The Emory Journal of International Affairs - Spring 2017

emory globe international treaty vote everybody muslim military million spending budget crooked greatest work media winning president syria thousand support country friend awful tomorrow forward run beautiful

DONALD TRUMP

angry china trade deal amazing america mexico incredible billion number big money huge states business world immigration lots problem tremendous capitalism people obama jobs russia republican party

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

spring 2017

masthead CONTACT US emoryglobe@gmail.com emoryglobe.com PUBLICATION The Emory Globe is a student-run publication published for and distributed to the Emory community.

The statements and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the entire star or those of Emory University, its students, faculty, staff, or administration.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS The Emory Globe staff welcomes letters to the editors but reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, grammar, libel, obscenity, and invasion of privacy.

ADVERTISING The Emory Globe does not host advertisements in its issues.

IN THIS ISSUE Cover design: Andrew Teodorescu

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Kaitlyn Posa MANAGING EDITOR Emily Lim PUBLICATIONS EDITOR Andrew Teodorescu DIGITAL EDITOR David Hervey ASSISTANT DIGITAL EDITOR Namrata Verghese ASSOCIATE EDITOR Zoe Robbin TREASURER Maya Lakshman

STAFF Aleksei Kaminski Avery Scope Crafts Camilo Moraga-Lewy Eli Gershon Hemal Prasad Gabi Yamout Jacob Hess Mary Beth Bloomer Pooja Kanabur Pranav Anand

contents 03 05 LATIN AMERICAN POLICY CAMILO MORAGA-LEWY

THE REFUGEE CRISIS AVERY SCOPE CRAFTS

07

THE MEXICO CITY POLICY POOJA KANABUR

08

ISLAMOPHOBIC POLICY ALEKSEI KAMINSKI

09

THE U.S. DOLLAR JACOB HESS

11

YEMEN RAID POOJA KANABUR

12

"FAIR" IMMIGRATION ALEKSEI KAMINSKI

13

TALKING TO TAIWAN RICHARD WANG

15

ABOUT THE WRITERS

16

AFTERWORD

THE GLOBE | 2

U.S. POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA AND OUR IMMIGRATION PROBLEM CAMILO MORAGA-LEWY, Staff Writer

T

he United States is a nation of immigrants. From the European and American Native conflicts of the 16th century, to the forced arrival of slaves in the colonies, the influx of new and different peoples has always been a major driving force of domestic unrest in the United States.

In recent decades, Latin American immigration policy has been one of the more contentious points in American politics, occupying a significant portion of party platforms.

In the 2016 presidential elections, Donald Trump focused1 on building a wall on the Mexican border and his plan to deport immigrants. His immigration policy became central to his electoral win, in the manner rallying cries against immigrant or minority groups have been central to the success of many political factions throughout history.

Trump and many of the American people fail to examine the causes behind this immigration. A practical and effective approach to managing immigration would attack the problem at its source, not just at the border. Building walls and emphasizing harsher punishments for illegal immigrants, as Donald Trump’s Immigration Plan2 proposes, will not deter desperate immigrants from the United States, many of whom face prospects more dismal than those found on the fringes of North American society. This is more of the same approach that United States politicians have been trying for decades: building a dam without first diverting the flow of a river.

The source of this river is the poor economic conditions and human security challenges in Latin America. The United States’ foreign policy in Latin America has been a major factor in the creation of this environment. Beginning in the early 19th century, the United States waged war3 with Spain and France to clear the Americas of European influence. This culminated in the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed that the United States would not tolerate further colonialism in the Americas. Later, from 1902-1905, the United States’ policy of using military force to block European influence prevented invasions of Caribbean and Latin American countries. This policy, called Gunboat Diplomacy, prevented Europeans from continuing to influence Latin America allowed the region to become part of the United States’ American economic empire instead.

One of the countries secured in these years was Venezuela, which, in light of severe economic downturn, has recently

3

begun importing United States’ oil4 rather than providing it. Loud political dialogue from both countries’ leadership has clouded the fact that whichever way the resources are flowing, Venezuela still economically relies on the United States over a century after their initial intervention.

Proponents of the existing order in American continental trade would suggest that the actions of the United States saved Latin America from further European subjugation.

The United States was successful in this regard, but replaced European colonialism with itself at the head of a new economic system. These actions, and this tenacious sentiment of guardianship over the Latin American continent came in the era when counties now considered developed were completing their ascension to politically and economically secure states. This left many Latin American countries unable to insure their own economic stability.

The economic system of trade between the United States and Latin America is reliant on the lower wages paid in Latin America than in the United States, especially in maquiladoras5 and factories owned by U.S. firms. Many communities in Latin America are now economically reliant on performing these jobs, and the workers are payed so little that they cannot afford anything outside the necessities of life. As a result, there is a low local demand for local businesses that could provide organic sources of economic stability in these communities. While there is an enormous volume of trade between the United States and Latin America, the profit is concentrated in a very small portion of the population, with many Latin Americans left in poverty. It is true that countries other than the United States have been able to commence economic relations with Latin America, but they have only perpetuated the economic model instigated by the United States. This is the major reason why Latin America continues to be the region with the world’s highest inequality6. Poverty7 is one of the leading reasons for emigration, and it is the United States’ economic relations towards Latin America that has perpetuated it.

The other leading cause of emigration and subsequent immigration to the United States is violence8. The United States’ interventionist policy in Latin American governance has been a discernable cause of not only the continuing economic difficulties in the region, but also of the region’s

violence. In Nicaragua, the United States backed Somoza regime9 was known for being extremely oppressive throughout the 20th century. The Somoza era ended in the 1970s when a revolution supported by the impoverished majority of the country installed the first regime with popular support. This was followed by the costly and illegal Contra War10, which decimated the country for the much of the 1980s. The Sandinista Revolutionary Party currently rules Nicaragua, exemplifying the futile nature of United States interventions. Nicaragua, which faced several more United States interventions earlier in the 20th century, remains the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with dismal economic markers11.

Since the 1970 U.S. census, just preceding the years during which the United States actively engaged in or instigated Nicaraguan conflicts, the number of Nicaraguans living in the U.S. increased from 16,125 to 248,73512.

In El Salvador13 within the same time frame, another brutal United States-backed regime known to use U.S. trained soldiers to carry out genocide led the number of Salvadoran immigrants in the United States to increase from only 15,717 to over 1.2 million12.

As recent as 2009, a U.S. State Department-backed coup14 in Honduras lead to a 2010 spike in Honduran immigrants15 in the United States. These are some examples of the correlation between interventions by the United States and increased immigration from Latin America.

When it comes to the perpetual issue of immigration in the United States, we must look to ourselves before we accuse the vague entities of ‘Latin America’ or ‘Hispanics’ of creating the significant influx of immigrants. We must come to terms with the fact that it us, our policies and our government’s actions, that have played a role in causing this migration.

Whether one believes illegal immigrants should be barred from this country, or that they should be allowed

to enter and remain in the United States for humanitarian reasons, one important idea must be acknowledged: the massive movement of people should not be necessary to guarantee their survival and their means to an unhindered life. To prevent immigration, and to provide essential human rights to the people of Latin America, the United States should acknowledge that their overbearing influence in the political and economic affairs of Latin American states has had an unquestionable, negative effect. This acknowledgement should, in turn, be met with comprehensive action: not reparation payments or apologetic actions, but with two concrete changes in our policies.

The first of these measures should be a prohibition against new trade agreements that use protectionism against Latin America. The free trade agreements16 that the United States currently holds with many of Latin-America’s states are subject to change. The second of these actions would be a commitment to not interfere in the politics of the region without justification. Justifications will at times be found; Latin America’s proximity to the United States means that major unrest is a geopolitical threat greater than issues arising from the Eurasian or African continents.

As the ingenious and innovative immigrants have thrived in the United States, newer immigrants coming from Honduras, Mexico and other countries will likely overcome every obstacle placed in their paths. Their motivation comes from a need to provide a brighter future for themselves and their families, and they will come as long as the option to stay in their own countries is not a better one. The United States must do its part to improve this reality, and we must understand that immigration is not inherently wrong nor is it inherently dangerous. It is a natural feature of human behavior for which the goal should not be a rate of zero, but instead a healthy exchange at sustainable levels that strengthens the relations of countries and the health of human societies.

THE GLOBE | 4

U.S. LEADERSHIP NEEDED AMIDST THE REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE AVERY SCOPE CRAFTS, Staff Writer

O

n January 27, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a monumental executive order 1 that effectively cut the United States off from aiding the rest of the world. The order, which barred people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days, additionally banned refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halted admission of Syrian refugees. This order comes two years after the number of forcibly displaced people surpassed 65 million 1 (of which over 21 million were refugees), facing the world with the worst refugee crisis in history; one that has since shown no signs of improvement.

Relentless conflicts within the Middle East and South Asia, namely in Syria and Afghanistan 3, are responsible for this predicament that has taken the world by surge.

Nearby countries, including Turkey and Lebanon, have continued to quietly bear the brunt of refugees, and yet many of the refugees aspire to end up in the EU. Unfortunately, their yearning for a better quality of life is the underlying cause for the humanitarian struggle spreading throughout Europe; a struggle that is only exacerbated by Trump’s executive order.

For such an extreme law, there is a surprising amount of reasonable justification provided in its defense. The policy was put into action to protect American civilians from the entry of those “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 4 Without even exploring the fallacy of this declaration, one can derive everything wrong with the current state of the country. Simply put, Trump and the United States are turning their backs on everyone outside of the country’s border lines. They are acting selfishly rather than as one part of a connected global system, and going against core values of compassion and integrity that it has aligned with in the past.

When asked about the refugee crisis, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon 5 replied that “Above all,

5

this is not just a crisis of numbers; it is also a crisis of solidarity.” 6 It is important to view the existing refugee situation from a humane aspect rather than analyzing the pure statistics of the matter. There are certain moments in history, such as the Haiti earthquake or the September 11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, when severe problems arise and the most essential worldwide response is one of community and harmony. Now is one of those times. For a country that prides itself in having the most political influence around the globe as the world’s biggest supplier of foreign aid 7, it is more than incredulous that the United States of all countries would be the one to abandon the principle of solidarity.

One might argue differently if this policy had unprecedented results. But, without a doubt, the United States’ denial of refugees in the current day is eerily similar to its rejection of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

Much of the modern refugee policy implemented by the U.S. is in response to the catastrophic events of the Holocaust Era. However, it appears that the ‘global superpower’ has long forgotten its flawed history and

the importance of learning from it. It is only fitting that the refugee ban was signed on Holocaust Remembrance Day 8, completing the full circle of blatant hypocrisy.

Even so, not only is this act atrocious in its own right, but its impact looms larger because of the implicit repercussions. By turning its back on those in desperate need of a safe home, the United States leaves Middle Eastern refugees with little choice but to head solely toward European countries. In addition to the overflow of people and the scarcity of space as a result of America’s isolationism, these aforementioned countries are left without a leader, a role the U.S. is accustomed to filling, to help guide them through this crisis.

All across Europe, countries are struggling internally with this conflict. On February 18th, tens of thousands of protestors in Barcelona took to the streets in retort to Spain’s lethargic response to embracing more refugees 9.

The protest followed Spain’s taking in of 1,100 refugees, despite the fact that it had promised to encompass roughly 16,000 in a 2015 quota system 10 agreement among EU countries. Spain is far from the only country

to appear inadequate at resettling incoming refugees.

In England, increasingly nationalistic views are becoming common, especially in middle to low income areas where refugees are settled 11. There, competition is at its highest between refugees and poorer citizens for valuable limited resources such as housing and state benefits. As Britain’s workingclass population feels ever more powerless and disrespected, incompatibility has proven to be inevitable, often leading to outrage and even violence.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that U.S. involvement in the crisis is essential to ameliorate the present situation. With no solution of any type in sight 12, the need for a leader to step forward and lead by example will only heighten in this time of uncertainty. As European countries struggle to deal effectively with refugees, it might be easy to defend the current U.S. refugee policy. Yet it is that exact reason why now more than ever, the Donald Trump-led United States must change its hypocritical ways and return to being the positively influential world power it once was, and still can be.

THE GLOBE | 6

FAMILY PLANNING UNDER THE MEXICO CITY POLICY POOJA KANABUR, Staff Writer

I

n January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order1 reinstating a policy that originated in the Reagan era. This policy, known as the Mexico City policy2, blocks United States government funding for foreign health providers who discuss abortion as a familyplanning option. Although United States law already prohibits the use of American taxpayer daughters for abortion services anywhere2, including in countries where the procedure is legal, President Trump has taken the prohibition further. His order threatens to freeze funding2 to any nongovernmental organizations in less developed countries if they offer abortion counseling or advocate for the right to seek abortion, a freeze which applies regardless of the source of funding for these abortion services.

Needless to say, President Trump’s order has resulted in mixed reactions throughout the nation—while some Americans are applauding the president for standing up for the rights of the unborn, others are criticizing the entire administration for its disregard of women’s reproductive rights. Interestingly enough, however, the most unexpected response comes from Europe.

On January 24, 2017 Lilianne Ploumen, the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in the Netherlands, launched a nongovernmental organization called She Decides2 in order to raise money for aid groups whose funding is threatened under the new order.

She Decides calls on governments and international organizations to give their political and financial support to sexual and reproductive health and family planning worldwide1. In particular, they encourage an increase in funding for organizations affected by the withdrawal of U.S. grants. Furthermore, She Decides urges countries that have been strongly negatively impacted by the president’s order to expand their implementation of sexual and reproductive health policy3 by allocating more money towards such programs.

The She Decides initiative is quickly taking the global playing field by storm. The Dutch ministry recently a donation of ten million euros4 to the organization, which Belgium and Denmark followed with matching grants.

Then, on March 2, 2017, the government of Belgium hosted an international conference in Brussels3, during which governments, civil society organizations, United Nations organizations, and members of the business community came together to discuss the rapidly growing initiative and its effect on family planning and sexual and reproductive health3. Furthermore, the conference

7

provided a platform for sexual health and family planning organizations to talk about their work and for women to share the importance of having access to such organizations.

There’s no doubt that the Mexico City policy has consistently been a polarizing force in American politics.

Since its introduction in 1984, Democratic administrations have suspended the policy multiple times, only for it to be re-imposed every time by Republican administrations2.

As a result, women have never truly enjoyed unrestricted access to family planning information and sexual and reproductive rights. However, the rapid momentum of the She Decides initiative suggests that perhaps, women are right on the brink of achieving complete access. In just two short months, She Decides has raised over 30 million euros1, hosted an international conference, and most importantly, has begun to raise awareness for a significant issue affecting billions of women around the globe.

And thus, by simply getting the world talking about the importance of reproductive rights, the She Decides initiative has the potential to change the future of family planning, despite any negative effects of President Trump’s executive order. As long as She Decides continues to raise funds and promote sexual and reproductive health, international aid organizations will have the opportunity to continue providing their services around the world, as well as increase their span to more nations.

In today’s day and age, the most important thing we has humans can do is join together to create a global movement so powerful that that women will finally gain the access to basic reproductive rights they so rightly deserve, regardless of any regressive acts that attempt to block this from happening. She Decides has begun this movement; it is up to us to continue it.

THE CATASTROPHE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA-BASED FOREIGN POLICY ALEKSEI KAMINSKI, Staff Writer

I

n the words of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, “Islamophobia” is catalyzing1 terrorism. With the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017, individualized xenophobia has seeped its transparent viscosity into international institutions, especially into foreign policy.

This is exemplified by several momentous events that took place across the Western world in the past year, in places ranging from the United Kingdom to France to the United States: the United Kingdom voting2 to leave the European Union, Marine Le Pen of the National Front gaining popular support3 in France, and endless4 executive orders under the 45th President of the United States—Donald Trump.

While all of these events have sparked a new wave of countering terrorism against “radical Muslims,” they in fact have and continue to perpetuate fear, hatred, and ignorance against Islam, Muslims, and the Arabic world at a societal level in the West. With xenophobia and its derivative Islamophobia seeping into foreign policy, it has begun to silently destroy the global economy and deeply affect the lives of all Muslims regardless of nationality, race, and gender As a matter of fact, retired General of the United States Army Wesley Clark stated six of the seven listed5 countries under President Trump’s ban were to be invaded and more so, destroyed during the second term of President Bush’s administration. Even before Islamophobic motives and notions passed into foreign affairs, the French government in 2011 signed a law banning the covering of the face, which led Muslim women who wear the Burqa and Niqab to be subject to legal discrimination in France until now. Now that Islamophobia has made its way into American foreign policy, President Trump’s immigration ban on citizens from Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen will in fact create6 a reputation for the United States to become an unreliable place to do business in and with until 2021. Such potential situations may and will include: rising import fees on U.S. goods, foreign governments denying entry to U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals boycotting the goods and services from U.S. companies While many share stances that are pro-immigration and against the immigration bans and xenophobia, in the eyes of Marine Le Pen, the British Parliament, and President Trump, such a popular opinion has implicitly allowed ethnic and religious discrimination to become societal norms. Although

ethnic and religious discrimination are declared illegal by law, they are considered legal to due to passivity and racist representation in the American, French, and British government.

Since Brexit won the popular vote for United Kingdom in June 2016, the rates of hate crime incidents in the United Kingdom from 2015 till now have risen7 by 326 percent, 61 percent of victims being women and 75 percent of them identified as Muslims. From an economic perspective, it is quite interesting to observe that President Trump left out8 three major Muslim-majority countries that have high records of terrorist output and suspects, namely Saudi Arabia and other economic hegemons, including Jordan and Egypt. Not only were such incentives on immigration and refugee policy just Islamophobic, they were also pragmatic in the special business interests of world leaders, such as Trump’s administration. Knowledge@Wharton claims that it will be much harder9 for certain international students to seek a higher education in the United States, as well as for companies, such as Starbucks unable to hire and help 10,000 refugees by 2022. From the global scale, HSBC, one of the largest international banks, profits fell by 82 percent over the course of 2016 after the Brexit Referendum10.

What will happen in France, the UK, and across the Western world? Will more governments in Western Europe and North America adopt policies to discriminate Muslims? In Marine Le Pen’s words: “Today, we can see that immigration has become favorable terrain for the development of Islamism.”11 From the National Front, immigration equals Muslim dominance which “equals” terrorism. This illustrates that any individual who scapegoats can progressively build a popular opinion as means to consequently legitimize hate and discrimination both individually and systemically. In the best interests of this world, both economically and most importantly, ethically, we must fight any level of preconceived notions of prejudice barring towards religion, race, and ethnicity. As of 2017, Islamophobia must be deterred from foreign policy before even what may worse happen—an apocalyptic world and leviathan institution fueled by racism, and xenophobia.

THE GLOBE | 8

THE U.S. WITH A STRONGER DOLLAR JACOB HESS, Staff Writer

T

he newly-elected President Donald Trump is faced with controversial issues every day, but lately, one has kept him tossing and turning in his presidential bed. According to Huffington Post,1 President Trump was reported to have “called his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn” for advice on his dollar policy at 3 a.m. While his question might have been ill-timed, the relevance of dollar fluctuations to the current state of the U.S. economy is certainly something Trump should be acknowledging. In particular, the value of the dollar affects the net exports part of gross national product and trade deals which are affected by foreign exchange movement.

At the Bretton Woods in 1944, the global economy unhinged its currencies from the value of gold and created the exchange rate system to moderate inflationary fluctuations. Nations and their governments would now be concerned with how their local currencies measured up against foreign currencies. For example, developing nations, like China and Brazil, need to design policies that maintain a stable rate of exchange so that foreign debt does not hinder the growth of their economies. A weaker renminbi or real (China’s and Brazil’s currency) can invite foreign investors to invest more capital into the Chinese or Brazilian business because relatively their currency is stronger.

The effects of capital inflows (and outflows) have a direct effect on how a country grows. The gross national product is often broken into four main categories: consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports. Currency fluctuations can cause this last category, net exports, to vary from period to period. A paper2 by Federal Reserve economists Chien and Morris discussed the effects a stronger dollar might have on the U.S. economy earlier this year.

They found that a two-year period of U.S. dollar strengthening corresponded with a negative net exports effect (which is calculated by subtracting imports from exports) on GDP which has shrunk to about 1 percent in 2016. The largest contraction in net exports occurred in the first quarter of 2015 when net exports had a -1.14 percent drag on total GDP. The economists concluded that, “the new episode of appreciation of the dollar that began over the past several months is likely to hurt the current growth rate of GDP through an increase in imports,” referring to a 3.75 percent increase in the value of the dollar between election night and the date the paper was published.

The appreciation in that period doesn’t appear to be that much, but a five-year chart of the U.S. dollar spot price

9

reveals that foreign exchange markets have the dollar valued at its peak. Some view this as a sign of financial stability in the United States as a stronger currency usually denotes that investors demand it more than other currencies.

That is not necessarily the case. Like an article3 in The Economist suggests, the movement of the U.S. dollar should be considered in conjunction with why that movement is occurring. Unfortunately, there has not been any large sudden upswing in demand for U.S. goods, so why are people clamoring to get their hands on some greenbacks?

It just so happens that the U.S. is one of the world’s leading producers of debt. As the Federal Reserve increases interest rates (and the rest of the central banks don’t), Treasury debt is paying a higher interest rate relative to other countries’ debt. Selling more debt does not mean the economy is growing. Government deficit spending is the most unsustainable part of the GDP equation as it leads observers to lose confidence in the government’s policies.

Hypothetically, when confidence in the government is lost, the economy starts to become more financially unstable, something a rising dollar isn’t supposed to indicate.

President Trump won the election on his call for a 4 percent growth rate, trade deal renegotiations, and a return of outsourced jobs to the United States. Forbes4 discusses his three-pronged promise and how it will, in the end, lead to an economic policy that pursues a stronger

dollar. Even though these goals appear to be hopeful and optimistic, they altogether ignore the fact that the U.S. dollar is at 5-year highs and liable to be a drag on net exports. Janet Yellen’s Federal Reserve has attempted to acknowledge this predicament, but the new leader of the U.S. refuses to back off his fiscally loose agenda.

One part of his agenda involves renegotiating major trade deals with some of the U.S.’s largest trading partners.

Using tweets and other media outlets, Trump has already managed to get major auto companies to return to the United States to recover a couple thousand jobs. Once again, policies like these sound economically beneficial, but having large amounts of capital outflows has proven to be healthy.

In another paper5 by the Federal Reserve, Senior Economist Yi Li Chien asserted that U.S foreign assets actually generate better return than U.S. foreign liabilities by a difference of almost 3.3 percent. In short, investments in countries outside the U.S. pay us more than foreign investments in the U.S. cost. By renegotiating trade deals and hassling companies to return to the United States, Trump is endangering these premium assets that allow us to run such large export deficits every year.

The dollar will start to strengthen even more as foreign consumers and firms are forced to buy more U.S. dollars to do business with the companies now embedded here. Yes, more jobs return to the United States, but a stronger dollar also results in lower relative demand for a multinational’s goods leading to a lower net income, and perhaps, the need to cut jobs.

It seems inevitable: the U.S. dollar is going to experience one of its strongest years in 2017 with higher interest rates

enticing investors to buy more Treasury debt. How does Trump embrace this trend while encouraging economic growth to continue to increase from its near anemic pace?

First, President Trump’s trade renegotiations need to be rethought out, and perhaps, even scrapped if they continue to be aggressive in nature. The business sector is in a fragile state with borrowing getting more and more expensive, and any contraction in corporate earnings could hurt business investment, a key section of GDP. Second, President Trump’s massive infrastructure program needs to be strategic and surgical. If another “stimulus package” is to be introduced, it cannot be a blanket of money carelessly thrown over the economy. Instead, the government needs to identify particular opportunities to improve the inner mechanisms of the economy while avoiding areas that are healthy. Overspending can lead to more debt which leads to a higher probability of a stronger dollar.

Finally, President Trump needs to stop being precocious with foreign allies (and enemies) on Twitter and in private. The combination of international uncertainty and a rising U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies can be a dangerous mixture leading to deflationary recessions. The Federal Reserve is already in the process of fighting off a bout of deflation, and any contradictory policy from Trump could be dangerous.

It may seem illogical that Trump is calling his aides in the middle of the night about his dollar policy, but in reality, it could be one of the most important parts of his economic policy. Even if the new administration’s policy respected the current U.S. dollar trend, unfavorable exchange rates will be an issue that businesses will have to grapple with this year.

THE GLOBE | 10

YEMEN RAID: THE OPERATION, THE AFTERMATH POOJA KANABUR, Staff Writer

O

n January 28, 2017 a well-rehearsed mission was supposed to extract computers and other important intelligence from an al-Qaeda camp near a mountain village. However, this soon turned into a massive conflict, resulting in the death of one Navy SEAL, 14 al Qaeda fighters, and 23 non-combatant civilians1. But how exactly did this mission come into play, and should it be seen as a success?

The details of how this U.S. Special Operations raid in Yemen was planned are still in dispute. While White House press secretary Sean Spicer has stated that the mission was discussed in the White House under former president Barack Obama, members of the former administration allege that is not true2. What is currently known is that in November 2016, U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations across the Middle East, submitted a plan to the Pentagon that discussed the possibility of at least one Special Operations raid3 against the headquarters of alQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a group of militants that U.S. officials believe are targeting the West with their attacks. The Obama administration claims that the raid was delayed for “operational reasons”3 and that former President Obama never signed off this specific operation before leaving office, though Spicer has implied that the approved plan included the raid carried out January 28.

According to a White House official, President Trump first learned about the plan3 from National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on the morning of January 25, five days after his inauguration. At a dinner in the White House residence that evening, Trump gave his conditional go-ahead to his top military brass on the advice of Flynn, his Defense Secretary nominee James Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He officially signed off the plan a day later3.

The raid was on an al-Qaeda compound in Yemen's Al Bayda province and was considered quite risky. The goal was to collect intelligence needed to aid future strikes against al-Qaeda and prevent terror attacks3, although the forces also hoped to target or gain intelligence to help find the leader of AQAP, Qassim al-Rimi. The raid involved

11

elite U.S. Navy SEALs and Special Forces from the UAE, with armed drones flying overhead in support, according to officials from several countries. But as forces approached the compound, they were detected and an intense firefight broke out1. During the battle, al-Qaeda fighters took up firing positions on the roof of a nearby building. As the U.S. troops came under fire, they called in an airstrike against the building, which led to the multiple civilian casualties.

This brings into question the success of the operation.

President Trump has declared the mission a success3, with the Pentagon releasing a statement claiming that U.S. forces had captured "materials and information that is yielding valuable intelligence." However, the raid has been described as a failure by a senior Yemeni military official3, among many others, including Senator John McCain. McCain, who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said in statement that although many objectives of the raid had been met,"[he] would not describe any operation that results in the loss of American life as a success."3 The raid has also appeared to amuse al-Rimi, the AQAP leader, who recorded an eleven-minute audio message taunting President Trump, saying that "the new fool of the White House received a painful slap across his face."3

The Yemeni embassy in Washington has said that it will continue to work with the U.S.in counter-terrorism operations3, indicating that the raid, regardless of its perceived success or failure, has not broken U.S. ties with Yemen. Furthermore, the raid has emphasized the fact that AQAP remains a resilient force in Yemen's society, and will continue to be until counter-terror methods are effectively implemented. Because operations against terrorist targets are a big part of bringing stability back to the country3, if the Yemeni government hopes to see political and social stability throughout the nation, they must continue to work with the U.S.to permanently undermine AQAP. Fortunately, following the raid both, Yemini and U.S. forces are more determined than ever to bring peace to Yemen and will continue to work together with a renowned sense of purpose until this goal has been met.

THE IRONY OF A "FAIR" IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IN THE WEST ALEKSEI KAMINSKI, Staff Writer

A

lthough additional proof of my citizenship is occasionally requested by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, why is it that a white American citizen like me is easily let through, while a person of color is much more likely to be “randomly selected” for further inspection or possible detainment? More so, a white American man who returns from his dream vacation in Cancun is accepted through customs without the officers paying any attention to his demeanor. The officers pay attention only to the color of his skin as he casually rolls his luggage waiting to come home to his sky-rise apartment, while a woman from Honduras is singled out and faced with possible detainment or deportation. These are the experiences for people of color and of discriminated ethnicities or faiths, who are not American citizens due to racism and ethnic fear.

According to the September 2016 U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Statement1, their policy is “to treat all individuals in a nondiscriminatory manner, without regard to their membership in a protected class.” This includes protection against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, parental status, genetic information, “or any other basis protected by Federal law, Executive Order, regulation or policy.” However, the legitimacy of this policy in practice was reprimanded due to previous and current racial and ethnic discrimination within the American judicial system. For example, the Indiana State Government2 and the Texas State Government previously held opposition with the Federal Appeals Court in order to prevent the resettlement of Syrian Refugee families.

Further evidence of this policy not being implemented in practice was the case3 of J.E.FM. v. Lynch, in which children of Mexican immigrants were deported without due process.

In addition, populist and anti-immigrant parties have spread across the West into France, the United Kingdom, and most noticeably, the United States to discourage immigrants from seeking refuge and opportunities. Even in Denmark, once considered one of the most politically progressive countries in the world, the recent influx of asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa has provoked the Danish government to dissuade4 further migration. For example, in August of 2016, the Danish government cut social benefits to refugees and immigrants in order to make Denmark seem a less appealing destination. As a matter of fact, the origins of such a bill reflect the growing power of the anti-immigrant and populist Danish People’s Party, which has been declared the second-largest party in Denmark since the last election in 2015. With no doubt, it is clear that xenophobia has manifested itself everywhere.

While many may argue that immigration has privileged many underprivileged people from countries in crises, Francesca Gaiba, a white Italian immigrant who obtained a U.S. Permanent Residence Card as an international student at Syracuse University, objects to such a fallacy. Gaiba states5, “This system was divisive and not inclusive” since she was placed into the “Green Card Lottery” also known as the United States Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which statistically favors mainly Irish, Canadian, and British immigrants and is only awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis to those in American educational institutions. Although the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program has recently helped a selected handful from Africa and mainly Europe, it is evident that the American immigration system has historically aimed for a “whiter America” and its effects are most visible under President Trump’s administration.

Xenophobia has been the catalyst for major humanitarian crises and political actions that target minority groups. For example, the so-called “War on Drugs” endlessly incarcerated Latinos and African-Americans for suspicion of international drug trafficking. Furthermore, recent immigration laws such as the “Muslim Ban” under President Trump’s administration has within American and European countries. In many ways, racial and ethnic discrimination within Western immigration systems have shown that our world, rather than being founded upon equality and justice, is centered upon the phenomenon of white superiority.

We must pressure the United States and all Western European countries to allow more immigrants and promote accountability for such xenophobic and racist actions. If we don’t begin so, we will build graves for our democracies into gulches fueled by racism that will perpetuate the continuum of humanitarian crises and the endless violation of civil and human rights.

THE GLOBE | 12

TRUMP'S TROUBLING DIALOGUE WITH THE TAIWANESE PRESIDENT RICHARD WANG, Contributing Writer

L

ike a child starting to challenge the boss in a video game, Trump finally stepped onto the stage after his election to begin his unprecedented challenge to the rules and protocols of international diplomacy.

However, no one expected that he would put his words into action so quickly. He received a controversial congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ying-wen. Tsai Ying-wen initiated the phone call, which lasted for 10 minutes. Trump and Tsai Ying-wen congratulated each other for winning the elections. On a superficial level, it seemed to be just a friendly phone call. However, the call had important political ramifications that shook the U.S., Taiwan, mainland China and consequently the whole world.

Since former President Jimmy Carter shifted the U.S.’s political concentration from Taiwan to mainland China and conceded that Taiwan belongs to mainland China, no president has conducted phone conversations with the Taiwanese leader. But Trump broke that streak.

The phone call was surprising, but, in some ways, predictable. Since his election campaign, Trump has attacked China many times. He has promised that he will put a 45 percent tariff on mainland Chinese exports, and has also criticized mainland China’s massive military complex. Moreover, Trump has surrounded himself with so-called “China Hawks,” like Peter Navarro, the author of Death by China, and Rex Tillerson, who vowed to deny China access to islands in the South Mainland China Sea 1. All of these actions illustrate his negative view of China. He has even started to question the “one-Chinapolicy.” The “one-China-Policy” dictates there is only one China in the world, and it was acknowledged by the U.S.in 1979. Mainland China’s government holds tightly onto “one China-policy,” which has serious implications on the legitimacy of all of China governments and the patriotism of Chinese people. But recently, Trump told the Wall Street Journal in an interview that “everything is under negotiation, including ‘one China.'” 2

Mainland China’s government was infuriated by Trump’s phone call. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) does

13

not accept the Republic of China (POC) as a legitimate ruler in legal terms. The constitution of PRC explicitly states that “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.” 3 Mainland China’s government believes that any diplomatic relations with other countries are built upon the fundamental “One-China-Policy”.

Mainland China’s government has held onto this tenet even more tightly since Tsai Ying-wen came to power, as she belongs to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which supports Taiwanese independence. Mainland China’s government has criticized Tsai Ying-wen many times, and has warned her not to overstep the “OneChina-Policy” bottom line, and to stay away from her predecessor Lee Teng-hui who supports normalization of Taiwan as an independent country. At the same time, mainland China’s government also criticized Trump for challenging its most fundamental principle, and for testing the relationship between two largest countries

in the world. It warned Trump that if Trump really overturns the "one Mainland China" principle, it would create such a crisis with mainland China he would have little time to do anything else. 4 The Chinese foreign minister gave Trump an explicit warning, saying: “those who go against the One-Mainland Chinapolicy are lifting a rock only to drop it on their feet”. 5 However, Trump does not seem to take these criticisms seriously. Responding to the protests and warns, he tweeted, "Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call." He tried to refer to the common interest between the U.S. and Taiwan to justify the phone call. However, his call actually revealed the attitude of the U.S.to Taiwanese independence. His tweets ref lect that he is still a novice when it comes to politics. He did not understand that the phone call might change the American relationship with both Taiwan and mainland China, since the phone call might be taken a sign of recovering U.S. diplomatic relations with Taiwan and

negating the acknowledgment of mainland China’s government as the sole government of the Chinese people. Being a novice can be an advantage, but it can also cause harm. On one hand, he does not have strong relations with the traditional political clique, so he is free to reform and change political conventions. On the other hand, he does not have any experience serving in a public position. He tends to turn a blind eye to the historical consensus and judges serious diplomatic affairs based on his intuition and whim rather than reasonable evidence. It will be a tragedy for the country if the leader lets his intuitions blind his eyes.

In some ways, Trump is quite like his Taiwanese counterpart, Tsai, the first woman elected to the office. 6 Tsai lacks experience, as illustrated by the fact that she failed to anticipate the intensely negative reaction of mainland China. Otherwise, she would have not made the phone call, especially since mainland China’s government is seriously concerned about Tsai’s policy, and doubts her support of 1992 Consenses an agreement reached between Taiwan and China, advocating that both sides recognize there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definition.7 After she called Trump, mainland China burst out in strong protest, criticizing Tsai Ying-wen for disobeying 1992 Consensus. Tsai Ying-wen responded to her critics at a small meeting with American journalists in Taipei, saying, "Of course I have to stress that one phone call does not mean a policy shift. The phone call was a way for us to express our respect for the U.S. election as well as congratulate President-elect Trump on his win." 8 Her reaction showed that she did not understand the importance of the phone call either.

Clearly, the newly elected American President is drastically different from more traditional ones. He has not only endangered ties with mainland China with his phone call, but has also infuriated Muslim countries with his recent “Muslim ban.” 9 Trump has a vision for changing the country, but is surrounded by controversy.

It is also possible that he has an extraordinary plan to “make America great again,” which a typical politician can neither expect nor understand. What we are sure is that Trump will have four years in the White House, and we will have four years to analyze the changes he makes.

When a child plays a new video game, the new challenger will lose to the boss the first time, second time, and probably the third time. But he will learn through the experience. He will become stronger and more sophisticated. Finally, he will succeed.

As a new challenger in the international political stage, Trump’s starting point is quite high. Hopefully, Trump will regard himself as a new challenger, rather than a hero. Only then can he learn from his mistakes and become a sophisticated leader.

THE GLOBE | 14

ABOUT THE WRITERS

CAMILO MORAGA-LEWY is a freshman from Gainesville, FL. He is currently considering studying Political Science or Business, amongst other fields. He enjoys playing on Emory’s rugby team, reading, and writing for The Globe.

AVERY SCOPE CRAFTS is a freshman from Chapel Hill, NC. Avery is studying Marketing and Economics, and he is particularly interested in global conflicts.

POOJA KANABUR is a freshman from Charlotte, NC intending to major in Finance and Marketing. She is specifically interested in how public policy affects human rights, women's rights, and access to education around the globe.

ALEKSEI KAMINSKI is a sophomore double majoring in Political Science and Economics or Chemistry. He is from New York, NY and Pittsburgh, PA. His interests include American politics, racial and criminal justice, and global health.

JACOB HESS is a junior from Anchorage, AL and Jacksonville, FL majoring in Economics. Jacob has been writing for The Globe for two years, and he is interested in global economics.

RICHARD WANG is a freshman from China majoring in Political Science and Economics. Richard submitted his article as a contributing writer in a collaboration between The Globe and Emory's East Asia Collective.

15

AFTERWORD

Dear Readers, The members of The Emory Globe are thrilled to present our Spring 2017 print journal. The Emory Globe is Emory University’s premiere undergraduate periodical and journal of international and foreign affairs. The Globe features a team of staff writers covering topics from all across the globe and produces a monthly collection of research-based articles regarding foreign affairs for publication on our website blog. This journal is a compilation of some of the best recent blog posts by staff writers, with a focus on the impact of President Donald Trump’s U.S. foreign policy.

This year has already seen a contentious presidential campaign and the first 100 days of a new administration yielding very mixed reactions and increasingly bitter partisan division in America. However, the focus of Trump’s administration has not simply been on domestic policy. The election of President Trump has significantly affected foreign policy through word and action. In response to the surprising and subversive rise of President Trump, The Globe believes it is imperative to discuss the substantial effect of the Trump administration’s foreign policy on international relations. Such analysis will yield useful insights into the future of United States involvement internationally while providing a look at the effect of increasingly nationalist policies in America that parallel growing nationalism abroad.

The Emory Globe focuses on Donald Trump in this issue in an attempt to do its part to highlight and analyze the impact of current evolving U.S. foreign policy in an effort to further a critical analysis of policy, demonstrate the impact of U.S. international influence, and strengthen awareness of our role as global citizens.

We hope that you enjoyed reading our Spring 2017 print journal and will continue to follow our future publications. Thank you for your support.

Kaitlyn Posa, Editor-in-Chief

THE GLOBE | 16

works THE UNITED STATES’ FOREIGN POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA AND OUR IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

1 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/294055-full-speech-donald-trump-affirms-hardline 2 https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Immigration-Reform-Trump.pdf 3 http://latinamericanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-41 4 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/world/americas/venezuela-oil-economy.html?

5 http://manufacturinginmexico.org/maquiladora-in-mexico/ 6 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/inequality-is-getting-worse-in-latin-america-here-s-how-to-fix-it/ 7 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2015_Highlights.pdf 8 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/01/dhs-violence-poverty-is-driving-children-to-flee-central-america-to-u-s/ 9 http://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/28/magazine/nicaragua-the-beleaguered-revolution.html?pagewanted=all 10 http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/29/opinion/the-contra-war-1981-1990.html 11 http://data.worldbank.org/country/nicaragua 12 http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-america-crossroads-americas 13 https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/unearthing-justice-in-el-salvador-el-mozote-massacre/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=558652B BA95090532C5F27AEC79A846E&gwt=pay 14 http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html 15 http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/15/hispanics-of-honduran-origin-in-the-united-states-2013/ph_2015-09-15_hispanic-origins- honduras-01/ 16 https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements THE IRONY OF A “FAIR” IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IN THE WEST

1 https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Sep/CBP%20Anti-Discrimination%20and%20Anti-Harassment%20Policy%20

Statement.pdf 2 https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-appeals-court-rejects-indianas-efforts-block-syrian-refugee-resettlement 3 https://www.aclu.org/cases/jefm-v-lynch 4 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/denmark-refugees-immigration-law/431520/ 5 http://time.com/4593985/immigration-visa-lotter-racism TRUMP, A NEW CHALLENGER: ANALYSIS OF THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND TSAI YING-WEN

1 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-and-mainland%20Chinas-year-of-the-hawk-214656 2 http://www.salon.com/2017/01/16/one-mainland%20China-principle-not-negotiable-mainland%20China-tells-trump/ 3 http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-taiwan-idUSKBN13R2NT 5 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-taiwan-tsai-jinping-one-mainland%20China-a7472436.html 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen 7 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/27/content_7865209.htm 8 http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/06/504517372/taiwans-president-a-phone-call-doesnt-mean-a-policy-shift 9 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united- states THE UNITED STATES WITH A STRONGER DOLLAR 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-leaks_us_589a45f1e4b04061313a1fbb 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/january/does-strong-dollar-slow-growth-rate-gdp 3 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/02/injured-reserve 4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrich/2017/02/02/the-u-s-still-has-a-strong-dollar-policy-just-not-with-china/#4993cad65213 5 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/october/is-the-large-and-persistent-us-trade-deficit-a-concern

cited ISLAMOPHOBIA PLUS FOREIGN POLICY EQUALS ETHICAL AND ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE

1 http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/islamophobia-fuelling-terrorism-un-chief-guterres-says-saudi-1011938612 2 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/world/europe/marine-le-pens-anti-islam-message-gains-influence-in-france.html 4 ttp://www.businessinsider.com/trump-executive-orders-memorandum-proclamations-presidential-action-guide-2017-1 5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/02/01/heres-how-trump-muslim-ban-will-slam-u-s-economy/#b42311549306 7 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-muslim-racism-hate-crime-islamophobia-eu-referendum-leave-latest-a7106326. html 8 http://heavy.com/social/2017/01/muslim-ban-donald-trump-saudi-arabia-international-monetary-fund-rothschild-iran-war-conspiracy- theories/ 9 http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/immigration-ban/ 10 https://sputniknews.com/business/201702211050913701-brexit-hsbc-profits-loss/ 11 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/world/europe/marine-le-pens-anti-islam-message-gains-influence-in-france.html UNITED STATES’ LEADERSHIP NEEDED AS PINNACLE OF WORLDWIDE REFUGEE CRISIS DIVIDES EUROPE

1 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/fact-checking-claims-about-trumps-travel-ban.html 2 http://www.unhcr.org/576408cd7 3 http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-countries/ 4 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ 5 https://www.un.org/sg/en/formersg/ban.shtml 6 http://www.unhcr.org/576408cd7 7 http://beta.foreignassistance.gov/ 8 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-refugee-holocaust-remembrance-day/ 9 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/protesters-in-barcelona-urge-spain-to-take-in-more-refugees 10 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5698_en.htm 11 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/16/refugee-crisis-hit-uk-working-class-powerless 12 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56226#.WK6a8TsrI2w YEMEN RAID: THE OPERATION AND THE AFTERMATH

1 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-went-wrong-inside-yemen-seal-raid-n716216 2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/03/a-timeline-of-events-on-how-the-controversial-navy-seal-raid-on- yemen-was-planned-and-carried-out/?utm_term=.2b508315e3b8 3 http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/middleeast/yemen-raid-explainer/index.html "SHE DECIDES" COULD DECIDE THE FUTURE OF FAMILY PLANNING

1 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/health/lilianne-ploumen-abortion-gag-rule-she-decides.html 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html 3 https://www.government.nl/topics/she-decides/contents/she-decides-initiative 4 http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-she-decides-dutch-put-millions-into-birth-control-fund-2017-1

turkmenistan norway israel greece iraq kazakhstan portugal denmark qatar hungary finland ireland morocco kuwait ecuador belarus slovakia angola cuba ethiopia uzbekistan burma

EMORYGLOBE.COM

afghanistan luxembourg nepal jordan iran libya poland argentina sweden sudan guatemala serbia kenya tanzania croatia syria nigeria belgium