s inauguration, Canadian representatives had met 115 members of Congress and 35 state governors or lieutenant governors, in addition to holding 235 meetings with other U.S. officials.”

It would be disingenuous not to mention what, as many in Canada believe, has probably done the most to endear Trudeau (and Canada) to Mr. Trump: wooing his beloved daughter, Ivanka. Trump has made it no secret that showing respect for his family – and Ivanka specifically – is a vital component of building a rapport with the man himself. No surprise, then, that Trudeau has gone to great, highly publicized lengths to solicit the support and admiration of the First Daughter, even taking her out on Broadway this past March.

Save for the occasional grumbling about Ottawa’s treatment of its softwood lumber and dairy industries, Trudeau’s approach seems to be finding success within the Trump administration. This is a fact that has undoubtedly impressed many other bewildered US allies, several of whom have since made inquires to Ottawa in search of Trudeau’s magic formula.

But with NAFTA negotiations beginning to take place and the possibility of Trump abruptly changing course becoming an ever-looming political reality, the debate over the Trudeau administration’s policy is heating up. National Post political correspondent John Ivison adequately framed the mounting frustration in Canada when he questioned, “How can any government strike a deal with a president whose policy is America first, middle and last?”

This attitude, while not far from the truth, will prove to be counterproductive if it is adopted by Trudeau administration officials. There is little evidence to support the notion that allies provoking or alienating President Trump has lead to desirable outcomes for either party. Canadians should know that putting pride aside can be the noble thing to do when the stakes are so high.

Throughout the years, Canada itself has been no stranger to managing successful working relationships with elephants of all proclivities. Fortunately, the importance of the bond between these two nations – economically, militarily, and in terms of global influence – has always allowed for cooler heads to prevail. Here’s to hoping that this singularly fickle elephant won’t break the pattern.

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

The post Sleeping With an Elephant appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Aziza: Was it terrorism?

After news broke of the Las Vegas mass shooting, the same pattern of actions quickly emerged that has become a defining part of America’s response to grief. The Left demanded stricter gun laws. The Right refused to point at the Second Amendment for blame. Both sides expressed their condolences and prayed for the victims and their families. Yet what was new to the cycle of grief this time was a heated public debate over the question whether this, too, was an act of terrorism.

In the past, specifically after the deadly shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando, the American news media and public didn’t hesitate to use the term “terrorism” to describe the horrific events. In both cases, the perpetrators were Muslim, with Middle Eastern-sounding names. News media sources circulated photographs of the attackers portraying their ethnically Middle Eastern appearance. After days of investigation, both cases were confirmed as acts of terrorism by the federal agencies. They were violent, they were targeted against civilians, and they were motivated, at least in part, by violent, extreme Islamism.

Note the last point. It was the motivation of the perpetrators that set these terrorist acts apart from other acts of violence — not their appearance or ethnicity. Although the exact definition of terrorism is heavily debated, most scholars agree that what makes terrorists terrorists is the fact that they don’t simply commit violence for the sake of causing harm: They are politically, religiously or socially motivated, and they are striving to achieve some higher goal through their acts that go beyond the immediate damage.

We do not know what motivated Stephen Paddock when he opened fire on visitors of the Route 91 music festival Sunday night. His act was staggeringly inhumane. But was it terrorism? As long as investigators don’t know the motive, we don’t know whether it was terrorism. And while the media should take this time to reflect on its racially biased usage of the term “terrorism” in the past, this time around, the media — which is for the most part refraining from calling the act “terrorism” despite calls by the public figures to do so — is actually doing it right.

Miles: The Right’s Hypocrisy

Following the Las Vegas mass shooting Sunday night that left 58 dead and about 500 injured, and after which the shooter, Stephen Paddock, was found dead with 23 guns in his hotel room, Democratic members of the Congress and the Senate, as the left at large, immediately called for common-sense gun reform. Those demands were met with two predictable, worn-out retorts by those on the right:

First, Democrats shouldn’t be “politicizing” such horrific events. Second, while we can regulate guns, we can’t “regulate evil,” and thus any legislation would fail to curb the real threat.

At times, the hypocrisy permeating from the Republican party can be too much to stomach. Consider that after the San Bernardino shooting, where 14 people were killed by two Jihadist American terrorists, there was no such call not to politicize the event, no disclaimer that any legislation would be futile because we can’t “regulate evil”. In fact, quite the opposite occurred: at least five Republican Presidential candidates (Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Christie and Trump) claimed the shooting was proof that the U.S. was at war. Is that not politicizing a tragedy? When every single candidate used the attack as pretext for curbing immigration — and when Trump decided the attack was enough to justify a ban on immigration for 1.8 billion people, was that not an attempt to “regulate evil”?

When a major U.S. political party cares more about the freedom to own firearms and ammunition than they do about the rights of an entire religious demographic, something is seriously amiss.

Know this: had Stephen Paddock been named Tashfeen Malik (the name of one of the San Bernardino shooters) or had he claimed allegiance to ISIS, the Republican response would have been dramatically different. Instead of arguments claiming that nothing can be done — that this is simply the “price we pay for freedom”— the American people would be witnessing a Trump tweet-storm pleading for harsher legislation on Islamic immigration. Think his Republican colleagues in Congress would have asked him not to politicize the event? Please.

Luke: IS’s Information Warfare Exploited the Las Vegas Massacre
As the mass shooting in Las Vegas unfolded Sunday night and Monday morning before the American public, one of the earliest rumors to start circulating was that the act was tied to the Islamic State (IS). Indeed, IS even claimed to have played a role. Setting aside the remarkable implausibility of this connection – the shooter, Stephen Paddock, doesn’t appear to have any connections to the Middle East, let alone IS operatives, and demographically would not seem to fit the profile of a jihadist sympathizer- Americans must put this little bit of information warfare in context.

It would seem that some American adversaries, like the far-reduced ISIS, the ominous but generally impotent Anonymous, or rivals of strategic importance like the Russian and Chinese governments, have grasped something about Americans that Americans don’t often realize about themselves: There is nothing an American hates more than another American. Partisan cultural, political, and moral loyalties within this incredibly diverse country pit Americans against each other tremendously, to the degree that American partisans almost seem to view each other as greater threats to the country than American adversaries.

The battle lines in the case of the Vegas shooting were fairly obvious, having had precedents in every other mass shooting in recent memory. American liberals called for gun control, American conservatives accused the left of politicizing a tragedy, and overall passions have thus far precluded either honor to the victims or pragmatic steps forward in advancing a better regime of weapon regulations. Amidst this division, some IS affiliate somewhere threw in the claim that the terror organization was responsible for the slaughter, and some elements of the far Right, believing that implausible suggestion, were further inflamed.

In fact, this incendiary declaration points to a larger trend:the discovery among US adversaries that dropping little hints and fake trails on social media can mislead segments of the American public into believing ideas that are either dramatically exaggerated or manifestly untrue. On the other side of the aisle, large portions of the American left seem to believe that Russian information warfare in the 2016 election convinced droves of their fellow Americans to vote for Donald Trump – which, in turn, seems to be precisely what the Kremlin was hoping the left would believe as a result of Russian meddling, thus further delegitimizing and polarizing the American government.

National unity and trust between different factions of citizens, actively cultivated amid controversy and tragedy, is important precisely because divisions can be exploited to the detriment of everybody in the national community. “Fake news” is not the core of the problem; the propensity of Americans to believe the questionable but ideologically agreeable propositions faceless foreigners lob our way over the internet comes closer to it. Americans aren’t going to come closer to transcending our divisions and building coalitions for real reform so long as they open their prejudices to such malign influence.

Sumin: What comes after mass loss of innocent lives

The Las Vegas shooting not only took more than 58 innocent lives and inflicted more than 489 injuries but also burdened American society with further invisible costs. This shooting will inflict further negative social, economic and political externalities on US society, lowering public confidence in the society as a whole and spreading fear among citizens.

Though not a terror attack, the 2014 Sewol Ferry Disaster in South Korea demonstrated the social cost of mass tragedies that extend beyond casualties. As the accident unfolded, Koreans witnessed the tragic deaths of hundreds of teens on a school trip as the ferry sank on live news. In the aftermath, many Koreans who were not directly affected by the tragedy suffered from PTSD, including severe depression and enervation, and about 43% of the Koreans reported feeling insecurity toward their society.

Moreover, the Korean ferry industry was severely impacted by the disaster. Within a year, more than 70% of schools cancelled their group ferry tours to Japan and the sales decreased over 40%. For years, there were countless protests blaming government’s poor crisis management, and former president Park’s negligence in handling the accident contributed to her 2016 impeachment.

Of course, the Sewol Ferry Disaster was a different type of tragedy than the Las Vegas mass shooting. Nevertheless, this example demonstrates that the mass loss of innocent lives causes huge despair, mistrust of the government and social unrest. Despite the countless recent mass shootings in the US, Americans are now confronted with yet another deadly shooting with no policy plans for countering gun violence. Without stricter gun regulation, the US will likely face another, perhaps even deadlier, massive shooting in the future, further increasing the insecurity citizen’s experience when they visit public places.

To prevent further atrocity and unrest, a two-track solution on the prevention of gun violence should be implemented. On an individual level, freedom and responsibility go together. Citizens should thus engage in a greater discussions about gun violence and need for regulations. On a state level, the government should act out of the principles of the social contract, setting rules to stop future tragedies and free the public from living their everyday lives in fear.

Tess: Enough is Enough, Again

Las Vegas was the worst we have seen in America. So how come the conversation is already dying out less than a week after the tragedy? Because it does every time a tragedy like this happens. Politicians talk about the issue for a week, then the conversation becomes old news and people forget until the next mass shooting happens, claiming even more innocent lives than the previous. “Now is not the time to debate gun control,” say GOP members after nearly every mass shooting. Yet, this is precisely the time to talk about this.

When the Sandy Hook shooting happened, it was thought to be the turning point. Surely, after 20 six-year-olds were gunned down along with their elementary school educators, something would change. Five years later, we only see worse and worse, and politicians continue to say that these are unimaginable act. Americans need to wake up. These acts are very imaginable, because of the lax gun laws in this country. As citizens of this country, we have the obligation to pressure the government to act in the public’s best interest and in favor of strict gun laws.

After these tragedies, it is common for many conservatives to point to mental health and turn a blind eye to any push for policy change. This cannot be the case anymore. Stephen Paddock had no signs of poor mental health. No one anticipated this type of murder from him. This means there must be something on the policy level. No civilian needs semi-automatic or automatic weapons;they are assault weapons made to kill as many as possible in a seconds.

This is a time to mourn those who have been lost, but it is also a time to get angry. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. They were never enough. It wasn’t enough after Sandy Hook, so families of victims coalesced to continue a movement. It won’t be enough after Vegas either. We have to begin accepting that this type of mass violence does not happen in other developed nations, and the fact that it exists in ours is unacceptable.

How many more times will we send thoughts and prayers? How many times will we say “This is the worst shooting America has seen?” When Sandy Hook happened, we said enough was enough. And then again with San Bernardino, Orlando and now with Vegas.

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

The post Correspondents Weigh-in: The Las Vegas Shooting appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The end of European integration?

While today we often take the close friendship between European nations for granted, in reality it is an astonishing feat considering the region’s bloody history. Only since World War II have European leaders begun to view each other as allies by virtue of shared heritage and values, rather than enemies vying for influence and territory. The foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 set Europe on a trajectory of increasing unity, exemplified by the Common Market and later the European Union. Removing trade barriers between countries was instrumental in allowing Europe to rebuild after the destruction of the war and sustain impressive growth for decades: in the second half of the twentieth century, GDP per capita tripled while average hours worked fell by a third as goods, services, money and people moved freely throughout the continent. Beyond the tangible economic measures, such increasing interconnectedness no doubt contributed to preserving the longest stretch of peace in European history.  

Because the image of a tolerant, peacekeeping and socialist-leaning Europe has grown so entrenched, it is easy to forget this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Far from a permanent fixture, these values reflect an ideology specific to a time in history, one that is on the decline in Europe today. The Brexit vote reflects a public opinion shift away from internationalism, not just in Britain but to varying degrees across the continent.  According to recent surveys, favorable views of the EU have dropped in each of the seven EU countries surveyed since 2004; in Greece, France, Spain and the UK, a higher percentage of respondents expressed a negative attitude toward the EU over a positive one. While part of this discontent can be attributed to dissatisfaction over the EU’s handling of issues like the economic and migrant crises, it is also importantly indicative of a general questioning of the necessity of such a close union between European countries – whether the EU actually helps Europeans address today’s most pressing problems.

Some dissatisfaction with the EU can be attributed to economic issues, especially in countries on the receiving end of the EU’s controversial monetary policy and forced austerity after the Eurozone financial crises. Greece unsurprisingly has the highest rate of disapproval of EU economic policy (92%), though wealthier economies like Germany also harbor discontent over being forced to finance bailout after bailout to keep the euro healthy. Such realities call into question the trade and currency integration that are the foundation for the EU: while the Common Market has no doubt bolstered the post-war European economy, backlash against the financial obligations of EU membership formed part of the driving force of Brexit. Despite the fact that the British economy has no doubt taken a hit in the aftermath of the ‘Leave’ vote, the decision nonetheless shows Europeans feeling more burdened than bolstered by economic integration, and beginning to envision a future outside of the Common Market.

Beyond economics, much discontent with the EU links to social tensions. Again, Eurasia Group’s 2016 prediction holds true: “a combination of inequality, refugees, terrorism, and grassroots political pressures pose a fundamental challenge to [EU] principles.” With an overwhelming majority of Europeans unhappy with the EU’s handling of refugees, many question the freedom of movement policy central to the EU model. A recent Pew Global poll reveals that collectively, Europeans view ISIL as their single greatest threat, a fear obviously related to the string of terrorist attacks linked to the radical Islamist group over the past several years. But instead of turning to the EU as a resource of collective defense, many believe that the solution lies in strengthening national borders; in most countries polled, the majority agreed that accepting more refugees will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks at home.

This view tends to translate into isolationist, anti-EU sentiment. In most countries, the majority favors some return of power to national governments and maintains that countries should deal with their own problems before helping others with theirs. In the words of Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group, the emerging “closed Europe” is one that “closes itself to the outside world, and whose countries close themselves up to one another.”

This opinion is most prevalent among self-identified conservatives; in the majority of countries surveyed, those who identify politically with the left were significantly more likely to support the EU than right-wing respondents, linking anti-EU sentiment to rising tides of nationalism and  populist politics. From France’s Front National to the Alternative for Germany, many European countries are experiencing recent electoral revivals of far-right parties (detailed visual breakdown here) while the center-left, the traditional stronghold of European politicians, undergoes a decline. Not surprisingly, problems with immigration and terrorism bring out xenophobic tendencies in populations and thus empower nationalistic, reactionary candidates promising to restore safety through the reestablishment the integrity of the nation.  

One might imagine fear of the ‘other’ would inspire European unity, especially given the common view that Islamist terrorism represents an attack on the entirety of Western culture. Moreover, it seems clear from the outside that ISIL can only be defeated by a concerted European – and global – effort; it is futile for individual nations to fight a group which indiscriminately hates the West. But as Brexit has illustrated, the impulse to withdraw, isolate and draw up protective barriers proves stronger than this logic.

Walls and trade deals: US presidential elections

On the other side of the Atlantic, isolationist sentiment proves just as strong a force in the upcoming US presidential elections. As in Europe, economics and immigration constitute two central issues in the campaign: according to a recent poll, the economy and terrorism are the two topics most widely considered “very important” by 84% and 80% of voters, respectively.

Both the Democratic and Republican nominees have denounced a free trade deal with China as part of their platform, reflecting overwhelming American anxiety about the effects of economic globalization on domestic jobs and prosperity. Even Clinton, an avid supporter of the TPP in the past, has admitted she understands “a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements” and adjusted her platform accordingly. Meanwhile Trump has declared that globalization moves “our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.” Even democratic runner-up candidate Bernie Sanders spoke out against opening the US further to global trade.

Such a harmony of opinion on a major issue across parties is remarkable, not least because, despite increasing volatility and competition in some industries, free trade has a wealth-generating effect on economies. Most economists agree that openness to trade in conjunction with smart policy that protects the negatively impacted is the soundest path for growth in today’s globalized economy. A recent US complaint against Chinese export taxes in the WTO illustrates the crucial role that free trade plays in economic prosperity; because key US industries rely on imports of Chinese raw materials, they lobby hard for duty-free imports to remain competitive.

The near-universal backlash against globalization does not represent a logical solution to economic hardship; economies are too far gone down this path to make turning back a viable option. Rather, it is as an emotional response to a perception that free trade brings predatory competition and benefits big business at the expense of the so-called average American worker. Trump especially serves up globalization as the scapegoat for America’s economic hardships in the same way that he pins social issues on immigration. His loud call for a wall to protect the border is a crude representation of Americans’ greatest fears surrounding race, religion and terrorism, making this opinion impossible to ignore. His proposition to ban all Muslims from entering the country shows that xenophobic fears are on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic.  

The verdict on isolationism: understandable but ultimately futile

For better or worse, from European explorers to American imperialism, the West has championed the ascent of globalization. Today, however, attitudes are shifting as Europeans and Americans alike increasingly embrace isolationism as a solution to their economic troubles and security fears. In a world characterized by the ever-heightening volatility of global markets and rising hysteria over ISIL and radical terrorism, it is hardly shocking that more and more people seek protection within their own borders.

Unfortunately, shutting our eyes and borders to the outside world will not resolve any of our ever-growing array of crises. Eventually, this approach will fall through and we will be forced to address problems that only intensify the longer we push them away. Reactionary isolationism will not provide any lasting solutions, just a temporary respite.

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

The post Beyond Brexit : A Rising Tide of Isolationism appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Libya is running out of time.

The country’s economic situation is dire—it is estimated that Libya’s foreign reserves are around $50 to $60 billion, less than half of what they were just two years ago. Low oil prices have forced the country to run a deficit of up to $2 to $3 billion a month, and its internal chaos has led to a dearth of foreign investment and obstruction of traditional forms of government revenue. Libya’s main financial institutions, such as the Central Bank, National Oil Corporation and sovereign wealth fund also remain institutionally divided. Since the fall of longtime dictator Muammar Gadhafi in 2011, a political and security vacuum has emerged, with different militant and civilian interest groups battling for control in a rapidly deteriorating security landscape. The humanitarian crisis is deteriorating as food shortages mount. The Islamic State has taken advantage of the country’s weakness by expanding its presence; the group is thought to maintain 6,500 fighters and control over 150 miles of coastline. It has established a stronghold in the central coastal city of Sirte, as well as parts of Benghazi in the east and near Sabratha in the west. For ISIS, a country on the brink of economic collapse is a prime opportunity for expansion.

Back in December of 2015, the international community thought Libya had turned a page in its bloody internal civil war. The warring Dawn and Dignity factions, as well as an international coalition of actors, signed the UN-backed Libyan Political Agreement with provisions for a new Presidential Council and Government of National Accord. The UN-backed Presidential Council led by Prime Minister Fayez Seraj arrived in Tripoli on March 30 and began operating out of a heavily-guarded naval base.

However, the Libyan Political Agreement was signed without guaranteeing an adequate governance structure and, more importantly, without a sufficient security sector arrangement to back the political system. Tripoli’s self-declared National Salvation (Dawn) government announced they were stepping down on April 5, but the new unity government’s 18 members have so far failed to secure a vote of approval from internationally supported Tobruk-based House of Representatives (Dignity), as required by the agreement.

Over the past few years, the Dawn and Dignity factions have splintered to the point where they exist in name only, and many local actors view the national leaders who signed the agreement as unauthorized to act on their behalf. Dawn and Dignity remain more focused on fighting each other than the Islamic State; they use ISIS as a pretext to fight local rivals over political supremacy, turf and economic resources. Both continue to accuse each other of collaborating with ISIS.

This is complicated with the involvement of outside actors: Turkey, Qatar and Sudan support the Islamist Dawn faction in western Libya based in Tripoli, while Egypt and the United Arab Emirates support the more secular, internationally recognized Dignity faction in the east, in Tobruk. The faction in the Tobruk-based House of Representatives opposes the agreement because it excludes their revered General Khalifa Haftar, while in the west, the faction wants a greater share of the country’s resources. Both sides hold deeply ingrained prejudice and mistrust for one another.

The US has a strong stake in a secure Libya, thanks to its proximity to US allies, abundant oil reserves and potential for the conflict to spill over and cause further instability in the region. The West continues to monitor the situation in Libya with concern. In late February, Italy granted the US permission to launch drone strikes from Sicily against ISIS efforts in Libya and northern Africa. The Pentagon has proposed some $200 million for the coming year to train and equip North and West African armies. The US military is also in the process of building a base in Agadez, Niger, which is strategically positioned for its Reaper surveillance aircraft to conduct missions in Libya.

Most significantly, the US, France and the UK have been preparing to launch a second intervention in Libya for months, and have already set up a Coalition Coordination Center in Rome. Officials at the U.S. Africa Command are developing dozens of potential targets across Libya for American and European warplanes, ranging from the ISIS stronghold in Sirte to Ajdabiya, Sabratha and the militant stronghold of Derna. The EU held a meeting on April 5 to consider deploying a civilian security mission in Libya to back the new unity government, helping train security forces and improving border security.

However, such an outside intervention without a clearly unified government or security force would be a disaster. It would, at the very least, sharpen political fault lines. Continuing the current Western strategy of special operations forces training and advising Libyan militias could exacerbate factional conflict and reduce the incentives for political reconciliation. There is no clear answer as to who and what faction will control the country’s armed forces. The US and its allies should be careful not to rush into Libya with a mass of weapons and force without a clearly defined road for political and economic development.

The overarching goal and method in Libya should be discreet and encourage the formation of a political and security strategy—one that brings the political and armed factions into a singular government, which has not existed for the last two years. Currently, the US, Britain, and France have military advisers operating on the ground, as well as aircraft conducting reconnaissance flights and strikes. These allies as well as organizations such as NATO should lend military assistance in a way that promotes reconciliation and cooperation between rival ground forces and ties the military assistance in the fight against ISIS to a process of integration of local militias into a national command structure. The US, Europe, and other Arab nations also should make firm military commitments to the Libya International Assistance Mission, which will help legitimize the unity government and impose order. US counterterrorism efforts must include the establishment of larger regional coordination mechanisms among local militias, setting the stage for a cohesive, democratically controlled and centralized military. It is imperative that the US get the Gulf States on the same page, but this is complicated by the lack of foreign embassies in Libya and direct dialogue with faction leaders. Tunisia has re-opened its embassy in Tripoli following the installation of the new GNA and France has stated its intention to do so, a promising first step.

Once the unity government is firmly established, the US and its allies need to address the root causes of radicalism by reforming the oil-driven economy, supporting civil society and municipal development, and carefully training the army and police while restructuring defense institutions. The West needs to ensure that the strategy against ISIS unites local forces instead of polarizing them. The reality on the ground is a complicated one: a transactional society, hundreds of militias, competing ethnic and tribal affiliations, aggressive regional loyalties that any one day can include home-grown and foreign-born radicals, neighbors simply seeking to defend their homes and families, gangs stealing oil and wealth and engaging in gratuitous violence, tribes in states of cold and hot wars against one another for generations, and regional actors exploiting or protecting natural resources like oil and water. But a stable Libya is critical to ensuring the security of US allies in North Africa, especially Egypt and Tunisia, and the US should be willing to provide full backing to a unified Libyan government through economic, security and counter-terrorism assistance—that is, once (and if) it becomes firmly established.

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

The post Libya: A Complicated Reality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a free-trade agreement, yet to be signed, that goes far beyond simply lowering tariffs. It establishes an almost definitive market union between the US and the EU. The agreement will indeed tear down obstacles to trade (Non-Tariffs Barriers (NTBs)), making countries’ technical standards, norms and regulations converge to facilitate business across boundaries.

Its historical proportions make pundits’ debate on it fairly heated. In particular, the economic assessment released by the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) strongly favors the signing of the agreement, whereas Tufts University’s professor, Jeronim Capaldo, released a study that considers the agreement utter nonsense.

Capaldo asserts that signing the TTIP would be an uninformed decision. According to the professor, the agreement would severely contract the GDPs, personal incomes and employment rates on both continents. Furthermore, he asserts that the TTIP would lead to increasing financial instability and the continuing impoverishment of the lower strata of the population. Overall, three major problems would arise from the implementation of TTIP: 1) the dissolution of the economic stability for the countries involved, 2) the dissolution of international stability and 3) the dissolution of EU unity.

On the other hand, CEPR’s study shows that the TTIP achieves partial regulatory convergence and cross-recognition of standards, and would ensure substantial benefits to productivity and per capita income. According to CEPR, the volume of bilateral trade is projected to increase by 186,985 million Euros for Europe and 159,098 million Euros for the US. Moreover, the Spillover Effect (the increase in exports towards other countries outside the TTIP) should increase the volume of European and American exports by 33 and 80 billion Euros, respectively. The overall message is that negotiating a comprehensive agreement would bring significantly greater benefits to both economies.

While Capaldo’s point of view stems from noble social concerns, his claims that signing the TTIP would ultimately result in economic losses worse than those of the 2007 world crisis seem biased. Both the history of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the principles of a free-market economy demonstrate that Capaldo’s argument is either based on incorrect assumptions or follows a logical fallacy, while CEPR’s reasoning provides a solid analysis of the issue. The US and the EU could gain remarkable economic and geopolitical benefits from the agreement if both qualitative and cooperative standards are respected. Thus, the agreement should be signed quickly.

The purpose of this article is to take Capaldo’s argument apart by analyzing the three major problems he claims would arise from the implementation of TTIP.

I. The Dissolution of Economic Stability

Regarding the dissolution of economic stability, we can split Capaldo’s argument into two smaller parts: cutting salaries and increasing unemployment.

Cutting Salaries

The economic argument of Capaldo’s study is fairly straightforward: increased competition forces firms lower their costs by cutting wages in order to keep their products competitive. Upon the signing of the TTIP, Capaldo argues that wage cuts would lower per capita income, and both the US and the EU aggregate demand would fall. This would in turn trigger a spiral of psychological despair and economic regression, while the distribution of new profits would only benefit multi-national companies.

However, the professor’s abstract formula forces empirical data into mathematical structures that do not correspond to reality for two reasons.

First, not only would national minimum wage policies prevent the extreme salary cuts the model predicts, but also there is no historical evidence that companies will enact these primitive policies in response to the TTIP. Since 1957, when the European Economic Community (EEC) was founded, the European free-market agreement has boosted European national economies without severe cuts to wages. The reduction of tariffs, the economic deregulation and the stability of intra-European international relations favored a strong growth of international trade and widespread spirit of cooperation. In the aftermath of World War II, the EEC geared Western European countries towards thirty years of incredible economic growth. These three decades are now remembered as the age of the “Economic Miracle” in Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Italy (Miracolo Economico), Sweden and Greece, all countries that had been devastated by the war.

Second, the low cost of labor in South East Asia poses further doubts on the validity of Capaldo’s argument. As Business in Asia reports, in 2013, the average salary in South East Asian states oscillated between $0.50 and $10.00 on a daily basis. These low numbers explain why transatlantic companies would inevitably fail if they strived to win the race on lower salaries against emerging economies. Quality, not price, is their competitive advantage. For this reason, Capaldo’s claim that firms will cut salaries with the implementation of the TTIP seems uninformed. It contradicts the core message of the agreement: to facilitate higher quality standards for firms.

Increasing Unemployment

Capaldo’s study insists that smaller or less competitive companies will suffer from competition with bigger firms and eventually be forced to shut down. He rejects CEPR’s assumption that possible lay-offs due to the TTIP will be absorbed by more competitive firms, reasoning that people with specific technical knowledge will have a hard time switching from one industry to another. Thus Capaldo asserts that, instead of opening the US’s and the EU’s markets to each other, governments should protect national businesses, even unhealthy ones, in order to guarantee full employment and growth.

While Capaldo’s reasoning must be granted some logical coherence, again his conclusions aren’t entirely substantiated. While signing the TTIP would initially provoke a difficult time of adjustment for workers, the long-run result of protecting unhealthy national businesses would prospect a far worse scenario. If protecting national industry also means protecting noncompetitive businesses, American and European countries’ national economies would ultimately become weaker and less efficient, doomed to fail in an ever more aggressive international context.

On the contrary, the implementation of the TTIP would, in the long-run, guarantee better international conditions to do business by regulating competition and augmenting companies’ international marketability. This will help healthy businesses (especially small and medium sized ones) take advantage of unprecedented opportunities.

In addition to higher standards for the business environment, Columbia University Professor Anu Bradford claims that the TTIP seals a competitive alliance in favor of higher quality standards for products. She argues that globalization obliges exporters to adjust to the standards of the largest consumer base (people with similar standards for the products they are willing to buy). The justification of this observation is that exporters minimize costs and maximize profits if they can focus their investments in opening as few production systems as possible while selling to the largest number of people. In this regards, the TTIP enlarges the US and the EU consumers’ base (since it would eliminate NTBs), making countries’ technical standards, norms and regulations converge. Ultimately, the agreement should enable the largest consumer base, western consumers, to dictate what the most convenient standards are.

As opposed to Capaldo’s claim that the TTIP would destroy quality standards, the agreement precisely aims at compelling businesses to follow an ongoing shift in consumers’ behavior towards higher quality standards. Take the food industry, for example. Both Euromonitor International, the world’s leading independent provider of strategic market research, and Nielsen’s 2015 “Global Health & Wellness Survey” highlight that consumers are nowadays willing to pay a premium for healthier food. In particular, the Health & Wellness industry is growing faster than the Non-Healthy food industry, continuing to drive growth and innovation in the wider food and beverage industries. Surprisingly enough, 88% of those polled globally are willing to pay more for healthier foods, all demographics represented.

II. The Dissolution of International Stability

Capaldo argues that the TTIP could trigger aggressive inflation policies and eventually a war between the EU and the US.

It is true that some countries implement strong and consistent inflation policies to promote exports. Let’s follow the example of Italy to explain. During the 70’s, Italy consistently devalued its national currency, the lira. This inflation policy aimed to incentivize foreign buyers to purchase national products with a stronger currency, which would have been indeed available at a comparatively lower price. For example, the same gallon of milk would have cost less in Italy than in the UK, because the pound was stronger than the lira. Now, take that difference in the price of milk between Italy and the UK and apply it to every other good or service. It is clear why an investor would want to open a new business in Italy rather than in the UK.

What Capaldo alleges is that if one country does this to compete better internationally, then all the other countries will do the same, triggering a climate of international aggressiveness. In particular, he continues, this is true when countries sign free-trade agreements and open their national market to tougher competition. He concludes that the competitively aggressive devaluations of national currencies led to international political instability before WWI and WWII.

But if Capaldo’s worries are justified, countries in the EU would have found themselves continuously at war with one another from the signing of the EEC until the implementation of the euro in 2001. Also, past international agreements on commerce, such as Bretton Woods and Trans-Pacific Partnership, serve as concrete evidence that the facilitation of commerce is accompanied by regulations precisely aimed at avoiding conflicts.

In the TTIP’s case, two of the three parts of the agreement are specifically aimed at establishing these fundamental ground rules. Along with the “Pivot to Asia” and the other free-trade agreement, the “Trans Pacific Partnership”, the TTIP is a tile of Obama administration’s geopolitical strategy aimed at strengthening American alliances. Specifically, the TTIP aims to crown the lasting economic and political cooperation between the US and the EU. Just like former trade deals, the TTIP does more to prevent conflict and in-fighting than to cause it.

III. The Dissolution of European Integration

Capaldo insists the TTIP would push the EU to the edge of default in the event of an American economic crisis.

He argues that since the Maastricht agreement imposes strict financial policies on the EU, and the European Central Bank keeps European monetary policy rigid, open markets under the TTIP would make the EU more vulnerable to US market fluctuations. Therefore, he concludes a weak, stagnant economy like Europe’s should prefer not to undertake risky investments.

But the EU and US economies are already heavily interdependent. As Dr. William H. Cooper, a specialist in international trade and finance, reveals in his report, the US and the EU economic relationship is the largest in the world. In 2012 (latest data available), it generated goods and services trade flows of about $2.7 billion a day and a total of 6.8 million jobs (2010 estimate). Supporters of the TTIP argue that definitive integration of the two market areas could eventually complete the historical economic integration of the EU and the US market—vital to prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.

Conclusions

Having demonstrated several holes in Capaldo’s arguments about the dangers of the TTIP, what impacts can we expect on growth for either side? A CEPR analysis shows a GDP increases of 0.5% and 0.6% for the US and the EU economies, respectively. Given the size of the US and EU economies, those figures are huge. Furthermore, the TTIP will allow more companies to access both the EU and the US markets. More companies entering the market mean more choices for the same product, higher quality and lower prices for consumers in a wide range of goods.

In the context of a stagnant economy, the TTIP would create new investment opportunities, revitalizing and improving EU and US businesses. It would also seal a long lasting political and economic relationship, allowing western countries to embrace higher quality standards. Ultimately, the massive changes the TTIP promises represent an enormous opportunity for the EU and the US, and should not be wasted by protectionist hesitation.

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

The post Why the TTIP Should Be Signed appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

South Africa’s agriculture industry can breathe a sigh of relief. No, its farming exports will not lose preferential, duty-free access to the US market under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA)—but for a while, a tense trade dispute with the US cast a shadow over the agreement. The dispute’s aftermath and supposed resolution serves as a reminder that there are still rule makers and rule takers in international trade.

Implemented in 2000, AGOA allows over 7,000 goods produced in thirty-nine Sub-Saharan countries to flow tax-exempt into the US economy. As a reciprocal agreement, AGOA has brought the benefits of trade to growing African economies since enacted, including cheaper goods and access to US markets. So when the two countries announced a deal in June 2015 for 65,000 metric tons of frozen, bone-in poultry to enter South Africa (SA) duty-free, no one expected the ensuing dispute.

On November 6, Obama declared that SA’s preferential treatment under AGOA would be revoked in 60 days if they didn’t approve the first poultry quota—a clear threat. Despite the bilateral agreement, the process of receiving poultry shipments hadn’t moved forward since June, and US poultry producers and trade negotiators had lost patience. They tired of talking through round after round of what looked like red tape hurdles with little progress. Yet South Africa’s meat market harbors a growing and unmet demand—so why the holdup?

South Africa was by no means backing out. But lingering concerns over US issues with Salmonella and avian flu contamination remained unresolved. Periodic outbreaks of serious meat contamination – including recent incidents like E. coli at Chipotle – made South African officials question, but not explicitly reject, the safety risks involved in accepting US meat shipments. The delay was largely associated with technical minutiae as veterinary authorities in South Africa deliberated over affected US areas with the respective diseases, and whether American detection methods were adequate for preventing an epidemic.

But US negotiators were unrelenting. Pressure mounted on South Africa to open its market to US beef, pork and chicken; if they didn’t, the interruption of AGOA would cause key agriculture industries to suffer. Domestic South African groups were incensed, citing the US ultimatum as a coercive, bullying measure. One representative for the Congress of South African Trade Unions called Obama’s threats a “blatant attempt at extortion.” US annoyance with the lengthy health safety clearance process struck a distinct point of South African pride. The South African Poultry Association (SAPA) believes it is unfair for the US to pressure SA to simply accept “whatever lands on their shores,” when SA protocol includes a comprehensive assessment of the production chain.

This dispute and the US ultimatum demonstrate the persistence of Western-led international trade. Despite the rise of new players, and despite so-called reciprocal agreements, the economic interests of the US and other Western countries tend to be prioritized over the barebones survival and interests of others. Small states pay the consequences of unmitigated trade.

But a second trend in international trade might explain why the US is being so pushy. While classic protectionism – tariffs and quotas – is slowly dying, there are alternative measures fueling trade disputes. The root of the American reaction to SA’s health safety caution is a nagging suspicion of disguised protectionism. This can be anything that hurts another country’s commercial interests; it includes measures like government bailouts of domestic companies, wage subsidies, export and VAT rebates, export credits and financing from state-owned banks.

Thanks to these measures, protectionism continues to insidiously sway trade relations. Recent disputes have inspired policies to discourage covertly protectionist measures. Trade officials and regulating bodies like the WTO have a legal infrastructure in place to keep domestic industry laws in check. Many are even embedded in the very same administrative agencies that regulate US industries like food, drugs, agriculture and cosmetics.

Even hidden protectionism, however, does not necessarily afford small or emerging markets any leverage over the trade-dominating powers. While BRIC countries display high figures in covert protectionism, they are by no means the only offenders; larger economies commonly get away with it. For example, the EU rejects GMOs on the basis of uncertain long-term effects. France issued a loan guarantee to the financing arm of automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen. The US still has measures in place to prevent Mexican truck drivers from operating on their highways—not to mention all the padding that cushions domestic agriculture from the global market. In all of these cases there is a blurred line between industrial policy and export subsidy, much like in the AGOA dispute.

SA’s bargaining position is weak faced with the threat of losing the coveted US market. By comparison, the US is unfazed, unthreatened and therefore willing to turn up the heat. In a move reminiscent of a power-hungry time-out, the US is wielding a reminder that it is not to be disrespected. It’s clear who is setting the rules.

Even the most avid proponents of free trade (like the WTO) accept that health and safety standards will always be a trade hurdle. These barriers are necessary to guarantee consumer health and safety—after all, trade policies are influenced by security concerns. The WTO only stops supporting standards when they feel industry interest groups have influenced them beyond justifiable safety concerns or when the standards become discriminatory, i.e. baselessly harmful to one particular country’s industry. In South Africa’s case, though the poultry industry certainly spoke out, it was veterinary authorities who raised concern over the spread of bacteria.

On January 7, South Africa signed off on the meat quota and acquiesced to US pressure. Four days later the US announced it would nevertheless proceed to suspend SA agriculture’s AGOA benefits effective March 15, and would only reinstate them given the first meat shipment made it past customs by this date. Whether the concerns over avian flu and Salmonella contamination were founded or just a hurdle to foreign industry competitors can be argued either way, but the nature of international trade suggests similar friction will persist. Unfortunately, this development only reaffirms that countries with bigger, more powerful markets will continue to dictate the rules for those seeking access to them, whether or not hidden protectionism is employed.

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

The post A Game of Chicken appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As 2015 draws to a close, every region of the world is experiencing some amount of volatility that will persist into 2016. Some countries around the world will resolve their problems and thrive;  others will fail to meet their challenges and continue to suffer.

Europe continues to muddle through its occasional economic crises while bearing the weight of a politically fractious influx of Middle Eastern refugees. Russia is attempting to punch above its weight in conflicts on its near abroad while NATO beats its chest in response. Former Soviet states in the Caucasus and Central Asia have seen their economies take a collective nosedive, following the descent of both oil prices and the Russian ruble. China’s government is grappling with a domestic economic slowdown while trying to secure a sphere of influence. The rest of Asia, suspicious of Beijing’s initiatives, is coalescing around security concerns, but each nation there is dealing with its own domestic challenges. Latin America is enduring simultaneous political crises in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. Several countries in Africa are dealing with persistent terrorist threats from Islamic State (IS) affiliates, while others have seen their domestic politics unwind into violence. In North America, the United States is witnessing the ugly sides of domestic politics emerge as the November 2016 presidential election looms. Looking forward, it is better to focus on larger international issues rather than the futures of individual states.

Global Economic Outlook

The global economy is slowly piecing itself back together. Europe has pushed through a number of economic crises, East Asian economies are still moving along and North America is rebounding well. “The Economist” predicts a global growth of 2.7% in 2016. They also predict that Asia, Africa and North America will grow at or above 3% in the coming year. With the US Federal Reserve set to hike interest rates, this seems plausible, but financial markets will need time to adjust. This will also have consequences for the value of currencies worldwide—the rate hike is meant in part to stave off inflation in the US where years of quantitative easing have flooded the economy with cheap dollars. A rebounding dollar could hit developing states hard, especially in emerging markets across Latin America and Asia. But it would also make their exports more attractive compared to American goods and services.

Natural resource exporters will suffer from low commodity prices. The addition of Iranian and American hydrocarbons to world markets will keep energy prices depressed. These same low prices can help fuel growth in other countries that leverage the availability of cheap energy and raw materials. More developed and sophisticated economies like India and South Korea are best positioned to take advantage of cheap, plentiful energy. Economies that depend on a sole supplier – especially those in Eastern Europe that depend on Russian hydrocarbons – may use this time to diversify their supply options.

The Cyber World

Cybersecurity continues its rise in importance and prominence. Developed nations will compete to create better cyber capabilities to protect utilities, banks and other types of infrastructure that are connected to the internet, and the demand for skilled information technologists will continue to surge worldwide. Developing nations, beset with other challenges, will struggle to keep apace. The most advanced countries, such as the US, China and Russia, may begin to offer cyber capabilities to developing nations in efforts to gain influence.

Meanwhile, increased government interest in the cyberworld will be matched by private citizen efforts to protect internet freedoms. Nations will settle debates over the competing importance of security and privacy differently. Those that land on the side of security and surveillance may find themselves under scrutiny from both hacker collectives like Anonymous and prominent civil liberties advocates. But mass surveillance and data collection will continue across the world; internet privacy for individuals will continue to be dismantled in 2016.

Terrorism

Terrorism will remain a worldwide security concern in 2016. Countries across the globe will continue to collaborate to combat terror threats, although different governments will implement vastly different measures. Inevitably, headline-grabbing attacks will be attempted in the West and Asia this year. The victimized nations will ramp up their security capabilities, possibly at the expense of civil liberties.

The Islamic State’s appeal to jihadists will remain strong, but it will remain physically isolated within parts of Iraq and Syria and focused on securing and legitimizing its caliphate. While fresh attacks are all but certain, an event on the scale of 9/11 is highly unlikely based on what information is available. IS cannot match al-Qaeda’s former capabilities, and multinational efforts will likely prevent IS from reaching that level. Al-Qaeda itself is no longer potent enough to carry out major attacks on the West, and it does not seem capable of resurrecting itself this year.

Politics and Security in the Middle East

The Syrian crisis won’t be resolved. Refugees will continue to flee the conflict zone and surrounding nations must deal with the consequences. As the Islamic State is continually bombarded, outside actors like the United States, Russia and Iran will pick their proxies on the ground and commit to them this year. The US will continue to back Iraq as long as possible, but with Iranian and Russian military advisors also present in Baghdad, the Iraqi-American relationship may start to unravel. As relations deteriorate, the US will have no choice but to put its weight behind the Kurds. Washington must attempt to forge a mutual understanding between Kurdish leaders and Turkey to bring them both together against IS and the Assad regime. But the US will likely fail to create a meaningful Turkish-Kurdish alliance, unless both the Islamic State and the Assad regime cause all three enough pain to bring them together.

Turkey will not stand for the Kurds, IS or Assad gaining power in Syria and will vehemently protest American support for Iraqi Kurds. It will consider a unilateral incursion into Syria, and taking some of northeastern Syria under its control is likely. However, Turkey will not aim to engage Russian forces, limiting its activities to Kurdish and IS territories.

Russia and Iran will continue to support the Assad regime. However, they will seek a diplomatic solution where Assad remains in power over the Alawite-controlled areas of Syria between the western cities of Damascus and Aleppo. Russia will push hard for a diplomatic solution ensuring Assad’s survivability, even if that means leaving the regime with a smaller territory and putting the rest up for grabs among rebel groups. Assad’s forces have lost substantial manpower, and Russia needs to get out and focus its attention on issues closer to home. Iran has apparently begun withdrawing some of its forces from Syria. If IS becomes threatening enough to demand the full attention of other rebel forces, a settlement may become a possibility. But rebel enmity for Assad will not fade this year, and no agreement will be reached.

Sunni Arab nations will mull the possibility of extending support to non-Islamic State Sunni factions in Iraq and Syria, but will not get deeply involved unless a major Shia-led atrocity occurs. But in this conflict, the possibility of genocide cannot be ruled out. Arabs will maintain their strong focus on the civil war in Yemen where they will increase their support for anti-Houthi forces. Kuwait recently became involved on the ground alongside Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati forces; all these nations will redouble their efforts to eliminate the Houthi rebels. On the other side of the conflict, Iran will struggle to provide comparable aid to the Houthis due to Saudi Arabia’s effective blockade around Yemen. Yemen’s civil war could end this year in favor of the ousted Sunni government. The coalition of Sunni forces are certainly stronger right now, but they must achieve a decisive victory over the Houthis to see the conflict end. Iranian support will not enable the Houthis to push back, but economic pressure on the Gulf nations may diminish the total commitment that coalition members can make, delaying the end of the conflict.

Maritime Claims in Asia

China will continue to aggressively exert control over its proclaimed possessions in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Japan and South Korea will hold fast against these claims in the East; Japan’s recent apology to South Korea for atrocities committed during World War II is a sign of the two states’ emerging strategic alliance. Similar apologies may be coming out of Tokyo to nations such as the Philippines or Vietnam, but Beijing will get no such treatment.

In the South China Sea, the US will publicly raise the profile of its military and diplomatic support for nations with maritime claims competing against China. The US has announced its intent to base more forces in the Philippines, and it has also declared its intent to hold more multilateral exercises with ASEAN nations, obviously to deter Chinese aggression. America will be successful in forging a common cause across Asia to prevent the spread of China’s navy, but a formal alliance of nations aimed at deterring China is unlikely.

However, China will not be intimidated. It will continue its strategy of building and developing artificial territory that it claims for its own. No country will resort to the use of force against China in defense of an uninhabited island, but inhabited islands will be actively defended. China may succeed in taking control of most of its desired area, but won’t prevent American naval vessels from patrolling throughout the South China Sea. Neither side will provoke a military conflict; the economic impact would be disastrous.

Western Hegemony

The United States will remain the world’s superpower throughout 2016 and NATO the most potent military coalition. When bundled together, the European, North American and Australian economies dwarf the rest of the world, and this is the foundation of Western power today. However, the political appeal of the West has been diminishing and will continue to decline; China has proven that economic growth can be achieved without implementing democracy and developing nations have taken notice. The West cannot rely on its own perceived political superiority or glorifying human rights to influence other nations. Economic strength and cultural appeal are the foundations of Western soft power.

Vibrant economies will also support hard power, financing Western military expeditions worldwide as the West continues its global counterterrorism campaign. America’s combat mission in Afghanistan will also continue unabated through this year and the next American president will decide its fate. Eastern European NATO members will be bolstered as NATO’s original nemesis continues to revive itself. Russia may be seething at the loss of a jet to Turkey, but it will not seriously entertain the idea of confronting NATO. With the economy reeling, Putin cannot afford any defeat in foreign affairs, much less one with such astronomical consequences.

Trade between Eastern and Western economies will hold steady, with Western demand keeping manufacturing alive in East Asia and providing a basis for the expansion of the services sector. China and India will continue to feed off this energy to grow and diversify their own economies. American growth and European steadiness will keep demand for goods high. Dollars and Euros will continue to circulate globally as the preferred currencies for trade, and Western financial institutions will remain the standard bearers of the economy. Alternative financiers like the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will see their influence grow, but the West will maintain a strong lead in available capital. China will counter the West by attempting to invest faster and more actively in infrastructure projects across Asia and Africa, but its own economic slowdown will constrain its capabilities.

Overall, Western hegemony may not remain as powerful as it has been, but the West’s economic and military strength will persist even as other states ascend into regional powers.

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

The post A Glimpse of the Future: 2016 Global Forecast appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.