But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

The post It’s Time to Reassess Single-Use Plastic Around the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With the emergence of vaccines to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic around the world, the WTO has a critical role in ensuring vaccine distribution is equitably distributed to the Global North and Global South countries. Vaccine production and distribution is disproportionately concentrated in high income countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and member states of the European Union, which caused concern from the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a proponent of temporarily waiving patents for COVID-19 vaccines and coronavirus related medical supplies. 

In an op-ed from the Financial Times just weeks after her appointment, Okonjo-Iweala called for a turn away from vaccine nationalism and protectionism and a move toward cooperation amongst states in more treatment and vaccine development, seeking a “third way” that does not include waiving patents but instead the promotion of multilateralism in exchange of ideas and the promotion of licensing agreements.

Glimpse from the Globe sat down with Douglas Becker, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California and an expert on the global south, peace and conflict studies, environmental issues and the role of multinational enterprises in world politics. Becker spoke about the importance of an African woman leading the WTO and what news leadership may mean for the future of the institution.

—

Q: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is now the first African and first woman to become the director-general of the WTO. Why is this important for the future of international organizations, specifically in the role of Global South countries’ impact on these institutions?

A: First and foremost, it’s important because they didn’t have a president. The WTO has seen a weakness in the organization, particularly flowing from the trade wars that have been instigated largely by the previous president [of the United States]Donald Trump. So, there had been a contestation over the presidency. The U.S. had backed a Korean candidate [the current South Korean Trade Minister Yoo Myung-hee]under President Trump. Part of the election [of Okonjo-Iweala]was the U.S. conceding [to]the popularity of Global South versus a Korean candidate would be seen as much more of a Global North friendly candidate. The U.S. had been a holdout and in essence what President Biden did was acknowledge that the U.S. was in the minority here should go ahead and support this candidacy. 

Some of this has to do with the fact the WTO — unlike institutions like the IMF [and]the World Bank — does not disproportionately represent Global North countries. There are simply more Global South votes at the WTO so the fact there is a Global South president at the WTO is a reflection of the organization. It’s important the WTO has a Global South president. Now having an African leader is at least partially a recognition that in Global South leadership positions, Africa has to be [involved]. There needs to be an African representative at this forum. So, the inclusion of South Africa [in 1995]was simply a recognition that having this Global South leadership forum, but no African state was just a huge geographic blind spot. 

The fact that the new president is Nigerian I think certainly indicates the importance of Nigeria in a position of African leadership. South Africa has such a high GDP per capita but Nigeria has the largest GDP on the African continent. So, this is partially the [result of the]Nigerian government playing a much more substantial leadership role globally. They’ve always played an important role regionally as leaders of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and a pretty substantial role in the African Union, but this is Nigeria stepping up to a global position. 

I also want to emphasize that the new president is Nigerian-American, trained in the U.S. by all accounts. Extremely well qualified and doesn’t represent Nigeria as much as [she]represents Global South perspectives on issues of trade. So, I think that is the most important element. This is the WTO recognizing the importance of the Global South and the irony of an organization that [once was]so dominated by the Global North that the Global South sought a UN agency, UNCTAD, to counter GATT. UNCTAD is not needed as a countering of GATT now that the WTO recognizes the impact of the Global South. This is a sign of Global South leadership. 

Q: What do you think was the motivating force behind the decision to appoint Okonjo-Iweala as the director-general? Is this a reflection of the Global South’s growing impact on the global economy? 

A: Advancement of Global South economic interests. I don’t know if this was the big motivation behind the original candidacy but certainly at this moment in 2021 COVID-19 is playing a role here. The fact that [Okonjo-Iweala’s] first public statement was about vaccine nationalism and the importance of the distribution of the vaccine as a trade and economic issue is a reflection of Global South interests. I don’t know that COVID was necessary for her election, but it certainly is going to have a profound influence as to what she’s expecting to do leading the WTO.

Q: You often say that, “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” A Nigerian woman now heads the table that handles rules of global trade. How should the Global South use this opportunity to push for trade rules that would best benefit their economies? Are there any needs that you believe should be met for developing countries looking for opportunities to grow their economies?

The Global South has been at the table since the creation of the WTO. The fact that she’s at the head of the table is really about how issues get framed. I think the way in which she’s framed the issue of vaccine distribution gives me the expectation there’s going to be a much deeper political conversation about trade … whether it’s issues of agriculture, medicine, energy technologies [or]intellectual property issues. [It’s up to] the WTO to address concerns that liberalization of trade has had on intellectual property rights of the control of food sources. For example, the GMO technologies which a number of countries have ignored WTO rules and developed their own industries for that. The WTO has typically supported Global North claims under the Trade and Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS) to enforce copyrights. I’m expecting the WTO to at least take up that issue and ask whether or not there should be at least some form of alteration that allows for … it’s not going to be an ignoring of WTO rules but as least some grade of cooperation on that question. 

Another key component out of all of this is the president of WTO can help set the agenda for new negotiation in the WTO. The WTO’s most important body [the appellate court]still can’t meet until the U.S. agrees to it. The U.S. and China fundamentally disagree as to who might be seated on the appellate court. Right now, there’s not enough judges to actually hear cases. That was partially derived from the fact that President Trump realized the U.S. was likely to lose several cases as a  result of the trade war so he just kept the body from meeting. That’s still a huge challenge for the WTO. 

The relationship between the presidency and the settlement board is the presidency can help to align the agenda in the negotiations over the WTO. It can help to set the priorities of the negotiations although she won’t be able to determine outcomes and these are still going to be negotiated by states. Agenda-setting is extremely important, but the enforcement question is … going to have to jump through several hoops. You can’t just announce there’s going to be a different set of rules. You’re going to have to propose different sets of rules, negotiate those new rules and see how they get interpreted through the dispute settlement board. It’s not to discount the influence she has, it’s just to show you that purpose in respect to actually changing the rules.

Q: Connecting back to what you said earlier in terms of the United States conceding to the agreement as having Okonjo-Iweala as the director-general [as]the Global South makes up a larger pool of many of the international institutions [in place]. What should be the next move of Global North countries as the Global South starts to take on more of a role in international organizations?

One of the frames we like to use is organization shopping. States will choose which organizations they want to use based on expected and preferred outcomes. The Global South has a certain voting power, particularly in organizations that are based on the principle, “One Nation, One Vote”: so, the UN and the UN system. The Global North has a tendency to go shopping for organizations depending on if they think they’ll get their preferred outcomes. In extreme circumstances though it’s not common, it’s more of a U.S. thing. If a Global North [country]doesn’t agree broadly with their agenda, they’ll just walk away from that organization. Formally, like the US did with the WHO or much more frequently informally … take an example that would be WHO in the COVAX initiative to develop a global vaccine and vaccine distribution for COVID-19. On one level … of course the [Global South is] going to demand some sort of distribution that’s reflective of population rather than just economic power. If [Global North countries are] being told they’re going to have to give up their vaccines to Global South countries because there’s more of them they’ll just ignore [COVAX] and not give up the vaccine. 

But the Global South leadership has done a very good job of linking this to globalization, economic growth [and]access to markets to say in essence, “if you block Global South countries, you’re doing this at the peril of your own economies.” Therefore, there’s a shared interest in developing a model that reflects [both]Global North and Global South economic interests. That’s just an example of what I think any of these organizations need to do. There’s going to be increased Global South representation and Global South voices much more commonly heard and it’s about building a cooperative model where Global North and Global South countries see themselves on the same boat with respect to the economy. The realist in me might suggest this is going to be Global North versus Global South [competition]and frequently when you hear that, it’s China versus the U.S. as the model and there’s certainly those elements. But the liberal in me suggests this is a positive sum gain. It’s about building cooperative models… elevating Global South voices so that the terms aren’t simply dictated to them. It’s more complex than just Global South advancing their interests and [assuming the]Global North [will]jump on board. They have to navigate that well. [The Global South] may not be on the menu but if they don’t agree on what the menu is nobody is going to sit down to eat. 

Right now, I think vaccine distribution and reigniting the regrowth of the global economy as a result of this pandemic is such a huge issue that the models that we put in place for negotiations between the Global North and Global South are going to have a huge impact on economic cooperation and political cooperation going forward. And frankly, I think this is what the U.S. is doing in its decision to support the new WTO president. This is President Biden saying, “you’ve just seen 4 years of the U.S. having no interest in cooperation that we will concede the need to cooperate on these symbolic issues.” Though make no mistake, it’s not that the U.S. is going to just concede on [all]the Global South issues. The presidency is much more symbolic of President Biden saying on multiple occasions, “It’s not America first, it’s America’s back.” That’s a signal that we are prepared to be a negotiation partner. The U.S. is never a coequal partner. They always exercise much more authority. I think the Global South is finding reason to negotiate these issues more effectively and [the appointment of Director-General Okonjo-Iweala]is an example of this.

— 

Director-General Okonjo-Iweala has much ahead of her as she takes on this leadership role in an institution that promotes free trade liberalization in a global economy where the interests of states take hierarchy over a push for multilateralism. In pursuing equitable vaccine distribution, there is an opportunity to reinforce globalization in a way that integrates the interests of the Global North and Global South. 

Since a healthy global society is vital for the health of the global economy, the plan Okonjo-Iweala is able to propose and negotiate amongst the WTO’s global members will be important in mitigating COVID-19, while also prioritizing the interests of the Global South on the international stage.

The post The Global South in the World Trade Organization: An Interview with Douglas Becker appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As Glimpse From the Globe continues its special coverage of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, it’s important to highlight the differences in key areas of the candidates’ foreign policy agendas. In this piece, we will look at how the incumbent, President Donald Trump, and his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, will tackle the United States’ most topical international issues, including the superpower’s role in the Middle East, the global climate crisis, foreign aid, immigration policy, China and trade. 

An overwhelming trend in this analysis is that Trump’s foreign policy agenda is centered around unilateralism and protectionism, while Biden’s is focused on strengthening the United States’ relationships with its allies and promoting multilateral cooperation.

Middle East

The Middle East represents a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy, given its geopolitical significance for the United States’ economic interests, as well as the country’s counterterrorism, military and humanitarian efforts in the region. Whether it’s Iran’s relentless pursuit to acquire nuclear weapons after the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen or the unresolved Israel-Palestine dispute, the upcoming presidential election will determine U.S. action, or inaction, in the region.

Trump: After moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokering the landmark Israel-UAE peace agreement, Trump can be expected to continue strongly supporting Israel. In January 2020, he released the New Middle East Plan in collaboration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump vehemently opposes Iran and has undertaken many actions against the state including withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, imposing severe economic sanctions in an effort to curb its nuclear program and authorizing the air strike in early 2020 that killed Major General Qasim Soleimani. Trump has also withdrawn U.S. troops from Syria, but has ordered they remain in Iraq. Over the past few years under Trump, the United States has also improved its relations with Saudi Arabia, especially after Trump expressed his support for Prince Mohammed bin Salman even after Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in 2018. 

Biden: Joe Biden is a long-time supporter of Israel and a self-proclaimed Zionist. Perhaps the only area of confluence we see in Trump and Biden’s foreign policy is vis-a-vis their support for Israel. However, their stances are not totally aligned — Biden opposes Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is a strong advocate for the two-state solution. When it comes to Iran, Biden, like Trump, is strongly opposed to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. However, he believes that Trump’s decision to strike Soleimani without Congress’ approval was an “enormous escalation” of tension and pledges to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal. Additionally, it is important to note that Biden has had a long involvement with Iraq policy in his past roles of senator and Vice President, which will likely shape his foreign policy agenda. Unlike Trump, Biden is not warm to the idea of close relations with Saudi Arabia and seeks to stop arms sales with the country.

Climate

In recent years, the scientific community has called on countries to speed up their process of reducing carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Climate organizations have alluded to the dire consequences of shifting climate patterns such as food shortages, the spread of diseases and mass migration of animals and humans, making climate change the fastest growing threat to global security.

Trump: Trump is doubtful of how much human activity contributes to climate change and is a strong advocate for expanded fossil fuel production and use. He withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, which set higher standards on vehicular emissions and imposed new and stricter regulations on power plants, and rescinded Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Over the past few years, Trump has also slashed funding to the Environmental Protection Agency and has repealed dozens of other environmental regulations. In August 2020, he finalized a plan that allows drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, part of his efforts to open almost all U.S. waters and protected lands to oil and gas drilling. Apart from this, he also hopes to expand new oil pipelines throughout the United States and reduce automobile fuel efficiency standards.

Biden: Biden has released his version of the “Green New Deal,” a climate plan that aims to ensure that the U.S. economy has net-zero emissions by 2050. He is vehemently opposed to new drilling and fracking on public federal lands and pledges to rejoin the Paris Agreement. He aims to reduce the United States’ carbon footprint in transportation, agriculture, and housing sectors and halt the flow of foreign aid to coal-fired power plants overseas. To encourage countries to implement green policies, he also wants to offer debt relief and expand G20 climate efforts. Though Biden is criticized by some environmental activists and organizations for not being more aggressive on climate change, his policies toward climate change demonstrate a stark contrast to Trump’s approach.

Foreign Aid and Multilateral Cooperation

Multilateral diplomacy and foreign aid are key aspects of the liberal international order and are often propagated through international institutions. International institutions serve as both a framework and a platform for international engagement, debate, and cooperation. The United States has been the chief architect of alliance building through international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), World Bank and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 

Trump: Trump has withdrawn from several international alliances and organizations such as the Paris Agreement, Iran Nuclear Deal, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the UN Global Compact for Migration. Most recently, amid the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), the international organization responsible for coordinating the world’s pandemic response. Regarding U.S. allies, Trump has often questioned the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era and has been critical of organizations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Even relationships with long-term allies of the United States, such as the European Union (EU) have not been stable under his presidency. And, with regard to foreign spending and assistance, budget proposals under his administration have cut foreign aid spending by almost a third.

Biden: In contrast, Biden’s “Summit for Democracy” plans to convene all democratic countries in a single forum to discuss three major global issue areas — fighting corruption, addressing the rise of authoritarianism and combating the proliferation of human rights violations. If elected, Biden not only pledges to rebuild the U.S. Department of State but has also stated that he would re-enter alliances and agreements that the United States has left under the Trump administration. Biden has pledged to reenter the Paris Agreement, for example. Biden has also continuously warned against the current rise of populism as seen in waves throughout the world and calls for increased international investment in collective security and prosperity. In a Biden administration, one could expect the United States to reenter the liberal international order and place a heavy emphasis on multilateralism and global leadership.

Immigration

Immigration has long been an important issue in the American political scene and despite the countless number of American families that can trace their family history to migrants, many voters approve of isolationist and nationalist immigration policies. The debate over immigration in the United States has reared its ugly head in the form of rising xenophobia and bigotry, a critical aspect of Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2016 presidential election.

Trump: Immigration is a huge issue for Trump, who has championed a zero-tolerance immigration policy since his candidacy in 2016. In 2019, he attempted to complete his vow of building a wall on the Mexican border by shutting down the federal government, and declared a national emergency on the southern border, allowing him to allocate federal funds to this project. Additionally, the president threatened tariffs against Mexico if the country didn’t improve their own border enforcement. The administration has also imposed a zero-tolerance border crossing policy, which has led to the separation of families at the border and mass incarceration of migrants. In efforts to keep migrants from reaching or staying in the United States, he launched the Remain in Mexico program, which requires asylum-seekers to stay in Mexico as they await their immigration proceedings. Additionally, Trump has brokered “safe third country” agreements with Guatemala and Panama, allowing for migrants who travel through those counties to be deported back if they do not apply for asylum there before they arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 2017, Trump instituted a ban on incoming travel from several majority Muslim countries. While the original executive order was rejected by courts, a revised version banning travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen was passed. There have been a number of legal changes that Trump has promoted to attempt to reduce immigration overall. He has reduced the cap on the number of refugees accepted into the United States every year to less than 18,000, down from around 80,000; shifted the definition of asylum to no longer include survivors of domestic and gang violence; ended temporary protected status for citizens from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador; and sought to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has prevented the deportation of 700,000 individuals who were brought to the United States as children. 

Inside our borders, Trump has expanded interior enforcement raids, although his deportation numbers do not meet the peaks seen under the Obama administration; attempted to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities; and, in July of 2020, attempted to revoke the visas of international students studying online, only to reverse the order after MIT, Harvard, USC and 17 states filed lawsuits against the policy.

Biden: Biden and Trump’s immigration policies stand on polar opposite sides of the spectrum. The former vice president has condemned the current administration’s policies as “racist” and “morally bankrupt.” However, Biden grapples with a past painted by restrictionist policies under the Obama administration. 

Biden wants to overturn policies that separate families at the border, establish public-private networks that address humanitarian needs, and make DACA permanent. He opposes the president’s ban on several Muslim majority countries and would eliminate the ban if elected. Additionally, he wants to extend temporary protected status to citizens of El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan and Venezuela, as well as use aid packages to stabilize the countries that migrants originate from. He also backs a 2013 immigration reform plan developed under the Obama administration, that focuses on strengthening border security, cracking down on employers of undocumented workers, creating a path toward earned citizenship, and streamlining the legal immigration system. 

But, Biden’s pro-immigrant stance conflicts with his senatorial record, which includes voting for a law that increased penalties for illegal immigration and expanded the government’s deportation authority in 1996; supporting the Secure Fence Act in 2006, authorizing 700 miles of fencing along the southern border; and, in 2008, proposing to jail employers of undocumented workers, crack down on sanctuary cities, and build more fencing to prevent the entry of drug dealers at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

China

Since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping began to revamp the Chinese economic and trade strategy in the 1980s, China has been transforming itself into an economic juggernaut. As we enter the 2020s, China will seek to shed its image as a developing country with an unmatched economy and grow into a true global leader. This has not gone unnoticed by U.S. leadership. Former President Barack Obama’s “strategic pivot” towards Asia in an attempt to counter CCP influence in the region, as seen with the creation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While both candidates have similar platforms regarding grievances held against the CCP for human rights abuses, territorial disputes in Taiwan and the South China Sea, intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices, each candidate proposes a different strategy for interacting with the rising superpower.

Trump: President Trump has often criticized international institutions like the WTO and multilateral trade deals like the TPP — from which Trump used an executive order to withdraw the United States — for creating advantages for countries other than the United States. Thus, his game plan against China has often revolved around unilateral actions aimed at weakening the Chinese economy and strengthening U.S. producers. Most outstanding in this plan was a series of tariffs on over $350 billion worth of Chinese goods into the United States. Using national security concerns to justify the trade war, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods such as solar panels, washing machines and other household appliances, as well as agricultural products. This led to the US-China Phase 1 Trade Deal which called for the United States to reduce tariffs in exchange for Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products. 

Trump has also taken aim at the Chinese technology sector, which many intelligence agencies have argued is guilty of stealing technology from the United States as well as other countries. In 2018, Trump helped push reforms that allowed for the U.S. government to investigate and intervene in foreign investment into domestic companies, particularly taking aim at Chinese venture capital in U.S. technology firms. Additionally, he has imposed restrictions on Chinese tech operations and products in the United States, such as Huawei, Wechat, and TikTok. 

Other instances of Trump challenging China include being the first president since 1979 to speak to Taiwan’s President and proposing arms sales to the island, ending Hong Kong’s preferential trade status following China’s national security law restricting free speech in the region, and imposing sanctions on companies involved in human rights abuses of the Uighur Muslim minority in China. 

Biden: While Biden agrees with the President that the CCP must be held accountable for breaking internationally accepted trade rules. committing human rights abuses and challenging the U.S. energy, infrastructure and technology sectors, he ultimately believes that unilateral tariffs do more harm than good — citing damages to U.S. manufacturing and agriculture industries. He also thinks that the Phase One Trade Deal focuses too much on agricultural purchases rather than changes to Chinese business practices. As opposed to the United States acting alone against China, Biden believes that the United States must rebuild frayed relations with the world’s democracies — including EU member states and U.S. neighbors, Mexico and Canada — and then approach China through multilateral pressure. Biden believes that this is the best way to force the CCP to subscribe to internationally accepted trade and human rights standards. Biden also supported the Obama-era TPP trade pact and the admission of China into the WTO in 2001, showing a strong belief in the use of international institutions to engage with the growing economic powerhouse.

Trade

The backbone of American influence abroad in the post-Cold War era was the Washington Consensus and its focus on an open and liberal international trade and financial system. Rising inequality has led to skepticism toward international institutions on both sides of the aisle. But once again, though both candidates acknowledge these issues, their tactics differ on proposed courses of action. 

Trump: Donald Trump has been vocal about his ‘America First’ agenda since the first weeks of his candidacy in the 2016 election. In his opinion, the United States must combat an international system that is rigged against it and is to be blamed for a large trade deficit, reductions in U.S. manufacturing and the offshoring of American jobs. To combat this, Trump has focused his trade policy on removing the country from allegedly unfair trade deals and renegotiating bilateral agreements to the country’s advantage. President Trump has called the WTO a disaster and has crippled the organization by refusing to nominate judges to its appeals court. In the Asia-Pacific, the President pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiated bilateral trade conditions with Japan and other member countries and launched a trade war with China that cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Across the Pacific Ocean, the president oversaw the rewriting of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and signed the updated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which was passed by the U.S. Congress following amendments including strong labor and environmental considerations. Across the Atlantic, Trump has been taking shots at the EU’s trade relationship with the United States, which he calls “worse than China.” In 2019, he placed tariffs on $7.5 billion of EU goods in retaliation to the EU’s subsidization of aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. 

Biden: The former Vice President’s grievances against international trade stems from a lack of consideration for environmental and labor protections. Biden believes that the United States should take charge of the creation of “the rules of the road for the world” to make climate change and human rights centerpieces of the international order. Biden was a part of the negotiating team during the construction of the TPP, joining Obama in the belief that the best counter to China’s influence in the Pacific Rim would be to build a trade deal in the region focused around the United States. Additionally, he voted to pass NAFTA and approved of the revised USMCA, supporting the additional labor and environmental protections. He believes that “aggressive” retaliation is necessary for countries that break international trade rules and that the rules need to be more thoroughly enforced. Ultimately, Biden wants to use free trade as a tool to strengthen ties with African states, thereby opening up new markets to U.S. businesses.

—-

Though this is not a complete list of Trump and Biden’s stances on these critical global issues, it is important for the American populace to gain a basic understanding of how each candidate has impacted global affairs and how they are projected to impact international issues in the future. Additionally, an introductory awareness of how each candidate seeks to position the United States within the international system is of extreme importance, especially as the world continues to grapple with the ongoing economic, political and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The post Trump vs. Biden: A Side-by-Side on Key Foreign Policy Issues appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.