AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Fall 2015 Volume XV, Issue I
From the Editor-in-Chief
Staff Editor-in-Chief Molly Reiner ’17
Dear Readers, In our Fall 2015 issue, AFP has covered important events in the time since our last publication at the end of the 2014-2015 academic year. Thus, this issue includes the foreign policy developments of both the summer and fall, from traditional balance-of-power politics, to a considerDWLRQ RI WKH SROLF\ LQÀXHQFH RI WKH 3RSH WR EURDG EDVHG HFRQRPLF DJUHHPHQWV DQG ¿QDOO\ WR the very present threat of terrorism in our world today. We start this issue with Lauren Wodarski’s take on the Pope’s call for action on climate change. Though the issue faces much pushback within our own government, Lauren arJXHV WKDW GHVSLWH SROLWLFDO GL̇FXOWLHV RXU JRYHUQPHQW VKRXOG KHHG WKH 3RSHœV FDOO WR SURtect the earth’s resources, both domestically and as a part of international institutions.
Editorial Board Jamal Maddox ’16 Eli Schechner ’18 Lauren Wodarski ’17
2XU FRYHU DUWLFOH LV E\ &RQQRU 3IHL̆HU ZKR GLVFXVVHV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI EXLOGLQJ D UHODtionship with Central Asian nations. According to Connor, the United States must increase LWV LQÀXHQFH LQ WKLV UHJLRQ QRW RQO\ WR EDODQFH UHJLRQDO SRZHUV &KLQD DQG 5XVVLD EXW DOVR to secure ties with nations that face the threat of terrorist organizations active in the region. To this end, Connor lays out several soft power mechanisms through which the U.S. can secure allies in this vital region. Justinas Mickus continues our discussion about balancing with his consideration of the geopolitical positioning of both Lithuania and Poland. These countries have a unique perspective of the sometimes puzzling behavior the world sees from Russian President VladiPLU 3XWLQ DV ZHOO DV D ¿UP SRVLWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH (XURSHDQ 8QLRQ -XVWLQDV SRLQWV RXW WKDW EHFDXVH RI WKHLU XQLTXH SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH (8 WKHVH FRXQWULHV RIWHQ KDYH OLWWOH VD\ LQ WKHLU foreign policy futures.
Editors-in-Chief Emeriti Tucker Jones ’16
Joe Margolies ’15
Turning away from traditional geopolitics, Nicole Don explains the plight of refugee miJUDQWV WR (XURSH LQ UHFHQW PRQWKV 1LFN\ FULWLFL]HV ZKDW VKH GHVFULEHV DV DQ LQVẊFLHQW (XURSHDQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH Ă€RRG RI SHRSOH Ă€HHLQJ YLROHQFH LQ 6\ULD ,UDT DQG $IJKDQLVWDQ Closing out our full-length articles for the fall issue is Andrew Hersh, with an updated WDNH RQ WKH SURJUHVV RI WKH 7UDQV 3DFLÂżF 3DUWQHUVKLS )ROORZLQJ XS RQ WKH DUWLFOH DGYRFDWLQJ IRU WKH WUDGH DJUHHPHQW ZULWWHQ E\ &RQQRU 3IHL̆HU LQ WKH VSULQJ LVVXH HQWLWOHG “America Needs Free Trade,â€? Andrew highlights the trials the agreement has faced until now and those it will face in the future.
Blog Editor Michael Smerconish ’18
I close this issue with a review of the recent Daily Beast article exposing a possible coverXS LQ &(17&20 UHJDUGLQJ PDVVDJHG DQDO\VLV RI $PHULFDÂśV PLOLWDU\ JDLQV DJDLQVW ,6,6 followed by a continuation of our “The Way They See Itâ€? series discussing the 2016 presidential candidates’ takes on hot-button foreign policy issues.
Graphics Eli Schechner ’18
Thank you for reading this issue of AFP. As always, if you have any questions, comments, or want to join our team, send me an email at mreiner@princeton.edu. In the meantime, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @afpprinceton.
Sincerely, Molly Reiner (GLWRU LQ &KLHI
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY is a student-written, student-run publication based at Princeton University. It was founded in the wake of September 11th to provide Princeton students with a forum to discuss the difficult problems and choices facing the United States in the world. AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY magazine is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Woodrow Wilson School, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the James Madison Program, Princeton University, or AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY. AFP gladly accepts letters to the editor, article proposals, and donations, which are fully tax-deductible.
AFP Advisory Board Wolfgang Danspeckgruber: Director, Liechtenstein Institute for Self-Determination Robert P. George: Director, James Madison Program G. John Ikenberry: Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs Cecilia Rouse: Dean, Woodrow Wilson School
This publication strives to use all Creative Commons licensed images. Please contact AFP if you feel any rights have been infringed. All correspondence may be directed to: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, 3611 Frist Center, Princeton, NJ 08544 afp@princeton.edu www.afpprinceton.com
2
American Foreign Policy
AFP
A MERICAN F OREIGN P OLICY Fall 2015 Volume XV, Issue I
ta b l e o f co n t e n ts
4 6 8 9 10 12 14
The Pope Speaks to the World Warming to Pope Francis’s Climate Message Lauren Wodarski ’17 Competing for the Heartland Our Foreign Policy Future in Central Asia Connor Pfeiffer ’18 Stuck in the Middle The Polish and Lithuanian Struggles to Find a Persuasive Voice in European Policy-Making Justinas Mickus ’18
AFP Quiz Molly Reiner ’17
Global Update Eli Schechner ’18 Refugee Politics The European Union’s Path Toward Action Nicole Don ’19 Revisiting the TPP Prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Andrew Hersh ’18
15
In Context
16
An ISIS Evidence Cover-up? AFP Reviews the News Molly Reiner ’17
17
Global Gallery The World in Pictures Lauren Wodarski ’17
18
The Way They See It, Continued 2016 Candidates on Today’s Issues Molly Reiner ’17
Molly Reiner ’17
Photo Credits: Flickr
Cover Image by Eli Schechner ‘18
Fall 2015
3
WORLD
THE POPE SPEAKS TO THE WORLD
HAS THE UNITED STATES WARMED TO POPE FRANCIS’S CLIMATE MESSAGE? Lauren Wodarski ’17
D
rawing crowds of over 1 million for mass in Philadelphia last month, Pope Francis’s recent visit to the United States was an enthusiastic, traffic-inducing, Papal bobble-head riddled example of the unprecedented popularity of the Catholic Church’s new leader. His liberal leanings and his down-to-earth personality have earned him praise from the religious and secular alike. President Barack Obama quoted the Pontiff during a recent speech on income inequality, and his address to the United Nations General Assembly at the end of September points to his substantial global influence. Though anecdotes of the Pope accepting a personal pizza delivery in his Popemobile are endearing, Pope Francis has also substantially and significantly changed the Church’s discussion on many hot-button topics ranging from poverty to acceptance of homosexuals. Nothing though has been more significant than his recent encyclical, Laudato Si, which focused on issues of climate change and global warming. In this document, subtitled “Care for our Common Home” the Pope urges the Church, its followers, and all citizens of this world to recognize the unique challenges facing this generation, who inhabit a world in dire environmental danger. He calls for global dialogue about how to best preserve our planet, and insists that human “waste culture” is partly to blame for the current deterioration of our environment. Though the implications of this encyclical are many, on a most basic level it can be seen as a call to worldwide action on the issue of global warming. The Pope stresses, just in time for the global climate conference in Paris this December, that solutions to our warming world will only be possible with the cooperation of global governments and interest groups that fall far outside the traditional “political realm.” This message is one that many prominent politicians in the United
4
States are hesitant to embrace. Not surprisingly, liberals see a new ally in this soft spoken pontiff. After the encyclical’s release, Obama praised the document, stating that “the United States must be a leader in this effort [to combat climate change], which is why I am committed to taking bold actions at home and abroad to cut carbon pollution, to increase clean energy and energy efficiency…and to encourage responsible stewardship of our natural resources.” International reaction has mostly mirrored the President’s. Francois Hollande, the President of France, said that he hoped the “particular voice” of Pope Francis on climate change was “heard in every continent, beyond the faithful.” Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, also praised the work, publishing a column in the New York Times shortly after the encyclical’s publication saying they hoped the work would influence public policy and a sense of moral responsibility. One group of political leaders have been noticeably absent from the almost universal praise of Laudato Si; conservative Republicans, a group which makes up a large portion of governmental representation in the American political system. The reasons for the backlash are not hard to unearth, but the consequences could prove problematic. Conservative ideas on climate change regulation follow a different logic than their more liberal counterparts in both the United States and elsewhere. They reason that
“Not surprisingly, liberals see a new ally in this soft-spoken pontiff.” without 100% scientific agreement on the scale and danger of human caused global warming, the potential benefits of costly preventative measures would simply not outweigh their sometimes enormous
American Foreign Policy
costs. There is an underside too of course. The Center for Responsive Politics data tells us that the oil and gas industry contributed $52 million to Republican candidates and committees in the 2012 election cycle, compared to about $6.5 million to Democratic candidates and committees. Thus, a popular conservative reaction to the Pope’s encyclical is exemplified in Senator Jim Inhofe’s response, where he claimed to “disagree with the Pope’s philosophy on global warming, and [is] concerned that his encyclical will be used by global warming alarmists to advocate for politics that will equate to the largest, most regressive tax increase in our nation’s history.” Presidential candidate Jeb Bush put it into even simpler terms when he claimed that “I don’t get economic policies from my bishops or my cardinals or my Pope, I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm.” The United States has a long and complicated history with global warming policies and a deeply ingrained reluctance to regulate private businesses or to accept warning information which does not come directly “from scientists.” Last year, the world emitted 39.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is 788 million tons more than in 2013, yet President Obama’s climate initiatives and proposed legislature continue to meet strong opposition among the GOP caucus. A controversial administrative action of the past year, which would have allowed Shell to open up Arctic drilling operations off the coast of Alaska and would have been a victory for big oil and conservative leadership that stresses energy independence often to the sacrifice of environmental standards, was recently reversed in response to pressure from environmental activist groups. This denial is the latest in a long string of actions on Obama’s environmental policy agenda, which recently included a trip to Alaska to tour ecologically threatened sites. Still, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska, called the decision a “stunning betrayal of the interests of U.S. energy security and the latest move in a destructive pattern of hostility towards energy production in our state.” There is no doubt the Obama administration has made strides in an effort to begin to combat global warming, on a na-
World
Pope Francis greets an American crowd with Vice President Joe Biden, among other American political and religious leaders. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
tional and international scale. In addition to a current plan to reach an international climate treaty before the end of his term, the President has created the Clean Energy Ministerial, a global forum headed by the U.S. Department of Energy which promotes policies and programs aimed at increasing clean energy production, and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which aims to reduce emissions of methane, HFCs and black carbon and has partners in 46 countries. If the President seems willing to enact such progressive legislation, then why should we be concerned about something as trivial as a hostile reaction to the Pope’s message in the encyclical? Firstly, this hostile reaction seems to perpetuate a concerning line of reasoning that insists that “only scientists have the right to participate in this discussion.” If the Pope in his newest writing is suggesting that countries work together to combat climate change, he is a priori suggesting the creation of new climate policy and coalitions. This kind of regulation will not be implemented or supported by scientists alone. As the world becomes increasingly global, and politics become increasingly polarized, real action on an issue as big as climate change is going to have to mobilize more than climate scientists or politicians. As every New Yorker who sat in mind-numbing traffic during the Pope’s
visit can attest, this new world leader, though a religious leader, has immense power to mobilize very large populations of people. As the Global Climate Summit in Paris in December of 2015 fast approaches, the United States is going to need to cooperate with governments who see cli-
tions” and called “the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. [He said he was] also similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.” World religions in general, not just the Catholic Church, have the ability to reach large audiences “As the Global unique in a capacity that politicians could never Climate Summit in Paris dream of. A Pope encouraging stewardof our resources could be easily harin December of 2015 ship nessed as political force, and in this case, fast approaches, the force for very arguably an enduring politigood. Yet if Obama cannot bring these United States is going cal ideas back to a receptive Congress, or if to need to cooperate he proposes climate bills to a Congress refuses to credit anything but “cold with government who who hard climate science” (which seems to be see climate change as always up for debate), we risk a stalemate could have worldwide consequences. a problem all of their that Maybe one wouldn’t take loan advice citizens must face from a bishop, but politicians would be to ignore policy advice from an together.” foolish emerging global leader who speaks for the mate change as a problem all of their citi- interests of billions of people. Afp zens must face together. A large majority of European Union leaders in particular have praised the Pope’s call to action as an important political step forward, even though he is neither a scientist nor a poliLauren may be reached at tician. In his address to the UN, Pope wodarski@princeton.edu Francis spoke of “urgently needed solu-
Fall 2015
5
ASIA
8 6 6HFUHWDU\ RI 6WDWH -RKQ .HUU\ PHHWV ZLWK WRS ṘFLDOV IURP ¿YH &HQWUDO $VLDQ FRXQWULHV LQ 1RYHPEHU ,PDJH FRXUWHV\ RI
COMPETING FOR THE HEARTLAND
OUR FOREIGN POLICY FUTURE IN CENTRAL ASIA Connor Pfeiffer ’18
W
hen most Americans hear the term “Central Asia,” the reaction is usually one of confusion. Many could not locate the region on a map, nevertheless label or know much about Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan besides grouping them with the “stans” we have heard so much about since 2001, Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, this ignorance does not reflect the importance of the region to American interests. A former part of the Soviet Union, these states lie in the middle of some of the most important countries/regions for U.S. interests in the world: China, Russia, and the Middle East. The region has also been crucial to U.S. interests during the war in Afghanistan, providing airbases and transport hubs through which U.S. forces moved men and machinery into Afghanistan. British geographer Halford Mackinder famously claimed, as part of his Heartland Theory, that whatever power controlled Central Asia would rule the world because of the region’s resources
6
and strategic location. While this theory is still controversial (it did not work so well for the Soviet Union), it is illustrative of the strategic importance of this
“U.S. efforts in the region must include prioritizing the improvement of America’s standing among the people and governments of Central Asia.” region both historically and geographically. Central Asia is a critically important region for the future of U.S. foreign policy, not only for these reasons, but also because of its importance for Russia and China. In order to maintain strong ties to
American Foreign Policy
these states and to compete with Russian and Chinese hegemonic ambitions, the United States should make it a priority to remain engaged in the region even as the war in Afghanistan winds down, using soft power and diplomacy to improve relationships with these states and their peoples. As a former part of the Soviet Union, Central Asia poses several immediate challenges to U.S. engagement efforts. First, public perceptions of the United States are not that positive in many areas. A 2015 report from the Wilson Center surveyed people in the former Soviet Union, including some in Central Asia, on their perceptions of America. Across the board, it found that while most respondents had strong admiration for American economic institutions and culture, most were extremely critical of American political institutions and foreign policy, viewing the United States as an imperial power trying to impose its views on other countries. These views directly mirror Russian talking points in local media, showing the strong effects of Russian propaganda in the region. Additionally, respondents followed the Russian line on foreign NGOs, viewing them as puppets of foreign governments that incite protests that only serve to destabilize the country. Second, Central Asian governments are almost completely pro-Russian. Most Central Asian
Asia states are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia’s version of NATO, and have strong economic ties to Russia stemming from Soviet times. Four of the five Central Asian states are effectively authoritarian regimes. The fifth, Kyrgyzstan, is not fully a liberal democracy because of rampant corruption despite recent reforms and President Atambayev’s concerning consolidation of power. This makes Putin’s Russia or China a more appealing partner to Central Asian states than the United States, particularly because of historical ties and similarities in governance. Because of these issues, U.S. efforts in the region must include prioritizing the improvement of America’s standing among the people and governments of Central Asia. American interests in the region can be categorized in three main ways. First, maintaining the stability of these states is critical to ensuring that a radical Islamic state is not created. With the rise of ISIS and other radical groups, Central Asia’s proximity to the Middle East and large Muslim populations make it a critical region for both the U.S. and Russia to fight terrorism. ISIS has recruited thousands of fighters from the region, and it is in the best interest of both the U.S. and Russia to stem this source of ISIS fighters and ensure that the governments do not fall to radical groups. Second, the United States, because of the region’s location and the growing attraction of Russian and Chinese resources, has a strong interest in preventing either Russian or Chinese hegemony in Central Asia. With increasingly aggressive stances by both nations in foreign affairs, another region dominated by either power detracts from U.S. strategic interests. Maintaining a strong U.S. presence in the region and creating a positive impression of the U.S. among its people can help American interests in other areas of the globe by weakening Russia and China overall. Finally, the United States has an interest, as it does around the world, in encouraging economic liberalization, better human rights protections, and political liberalization in Central Asian states. In order to advance these interests, the United States needs to pursue a balance of soft power, foreign investment, and diplomacy. Changing Central Asian perceptions of the United States is a long-term project
that is essential to creating an environment where the U.S. can effect meaningful change in the region. While it is unlikely that the people of Central Asia, many born into the Soviet system, will have a majority favorable view of the U.S. for a long time, any incremental gains are important, particularly with the existence of Russian propaganda and influence over Central Asian governments. The U.S. can pursue this goal through several means. First, the United States needs to scale back its overt support for certain NGOs, particularly those related to democratic reform and support for opposition parties. Russia’s anti-NGO rhetoric has made foreign NGOs in Russia and this region incredibly unpopular and a symbol of American meddling in the domestic affairs of nations. Overt U.S. support only plays into the hand of this prevailing view, and should be scaled back. Second, the U.S. should increase cultural and scientific exchanges with Central Asian countries. Person-to-person exchanges are a highly effective means of influencing domestic opinion of the United States because returning nationals can extol the benefits of American economic and cultural institutions while locals are exposed to Americans themselves. This is particularly true when an admiration for this part of America already exists in much of the region. Finally, the U.S. should increase trade and travel with Central Asia. Exposure to American products and businesses will give the people of Central Asia a more positive impression of both American culture and its institutions, making many of the aims discussed above possible. Ensuring the stability of Central Asian states will require direct engagement by the United States with the five governments and assistance to those governments in responding to threats from radical groups. The U.S., Russia, and Central Asian governments should work together to identify and stop potential radicals before they have a chance to join ISIS and other terrorist groups. If any of the states (besides Kyrgyzstan, which has a functioning parliamentary system) make any moves towards real democracy, the United States should provide full support for those efforts as requested by the government. Finally, it is critical that the United States be prepared for potentially destabilizing events in the region, such as
Fall 2015
the death of one of the long time heads of state such as the aging President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. These events could create an opening for radical Islamic groups and increases the possibility of civil war, as seen in the Tajik civil war after its post-Soviet government fell in the 1990s. Balancing against Russian and Chinese influence in the region is important to the United States both because of the intrinsic importance of the region and the fact that Russia and China see it as important to their foreign policies. In order to successfully maintain a niche for the U.S. among these competing interests, American foreign policy must work with, not against, the local governments and provide incentives for governments in the region to accept U.S. aid and advice. This is particularly necessary as Russia and China increase their economic investments in the region. For instance, the U.S. could encourage the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to make more investments in the region, and the U.S. could make investments of its own to help with economic development. This is particularly necessary as China seeks, through its Silk Road Fund, to fund large infrastructure projects in the region in order to extend Chinese trade routes to Europe. The United States cannot be on the sidelines as Russia and China expand their role in the region, and these efforts, along with those mentioned above, can help the U.S. maintain an important role in the region. As a global power, the United States has interests in almost every corner of the world. However, the U.S. also has limited resources, and, therefore, it must prioritize where it deploys those resources. Central Asia, for the reasons above, is crucial to American interests and needs the attention it deserves from American policymakers. Even after it ceases to be a pit stop for American forces bound for the War on Terror, the United States must continue to be engaged in the region. If America does not, other nations will fill the void, and the U.S. will lose an opportunity to help a region recovering from Soviet rule become fully incorporated into the international community. Afp Connor may be reached at connorp@princeton.edu
7
EUROPE
STUCK IN THE MIDDLE
THE POLISH AND LITHUANIAN STRUGGLES TO FIND A PERSUASIVE VOICE IN EUROPEAN POLICY-MAKING Justinas Mickus ’18
A
s the world watched Russia annex Crimea in March 2014, some of the top diplomats in Poland and Lithuania politely (or macabrely, depending on the point of view) reminded the world, “We told you so.” The two Eastern European countries, having joined the European Union in 2004, quickly assumed the position of Moscow’s harshest critics within the EU and the broader Western political system. Even when Poland significantly reduced its confrontational attitude towards Russia in words and deeds when it became invested in solidifying its position as an integral EU member state, it still remained highly responsive to whatever the Kremlin was doing and escalated the Russian question within EU institutions. As such, it is easy to see how Russia’s unprecedented actions in Crimea were met as a validation of the position Lithuanian and Polish diplomats had maintained for over a decade. This is a dangerous mindset for either of the two countries to assume, as it reduces the incentive to truly integrate into the Western political system, a goal both countries have consistently described as their underlying national interest. Needless to say, addressing the corrupt and aggressive regime of Mr. Putin and preventing the potential Russian threat are necessary and commendable goals. However, the best protection against the Kremlin lies beyond the scope of high politics. Rather, it is only by creating a modern, active, and western-minded political society and forging politically relevant interdependencies with the West that these post-Soviet states can effectively minimize the
8
threat from their big neighbor. This, of course, is not to suggest that the exact same proposal has never entered the minds of policymakers of Lithuania and/or Poland. Both countries declare comprehensive Westernization as their fundamental national interest. This includes creating economic interdependency with the West, integrating into the European energy markets and infrastructural system, creating accountable and efficient political institutions, increasing cultural and informational exposure to the West, and solidifying
“...it is easy to see how Russia’s unprecedented actions in Crimea were met as a validation of the position Lithuanian and Polish diplomats had maintained for over a decade.” the Western liberal political and civil values in their nations. Most of these goals are motivated by negative feelings toward Russia. Westernization is understood as moving away from the Soviet-era business connections and political practices, thereby reducing the exposure and potential vulnerability vis-à-vis Russia. In effect, however, the declared goals achieve little past their declarations. Most of the strategic objectives require significant politi-
American Foreign Policy
cal will and resources that neither country seems to be willing to put in its relations with the EU. Conversely, security issues that are usually addressed with the help of NATO and US are often tackled with great enthusiasm and are broadly supported by all major political parties and the electorate. Thus, while Lithuania and Poland hold regular military exercises (often with the US) and were quick to increase their military commitments in wake of the Ukrainian crisis, they took over 15 years to approve a project for an electricity link between the two countries, despite the consistent rhetoric of how essential energy security is to both Vilnius and Warsaw. There are two main reasons why Lithuania and Poland rarely go beyond addressing the direct, conventional security threat posed by Russia. The first is cultural (or ideational) and is rooted in the historical legacy of the two countries. The Russian coercive power threat resonates with the prevailing negative attitudes towards the Soviet legacy both in the society and the political elites. Mr. Putin, a KGBstrongman turned President, is the first symbol of how close to the former USSR modern Russia is. The inevitable historical parallels have a tremendous effect on the attitudes towards the West too. Because of its principled and tough stance on the USSR during the Cold War, the United States continues to be perceived as a trustworthy ally for Lithuania and Poland. Meanwhile, the Western Europe’s legacy of Ostpolitik , which was characterized by cautious and pragmatic relations with the Soviet Union, makes many in Lithuania and Poland regard the Old EU member states as unwilling and unable to appropriately deal with Moscow. Because of the cultural and historical predisposition towards the US, Washington’s security policy becomes the primary determinant of Lithuanian and Polish foreign policy. The paradigm of “Washington before Brussels” is a public secret within the political elites of
Europe either country. At the same time, neither country boasts any significant bargaining leverage against the US, making the partnership between the countries highly imbalanced and one-sided. As long as the American and Lithuanian/ Polish interests converge, this phenomenon does not cause significant problems. However, as witnessed during the short period of a planned reset in US-Russia rela-
“The Russian coercive power threat resonates with the prevailing negative attitudes towards the Soviet legacy both in the society and the political elites. Mr. Putin, a KGB-strongman turned 3UHVLGHQW LV WKH ÂżUVW symbol of how close to the former USSR modern Russia is.â€? tions in 2008-2010, if Washington changes its stance on Moscow, the Eastern EU countries are left with very little control over their strategic interests. The same lack of economic and/or political interdependence also limits the AmericanLithuanian-Polish cooperation to security issues only, leaving broader economic and/or societal issues for the EU. Here, however, comes the second factor: the current economic interdependence with Russia hinders comprehensive economic integration with the West. It is essential to note here that this applies primarily to Lithuania, as Poland is in a much better position given its close economic partnership with
Germany. Still, both countries are highly exposed to Russian economic interests and subject to Moscow’s economic influence, most notably regarding the energy sectors in Poland and Lithuania. Because of that, while specific groups within the countries’ societies and political elites recognize the unfavorable asymmetrical interdependence with Russia as a potential threat, the existing interdependencies themselves often hinder any foreign policy strategy on the question, both at formation and execution stages. Because broader economic interdependence with many of the Western European states is limited, there is little interest in getting involved in broader European political issues, contributing to the single-issue direction of Lithuanian foreign policy direction. Because the main external factors influencing the countries’ foreign policy are countries on which Vilnius and Warsaw can exert little to no influence, and because various domestic reasons (economic interests and historical or cultural attitudes) prevent deeper Europeanization, Poland and Lithuania have limited autonomy in actively pursuing their declared national interest. Despite a marked progress in certain areas pertaining to some strategic goals of the countries (i.e. expanding EU energy security program, permanent NATO security presence in Eastern Europe), Lithuania and Poland generally remain policy takers within the Euro-Atlantic structures. When external factors increase policy convergence between the main political actors (such as in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis), they can and do become selective policy initiators, bargaining for a more principled Western position against Moscow and a more active Western presence in the EU Eastern neighborhood. When they do not, these countries are left to wait for another chance to say, “we told you so.� Afp
AFP Quiz Multiple Choice Quarterly Molly Reiner ’17 1. How many refugees did French President Francois Hollande promise to accept in the next two years? A. 10,000 B. 20,000 C. 24,000 D. 32,000 2. Which Asian country hosted the historic November 2015 summit betwen Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese President Ma Yingjeou? A. Singapore B. Malaysia C. Japan D. South Korea 3. Which U.S. presidential candidate said “we want to go with databases� in reference to registering Muslims who enter the United States after fleeing violence in the Middle East? A. Ben Carson B. Jeb Bush C. Donald Trump D. Bernie Sanders 4. Former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat was arrested after being accused of collecting how much in bribes? A. $200 million B. $230 million C. $250 million D. $260 million 5. Suspects in the November terrorist attacks in Paris fled to which country, prompting school closures and a massive manhunt? A. Luxembourg B. Belgium C. United Kingdom D. Canada Answers on page 17
Justinas may be reached at jmickus@princeton.edu
Fall 2015
9
A: Liberal Justin Trudeau was
B: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of C: ISRAEL has seen an increase in
G:
H:
elected the Prime Minister of CANADA on October 20, replacing the Conservative government of former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.
Action, a nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic of IRAN and the P5+1 was reached in Vienna on July 14 and passed the U.S. Congress in early September and was adopted by the U.S. in October.
A stampede at the holy mosque Al-Qaeda linked terrorists took in Mecca, SAUDI ARABIA killed over hostages in the luxury Radisson in 1000 people on September 24 during the Bamako, MALI, killing more than 20 hajj, a holy pilgrimage for Muslims. people.
10
American Foreign Policy
terrorist attacks following a perceived change in the status quo over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
I:
Conservative Mauricio Macri was elected President of ARGENTINA on November 22 on the platform of liberalizing economic reforms, kicking the long-ruling Peronist movement out of power.
D: Large numbers of refugees have
fled to European nations such as GERMANY after escaping violence in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
E: ISIS, the Taliban, and state
military forces fight over territory in AFGHANISTAN, prompting President Obama to extend U.S. military presence there through 2016.
J: The Daily Beast levied accusations K: AUSTRALIA signed a free
against the Obama administration in the UNITED STATES for covering up intelligence about ISIS to exaggerate military supremacy.
trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China in July, signaling a step forward in relations between the two countries.
Fall 2015
F: Terrorism struck Paris,
FRANCE on November 13, where a series of coordinated attacks in public spaces killed 130 people.
L:
A case of ebola has been confirmed in LIBERIA, after the West African country had been declared ebola-free in September.
Source:The BBC, CNN, The Economist
11
EUROPE
REFUGEE POLITICS
THE EUROPEAN UNION’S PATH TOWARD ACTION Nicole Don ’19
I
n 2014, America faced a humanitarian challenge and a momentous decision: what to do with the thousands of unaccompanied, underage children transported from Central America and into the ultimate custody of U.S. border officials. Like Europe today, the crisis initiated criticism of the status quo from both asylumgranting and border-building perspectives. As Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote in a 2014 op-ed in the LA Times regarding the crisis, “We must ensure humane treatment of these vulnerable children, and we must also take action to address the root causes of this surge in crossings by unaccompanied children.” Though the influx of refugees in Europe is not solely comprised of minors, and stems mainly from the war in Syria, Europe could do well to apply Feinstein’s wisdom to its current predicament. Europe’s slow political response has been censured by the UN and given its own coinage in German media: Flüchtlingspolitik , or refugee politics. Europe’s slow awakening and current plans reveal how xenophobic sentiment and nationalism are threatening not only the refugees swarming the EU’s borders, but also dividing the European Union itself. As sectarianism fractures poorer states in the Middle East and Asia, Europe and its comparative wealth stand as a haven for those who have nothing to lose. The Syrian conflict finds its immediate roots in the Arab Spring uprising in March 2011. Rather than spur democracy as the West hoped, however, the Arab Spring has kickstarted a civil war tallying more than 200,000 casualties thus far. Opposition to Bashar alAssad’s regime in Syria has been met with military force, bombings on civilian buildings, and chemical warfare. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has not quieted down either. Millions of refugees are fleeing to Europe from Eritrea, Myanmar, and Afghanistan to escape numerous other conflicts. Like America, Europe is not wholly responsible for its current border problems, nor has it ignored them. According to the European Commission’s recent report, more than 3.9 billion euros in humanitarian aid have reached Syria and its neighboring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt from EU countries. Nevertheless, as the report grimly details, the Syrian
12
crisis has displaced 7.6 million Syrians internally, with 4 million registered refugees and millions more in need of humanitarian assistance. The sheer need is staggering, lending a perspective to the European conservatives’ rebuttal that to accept refugee quotas upon EU states merely treats the symptoms while the disease itself festers. When one looks at such a viewpoint, some common themes emerge, namely, that conservative measures have not solved the refugee crisis. People will still be displaced
“Europe’s slow awakening and current plans reveal how xenophobic sentiment and nationalism are threatening not only the refugees swarming the EU’s borders, but also dividing the European Union itself.” and end up on Europe’s doorstep, whether they are welcome there or not. Thailand is facing a similar situation. This past May, Thailand cracked down on smugglers transporting refugees of the persecuted Rohingya minority from Myanmar to safety. The result left thousands stranded on boats, helpless. In comparison, Italy cut funding for its more than 144 million dollar Mare Nostrum program in 2014, which hitherto rescued an estimated 150,000 refugees in international waters, and replaced it with a border management system named Frontex, which only operates 30 miles off the Italian coast. While Italy cannot be held responsible for the bulk of the Mediterranean’s maritime rescue operations, neither should it have downsized before receiving commensurate promises from EU countries that they would contribute their share to Frontex in terms of equipment and funding. It is akin to deregulating Wall Street right before it is about to nosedive. As U.N. refugee chief Antonio Guterres remarked, “Until we had this massive movement into Europe, there was no recognition
American Foreign Policy
in the developed world of how serious this crisis was.” Though hardly an excuse, the status quo had allowed Syria’s more immediate neighbors to bear the brunt of displaced persons, while Italy tended Europe’s Mediterranean border. A decline in humanitarian funding from the EU, Guterres added, may have provoked the more visible exodus to Europe we are now witnessing. But from both a moral and UN human rights standpoint, current nationalist and xenophobic sentiments amongst EU members only prolong the suffering of refugees who have already survived the perilous journey from war-torn Syria, Eritrea, and Afghanistan. Countries such as Austria and Germany, as states not only committed to the European Union values of open borders and cohesion, but also as bearers of the dangers of nationalism, should take a leading role in stopping this human tragedy playing out on the beaches of Greece, where the body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found. The plans currently in the works in Europe include everything from more humanitarian aid, to a quota system to distribute the load of incoming residents, to, more controversially, the building of camps outside of the European Union, which would potentially deny European asylum claims to all those housed within the camps. In other words, asylum reform right now is as defensive as Prime Minister Cameron in Britain and as divisive as the fences being built in Prime Minister Orban’s Hungary. As President of the European Parliament Martin Schultz, in his New York Times op-ed entitled “Don’t Blame Europe for the Refugee Crisis,” phrased it, “Solidarity must be a two-way street.” Moreover, one might even accuse the EU’s greatest criticizers of shifting part of the blame away from themselves. Turkish President Erdogan notably censured Europe for making a ‘cemetery for refugees’ out of the Mediterranean. While Turkey has borne the largest burden in refugees thus far, erected camps on its eastern borders, and allowed American use of its strategic Incirlik Air Base, its motives and policies have proven a bit murkier. Through lax borders, American officials say, Turkey has hastened the transport of arms and recruits to ISIS. Never mind that by bombing the Kurds and thus hampering Kurdish anti-ISIS insurgency efforts, he’s inadvertently funneling yet even more desperate Syrians into deadly Mediterranean waters. A shadow market of smugglers has flourished in coastal cities like Izmir, where corruption capitalizes on lax Turkish border control. America, too, has been reticent in extending its own immigrant quota, finally agreeing to enlarge it from 70,000 to 100,000 people a year by 2017. Predictably, there has already been backlash. No nation
Europe
A French boy welcomes refugees to his country. Image courtesy of Flickr.
wants a child washing ashore, but neither, it seems, do they want to feed or educate him. If refugees’ humanity and the European Union’s dignity are to be preserved, or at least attempts thereof, Europe will have to accept practical and optimized quotas across the EU states that account for the exhausted, scared refugees already sleeping in Europe’s train stations and alleyways. Once more, we can look at the 2014 American example and how today’s situation differs. In explaining the 2014 American refugee crisis’ seemingly smooth resolution, factors have ranged from Mexico’s own crackdown
“...the mere permeability of European borders—the crowning glory of the European Union—is Europe’s greatest incentive for the desperate refugee.” on illegal immigration, to the detainment of families at the U.S. border, to warning Central American families against making the perhaps fatal trek to America. Yet unlike America’s situation, Europe has less of an option of outright refusal; an awareness campaign against crossing the Mediterranean sounds laughable given the dangers of
staying in war-torn Syria. In many cases, deportation too is simply unfeasible given the almost unprecedented level of domestic displacement in Syria. Regarding incentives, while it sounds appealing to say that reducing aid discourages refugees from making the journey to Europe, and perhaps some are indeed persuaded against it, the mere permeability of European borders—the crowning glory of the European Union—is Europe’s greatest incentive for the desperate refugee. Once in Hungary, if one can make the trip unregistered to, say, Austria or Germany, he or she has struck gold. Once in the EU, refugees will naturally be incentivized toward places with opportunity and stronger economies, constantly testing the balance of which country shoulders the most weight. Therefore, if Europe is to distribute refugees effectively, care will have to be taken to ensure that states with weaker economies have equal, if not more resources available to refugees to balance the natural advantage given to those in countries like Germany. Such policies might help mitigate rising xenophobia or resentment as the refugees resettle. Yet, as President Schultz urged, successful integration of the refugees of the Middle East and Africa will require more than a rescue operation and basic shelter as winter approaches. That is, if Europe seeks a long-term solution at all. Merkel, despite pledging integration and inclusion, recently remarked that the majority of Syrians would likely receive three years of residency in Germany, adding, “...we don’t have the task of keeping
Fall 2015
everyone here for life.” Such a remark not only supposes a soon end to the conflict in Syria, but also, given Germany’s current demographic of Turkish citizens and Turkish heritage Germans, seems perhaps too optimistic. After all, the Turkish population of Germany, who faces discrimination and integration issues even today, itself stemmed from a “guest worker” program whose participants Germans welcomed yet assumed would one day return to their home country. Unlike the Turkish case in Germany, the reason behind the current influx of refugees into Europe is not economics, but rather necessity, and the longer Europe waits to accommodate its new residents, the more it worsens the problem and fuels security concerns down the line. Already, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is warning of a “missed” generation, millions of children who have missed out on an education amidst the flight for their safety. The sooner Europe responds, both domestically and internationally, the stronger the European Union will be, and by extension, the weaker its enemies. Afp
Nicole may be reached at ndon@princeton.edu
13
ASIA
THE TURMOIL OVER TPP
PROSPECTS FOR THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP Andrew Hersh ’18
F
ree trade agreements have come to play a substantial role in linking the increasingly interconnected and globalized economy. Although protectionists fear the effects that international trade would have on harming domestic industry, economist David Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage indicates that such fears are flawed. The essence of his 200-year-old law is that even where one country holds an absolute advantage over another country in all industries, gains can still result from voluntary trade, as countries export the goods for which they have a “comparative advantage” – that is, the good they can produce at the lowest opportunity cost. Still, Ricardo’s principle relies on several assumptions which may not be satisfied in the real world. For one, it assumes that labor can freely move between industries, so that workers displaced by cheaper imports can gain new jobs in the export industry. Of course, this often does not hold true. Still, wages should rise in both countries stemming from greater productivity as a result of specialization. As such, free trade has gained prominence over the past few decades, but fierce debates still erupt between advocates and opponents. This is seen most clearly in the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPP is an ambitious free-trade agreement consisting of 12 countries, which - when combined - account for 40% of the world’s GDP. Notably, the agreement excludes China. The Obama administration has pushed TPP as a complement to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union, and as a means of pivoting towards Asia while countering Chinese influence. It will also help establish economic rules for the global economy as Asia emerges as a central market power. In accordance with TPP’s goal of promoting free trade, nearly all tariffs between member countries are eliminated. Yet this is only a portion of TPP’s agenda – it also seeks to improve living standards and welfare, promote sustainable growth, and ensure high labor and environmental standards. TPP also includes comprehensive intellectual property provisions
14
to enforce copyright law, and enables greater competition between private enterprises and state-owned enterprises. The Brookings Institution estimates that TPP would produce $5 billion in revenue for the U.S. in 2015, with greater revenue increasing over the decade. Small business exporters would also benefit from the reduction in tariffs. Perhaps most critically, TPP would open Japanese markets to promote greater international trade with this economic superpower. After six years of negotiations, TPP still faced political obstacles. Fortunately for the Obama administration, the approval of “fast track negotiating authority” in June assisted in the completion of negotiations. Fast track enables the president to negotiate trade agreements for which Congress has 90 days to either approve or disapprove and is restricted from amending or filibustering. After expiring in 2007, there were concerns that foreign countries involved in TPP would be deterred from concluding negotiations due to fears of a potential Congressional overhaul. The renewal of fast track cleared a major stumbling block for TPP, although it has been criticized as placing too much power in the executive branch. Senator Rand Paul and others have also criticized fast track due to the secrecy surrounding the trade deal, finding fault in Congress’s restriction from properly reading the treaty, debating, and amending it before voting. Another obstacle emerged from Japan’s socalled “sacred products”– rice, wheat, beef and pork, dairy products, and sugar. These agricultural products are deeply enshrined in Japanese culture, and rice farmers are the backbone of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party. The United States sought to have Japan lift restrictive tariffs on rice imports, but Japanese rice farmers viewed this as a threat to their way of life. Although they produce just 0.8% of Japan’s GDP and are dwindling in number, these agricultural farmers, backed by the powerful lobby Ja, exert a powerful influence on the government and have produced an impasse in the talks. There were concerns that a breakthrough would not emerge until after the 2016 presidential election
American Foreign Policy
due to the power of the farmers, which could have potentially hindered TPP further given the uncertain political climate after 2016. Moving beyond these obstacles, the TPP has been subject to fierce international criticism. As mentioned above, the secrecy of its 19 rounds of negotiations has been criticized by such figures as Senators Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alan Grayson, and others, with Wikileaks leaking several documents related to the talks. They contend that the lack of transparency prevented scrutiny and criticism of its provisions, and keeps the public in the dark. Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has criticized TPP for damaging labor and safety laws and benefiting large corporations while outsourcing jobs. While there may be some truth to this, it is important to note that recent years have seen a trend of “reshoring,” or bringing companies back to the U.S. due to increasing labor costs and changes in labor laws overseas. The benefits of voluntary trade, as elucidated by David Ricardo, still persist, although the secrecy is disturbing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international non-profit digital rights group, is perturbed by restrictive provisions over copyright law which also hamper Congress’ ability to engage in domestic law reform concerning copyrights. The New England Journal of Medicine also contends that restrictive copyright law and patent extensions would hurt millions by preventing access to affordable medicine. Others, such as the economist Joseph Stiglitz, assert that TPP would increase global income inequality while enriching corporations, and criticize the secrecy as anti-democratic. Paul Krugman takes a different approach, writing that the TPP’s impact on free trade is limited, given that there are only few trade barriers between TPP countries in place. Although he states to support free trade, he takes issue with the intellectual property provision, asserting that it would expand the monopoly power of large corporations for dubious, rather than legitimate, reasons. Still, even while progressives tend to oppose TPP for the plethora of reasons cited above, some view it as a useful method of influencing foreign countries to comply with stricter human rights and environmental standards. Yet in July, the White House upgraded Malaysia from “Tier 3” status in human trafficking, the worst possible rank, to “Tier 2,” in a move seemingly designed to include Malaysia in TPP fast-track legislation. This move was extremely disconcerting to many Democratic legislators, with Senator Robert Menendez fuming that “they have elevated politics over the most basic principles of human rights.”
Asia There are some additional negotiations beyond TPP that are underway. One of these is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, which includes only Asian countries. Unlike TPP, this one includes China, and is led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). RCEP member nations account for $17 trillion of world GDP. Nine rounds of negotiations have already taken place, and along with TPP would bolster free trade in the Asia-Pacific region. Another idea is the Free-Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which China revived at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in 2014. Endorsed by APEC, the FTAAP would include both the United States and China, but for now remains a distant dream. Adding to the alphabet soup of trade negotiations is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union. Interestingly, much of the same arguments and opposition voiced at TPP can be heard surrounding TTIP. The negotiators represent 60% of global GDP, and so combined with TPP would present a revolutionary transformation of global trade. TTIP seeks to include provisions designed to eliminate tariffs and open up markets for free trade, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, and enhance cooperation on international standards. After ten rounds of negotiations, it has also faced criticism over a potential loss of jobs and for placing too much power in the hands of large corporations while subverting the domestic laws of signatory nations. Still, TTIP is in its early stages, and will need several more rounds of negotiations before the public can discern its provisions. After 7 years of negotiations, the TPP was finalized on October 5, 2015. Now, a full and proper debate can be held regarding the TPP’s merits and vices - a debate that should have been held long ago, but was instead hindered by the shadows of secrecy. TPP failure would certainly represent a major blow to American leadership in the Pacific. It would be irresponsible to scrap the entire agreement, which will represent a major boon to the global economy, but it may be appropriate to alter certain provisions once a proper debate is held. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how precisely implementation of the TPP will affect other trade negotiations, and how these negotiations will complement the TPP. Afp
In Context Compiled by Molly Reiner ’17 “There can be no peace when we have an onslaught of terror—not here, not anywhere else... Israel is fighting these forces every hour, we’re fighting them directly, against the terrorists themselves, we’re fighting also against the sources of incitement.…It’s not only our battle, it’s everyone’s battle.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the recent increase in terrorist attacks in Israel.
“What the terrorists want is to scare us and fill us with dread. There is indeed reason to be afraid. There is dread, but in the face of this dread, there is a nation that knows how to defend itself, that knows how to mobilize its forces and, once again, will defeat the terrorists.” French President Francois Hollande in an address to the French people after the November 13, 2015 attacks on Paris that killed over 130 people.
“A leaner government can play a better role as macroeconomic finetuner, regulator for fair competition, champion of the reform agenda and ultimate backstop when systemic risks threaten.” Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on the future of the Chinese economy in an article published on November 2, 2015.
“Our air force’s military work in Syria must not simply be continued... It must be intensified in such a way that the criminals understand that retribution is inevitable.” Russian President Vladimir Putin in response to the October 31 bombing of a Russian passenger jet over the Sinai peninsula in Egypt.
“...behind us is history stretching for 60 years. Now before our eyes there are fruits of conciliation instead of confrontation.” Taiwanese President Ma Yingjeou on China-Taiwan relations during an historic summit between the leaders of Taiwan and China. Sources: The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Economist, Reuters, CBS
Andrew may be reached at ahersh@princeton.edu
Fall 2015
15
ASIA
AN ISIS EVIDENCE COVER-UP? AFP REVIEWS THE NEWS
I
n early September, The Daily Beast published an article describing the accusations levied on the Pentagon by 50 “intelligence analysts” (spies, in the common vernacular) who alleged that Defense Department reports on ISIS downplayed the threat posed by the terrorist organization. The senior CENTCOM analysts who brought the complaint stated that they felt as if political concerns outweighed honest investigation when it came to reporting on ISIS. This accusation came as President Obama formulated his strategy for combating the violent terrorist organization, which now consists of air strikes in conjunction with allies, but excludes a more robust military presence in the form of ground troops. According to the September 9 article, “The analysts have accused seniorlevel leaders, including the director of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that
Molly Reiner ’17 the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress.” Instead, the analysts say, the evidence suggests that the U.S. military effort against these terrorist groups is not nearly as successful as is being portrayed. The atmosphere preventing this side of the story from coming to light is apparently quite oppressive. Some analysts even went as far as using the term “Stalinist” to describe their superiors at CENTCOM. On November 23, The Daily Beast published a follow-up to their original article, updating the public on developments that have transpired since the original complaint was brought in July. The scandal now extends to a cover-up of evidence of the distortion of CENTCOM analysis at the highest level of the organization. Those in the cross-hairs of these allegations include Major General Steven Grove and his deputy Gregory Ryckman. As reported by Shane Harris and Nancy Youssef, the same journalists who wrote the original piece, these officials have been accused of deleting emails vital to the investigation of the July
complaint. Such acts would be considered obstruction of justice, in this case at one of the highest levels of the Defense Department. The matter is now being considered by Congress. On the same day that the follow-up article was published, Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, requested any documents regarding the ISIS evidence cover-up, including evidence of deleted documentation of any wrongdoing. Both the politicization of sensitive analysis and any cover-up of such behavior that ensued will have huge ramifications for the credibility of the Obama administration’s ISIS policy going forward. Especially after the Paris attacks and the heightened global terrorist threat that remains in its wake, The United States stands at a turning point in its role in the global war on terror. If the allegations of wrongdoing turn out to be correct, the current “advising-only” policy will certainly face fierce interrogation. Certainly, the complaint issued by these 50 CENTCOM analysts calls into question whether we were ever facing the “JV” version of ISIS in the first place. Afp Molly may be reached at mreiner@princeton.edu
American troops train Iraqi commandos, December 2010. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
16
American Foreign Policy
AFP
Syrian migrants stage a protest in Budapest. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
President Obama stands with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during the Japanese state visit to the United States in April 2015. New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau kisses his wife before victory speech. Images courtesy of Flickr and the Washington Post.
GLOBAL GALLERY
THE WORLD IN PICTURES Compiled by Lauren Wodarski ’17
AFP Quiz Answers Multiple Choice Quarterly 1. C 2. A 3. C 4. D 0H[LFDQ JRYHUQPHQW ZRUNHUV WDNH GRZQ D ÀDJ GDPDJHG LQ +XUULFDQH 3DWULFLD ,PDJH FRXUWHV\ RI 7KH %%&
Fall 2015
5. B
17
TALKING POINTS
THE WAY THEY SEE IT, CONTINUED 2016 CANDIDATES ON TODAY’S ISSUES
IN THIS SECTION The Iran Deal Trust but Verify?
Molly Reiner ’17
W
ith the 2016 elections less than a year away, this issue continues “The Way They See It,” a section with information about the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Molly Reiner brings you the top candidates’ takes on three of the most controversial foreign policy topics: the Iran nuclear deal, the current ongoing refugee crisis, and immigration reform.
The Refugee Crisis The U.S. Role in a Global Tragedy
Immigration Reform A Policy Turning Point THE IRAN DEAL In October, the United States adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 would make it to the President’s desk. Democratic party frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed the deal, but emphasized that the United States must make extra efforts to balance Tehran after sanctions were lifted. Republican candidate Ted Cruz had a radically different take on the matter, saying in a Capitol Hill rally held by fellow candidate and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, “Never, ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction as incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.”
Negotiatians for the JCPOA took place in Vienna. Image courtesy of Wikipedia
0DQ\ PLJUDQWV ÀHH WKH 0LGGOH (DVW E\ FURZGHG ERDW ,PDJH FRXUWHV\ RI :LNLSHGLD
18
American Foreign Policy
THE REFUGEE CRISIS After the Iran deal debate concluded, the United States turned its attentions to the massive outpouring of refugees from Syria and Iraq fleeing from both ISIS and President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime. Donald Trump has the most controversial take on the problem. “When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos, “I definitely want a database and other checks and balances. We want to go with watch lists. We want to go with databases.” Other candidates have led the outcry against Mr. Trump’s call for refugee watch lists, including Hillary Clinton, who tweeted on November 17 that “the idea that we’d turn away refugees because of religion is a new low.”
Talking Points IMMIGRATION REFORM Turning attention to migrants to the United States from Central and South America, immigration reform has become an important policy point for the 2016 candidates. Republican senator from Florida Marco Rubio has recently tried to align more closely with the Republican field by distancing himself from previous efforts to draft legislation to make it easier for people in the U.S. illegally to become legal citizens. Democratic candidate and senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders has focused on the exploitation that many undocumented workers face in the United States, highlighting that “the injustice in the lives of the workers was overwhelming.”
Americans call for immigration reform. Image courtesy of Flickr.
Learn more about issues relevant to American foreign policy on our blog, located at afpprinceton.com/blog.
Acknowledgement
American Foreign Policy magazine thanks the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University for its generous sponsorship. The Program is dedicated to examining the application of basic legal and ethical principles to contemporary problems and offers numerous opportunities for student engagement, including sponsoring conferences, seminars, lectures, and colloquia throughout the year. The Program’s Undergraduate Fellows Forum provides opportunities for Princeton undergraduates to interact with Madison Program Fellows and speakers. For more information on events and how to get involved please visit the Program’s website. http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/
Fall 2015
19
ARE YOU A FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT?
Write for AFP! www.afpprinceton.com