By Anna Jarman

Picture: Globe License: Public Domain

Last year, the “refugee crisis” experienced a political reckoning, as governments around the world sought to tighten boarders and curtail refugee-friendly policies where they had previously existed.  At the same time, the number of displaced people continued to climb in 2017, after it reached its highest number ever at 65 million people at the end of 2016.  The below events chronicle 2017’s most significant developments in the refugee crisis and the policy responses to it.

Travel Ban – Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which greatly reduced the number of refugees the U.S. would admit -- including blocking admission of all Syrian refugees -- and suspended entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days.  The order was met with immediate protests, international criticism, and legal challenges by those who saw the order as a “Muslim ban.”  A nationwide temporary restraining order was issued in the case Washington v. Trump, and upheld by the Ninth Circuit.  The first order was replaced by a second and then a third order which revised the original list of countries, clarified the effect on green-card holders, and made the 90-day ban permanent.  The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court decision finding the order unlawful in Hawaii v. Trump; the Supreme Court granted cert in January, and allowed the administration to implement the travel ban while legal challenges were pending.

Refugees Cross U.S. Border into Canada – the number of asylum seekers illegally crossing from the U.S. into Canada spiked to more than 15,000 people last year.  The refugees, many of whom fear Trump’s immigration policies, were met by both opposition by anti-migrant groups and a supportive response by Canada, which granted asylum at increasing rates.

South Sudan – Displacement from South Sudan’s war became the largest refugee crisis in Africa.  More than 2 million people had fled to neighboring countries by the end of the year, with another 2 million displaced inside the country.

Rohingya Refugee Crisis – After a group of militant Rohingya Muslims attacked police bases in northern Myanmar on August 25, the army responded with a brutal show of force, burning villages, killing civilians, and raping women.  Within weeks, over 420,000 Rohingya refugees had fled, leading to a mass exodus “unprecedented in terms of volume and speed,” according to the International Organization for Migration.  Over 700,000 Rohingya have now fled to squalid refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh.  The U.N.’s human rights commission described the retaliation as ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide.

German and Austrian Elections – Radical right-wing populist parties performed well in both the Austrian and German elections.  The newly elected Chancellor of Austria, Sebastian Kurz, earned his reputation as foreign minister for tightening Austria’s borders during the refugee crisis, when Austria was taking in more asylum-seekers than any EU country except Sweden.  Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel has tightened her asylum policy under pressure from the far right and in response to backlash against her initial welcoming stance.  Germany resumed deporting Afghans whose asylum claims were rejected after stopping deportations in May when a bombing near the German embassy in Kabul killed around 150 people.

Manus Island Removal – Hundreds of asylum seekers held for years in an Australian-run detention center on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island were forcibly removed in November, three weeks after Australia officially closed the camp.  Afraid to leave the camp, the refugees had remained, despite Australia cutting off electricity, food, and water.  Security forces eventually stormed the camp destroying the refugees’ shelters and belongings. 

Climate Change Spurs Migration -- Research published last year suggests that changing weather is spurring people to seek asylum in Europe, and predicts that trend to continue as temperatures are projected to rise.  The research has sparked discussions on the appropriateness of the current definition of “refugee,” which includes people fleeing persecution but not those forced to leave by climate change.

East Congo – Eleven Congolese refugees were killed by Rwandan police responding to a protest over reduced food rations in a Kiziba camp.  Over 17,000 Congolese refugees inhabit the Western Rwanda refugee camp.  Violence in Eastern Congo has worsened recently due to clashes between government soldiers, local militias, and foreign rebels.

Looking ahead, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the travel ban this year, and the new Austrian and German governments are likely to further articulate their more restrictive immigration policies.  At the same time, the international community will grapple with how to respond to the world’s ever-increasing number of displaced persons fleeing conflict, ethnic cleansing, and changing climate.

Read More

April 03, 2018

By Xiaoyi Wang

Picture: Globe License: Public Domain

In 2017, because of the changes in administration, environmental enforcement policies around the world have changed.

United States of America

In the United States, the Trump Administration has brought uncertainty to the US enforcement picture. All enforcement constituencies (state agencies and environmental groups) are still assessing what roles and strategies to take as directional shifts at the federal level will likely influence responses by states and NGOs. The shift of administration led to EPA enforcement moving back to the "traditional" environmental programs – air, water, waste.

European Union

The European Commission has conducted a broad EU Environmental implementation review (EIR). The EU also adopted new rules (Dec. 2016) for member states to reduce air pollution by primary particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile organic components. In addition, the EU has set out environmental plans and proposed initiatives to achieve their 2020 goals.

China

China has implanted tougher environmental policies in 2017, a great expansion under President Xi’s “War on Pollution” initiative. In 2017, China also shut 27 coal mines in Shanxi and shutdown responsible corporate actors around China to control air pollution.

The Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. President Trump announced in June that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that fighting climate change is, at best, a low priority.  Many are unsure whether the Paris Agreement framework will still work if the United States indeed withdraws from the agreement. In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States and one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the Montreal Protocol)

The Montreal Protocol celebrated its thirty years on September 16, 2017. After thirty years of enforcement, the treaty has been ratified or accepted by all 197 UN member states. As one of the most successful and effective environmental treaties ever negotiated and implemented, the Montreal Protocol has helped reduce the depletion of the ozone layer by about 20 percent from 2005 to 2016.

Read More

March 08, 2018

By James Brown

Photo: Kim Jong-Un using the Internet, Creative Common License

“The Kims like their virgins in this world and not the next,” said Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.  In apparent comparison to the beliefs of certain Islamic Extremists, Bandow made the argument that Kim Jong-un’s brinkmanship stems not from a reckless disregard of potential consequences, but rational self-interest.  At a Cato Institute event titled “How Do You Solve a Problem Like North Korea?”, held on November 6, 2017, most panelists tended to agree. 

What is behind North Korea’s quest for nuclear weapons?

The consensus seemed to be that Kim’s dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons is intended not only to secure a seat at the negotiating table, so to speak, but to ensure his own continued existence.  In illustrating this point, several panelists at the Cato event referenced Kim’s cognizance of the fate of Muammar Gaddafi, the late leader of Libya who agreed to nuclear disarmament in 2003 but was ousted from power and summarily executed by rebel troops after a NATO intervention in 2011. 

Rajan Menon, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair in Political Science at the City College of New York, noted that North Korea’s official statements have justified its nuclear program by pointing to U.S. and NATO actions against both Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.  Menon thus disagrees with the Trump administration’s current approach to nuclear disarmament, which has included threats of war in the event that peaceable means fail.  “The more that [Un] is threatened with force,” Menon concluded, “the more he will feel justified in pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Is diplomacy a lost cause?

While most panelists agreed the United States’ past efforts with North Korea have left something to be desired, they also criticized the more aggressive approach of the Trump administration as dangerous or ineffective. 

John Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and former adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry, insists that negotiation “is the only thing that has ever worked,” and condemned President Trump’s willingness to engage in brinksmanship of his own, particularly regarding his threat to “totally destroy North Korea.” According to Cirincione, Americans have been “living in a world of counterinsurgency and special operations,” which has skewed their perceptions of what a war with North Korea would entail.  The Congressional Research Service recently estimated that North Korean artillery could kill tens of thousands of people in South Korea in the opening hours of a conflict.  Moreover, the Pentagon found that locating and securing all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons would require a full “ground invasion,” the scale of which would be in stark contrast to the high-tech, surgical operations Americans have grown accustomed to in recent years in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. 

However, Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and North Korea negotiator, explained that in addition to the Libya intervention in 2011, the United States’ handling of the Iran nuclear deal has eroded its ability to conduct meaningful diplomacy. “Trump’s decertifying of an agreement made just two years ago by an American president,” said Richardson, “undermines our ability to negotiate with North Korea – or anyone else.”  Still, Richardson believes that “people to people” diplomacy is the best course of action, and rejects the notion that “dialogue rewards bad behavior.” The reality, according to Richardson, is that “you gotta talk to bad people.”

Read More

December 20, 2017

By Archita Mohapatra*

Photo: Washington Paris Agreement Protest, Creative Commons License

US energy polices have been in controversy since the advent of the Trump administration. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered on August 8, 2017, to stay all proceedings in West Virginia v. EPA for another 60 days i.e.until the EPA submits a concrete report on the operation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). This plan was devised during the Obama administration to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide (CO₂) by power generators. The states were required to meet specific standards in order to fulfil individual reduction targets. The dispute over the implementation of the CPP arose when North Dakota filed an application against the EPA to stay the execution of the plan, which was first rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court. A month later, West Virginia and several other states filed stay applications. This application was accepted and the US Supreme Court granted the stay on the operation of the CPP on February 9, 2016. A year later, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order on March 28, 2017 directing the EPA to review the CPP in order to examine its legality and to repeal or revise the plan executed by the Obama administration. The order characterized the plan, as well as other existing energy laws, as impediments to US energy independence.  The order was provided for review and thus brought the CPP to an operational standstill.  Since the review is ongoing, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the consolidated cases on operation of the CPP be held in abeyance for another 60 days on April 28. Given the announcement of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in June, 2017, the CPP is not expected to be put into operation after the review.

The EPA proposed the CPP in 2014 and it came into effect in October 2015. It was formulated to reduce the CO₂ emissions of existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, with specific targets to be maintained by respective states. This step was carried out during the Obama administration with the intention of meeting the reduction targets set by the US under the Paris Agreement. However, the Trump administration defunded the CPP in its 2018 federal budget proposal. Moreover, Trump’s opposition to the obligations under the Paris Agreement removed the motivation for the CPP. He received support from various states, which showed had opposed the reduction targets set under the plan. After the order by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 8, all litigation proceedings have been put on hold until the EPA decides to either repeal or revise the CPP. The report by the EPA would also help decide the matters relating to the operation of the CPP, put forth by different states.

After the US’s announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, various cities, states and corporate groups have taken up the responsibility to maintain their individual targets towards implementing the Agreement. The Agreement allows only nations or regional economic integrations to be parties. However, the UNFCCC has provisions to also involve non-party stakeholders, viz. states, residents, corporate bodies, etc. called the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (“NAZCA”) Portal. It is a platform for reflecting climate-related commitments by non-state actors which are exercised by the states, cities and business organizations of the United States.  Around 12 states, as well as Puerto Rico, have come together to form a United States Climate Alliance, a separate entity to uphold the commitments of the US made under the Paris Agreement. Reportedly, two Republican governors, namely Charlie Baker and Phil Scott have decided to support Democrats in forming the alliance for combating climate change. In addition, several mayors have also defied the Trump’s administration’s decisionwithdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The United States Conference of Mayors strongly opposed the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and vowed to continue with their efforts to fulfil the reduction targets. Adding to this, around 98 mayors have pledged their support for a community wide transition to 100% renewable energy under Sierra Club’s “Mayors for 100% Clean Energy.”

On June 6, Hawaii passed a law to remain committed towards the Paris Agreement. The State Senate of California passed a bill towards the end of May to receive all its energy from renewable and zero-carbon sources by 2045. Governor Andrew Cuomo has initiated an energy strategy for New York called Reforming the Energy Vision (REV). It aims to achieve a 40% reduction in Green House Gases from 1990 levels, mandates that 50% of electricity generated must come from renewable sources, and a reduction of energy consumption by buildings by 23% from 2012 levels. Individuals have also stepped up to address this issue as former New York mayor and UN envoy for Climate Change Michael Bloomberg has pledged to contribute USD 15 million towards any gap that is created after the withdrawal of the US. 

Currently, the Trump administration is designing a replacement plan for the CPP. One of the industry groups, Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions, has proposed a replacement plan for the CPP which gives greater flexibility to states to choose their own compliance plans. However, it has not been accepted by other countries since they are relying upon the US Government to frame a replacement plan. With this replacement plan in process, the CPP might be gone for good. But, in this author’s opinion, the non-party stakeholders could fulfill the objectives of the Paris Agreement, irrespective of any legal obligations as required under CPP.

*Archita Mohapatra is a law student pursuing a B.B.A.LL.B at National Law University Odisha.

Read More

November 25, 2017

By Alexandra Moffit

Photo: President Clinton Signing NAFTA, Creative Commons License

1. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a treaty between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that’s been in effect since 1994.

The region is home to over 444 million people. Before NAFTA, the United States and Canada created a free trade agreement in 1989. The three countries started negotiations under the tenure of President George H. W. Bush, and the treaty was completed and signed into law by President Clinton.

2. NAFTA was put in place to encourage economic integration between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

NAFTA pushes countries to open their markets and eliminate tariffs. Another major goal of the treaty was to create and encourage North American competitiveness in the world. NAFTA was to create an economic zone like the European Union.

Similar to the European Union, an open economic zone would allow each country to specialize. In the United States, one oft-cited example is manufacturing. Since manufacturing is often cheaper in Mexico, some companies have moved production from the United States to Mexico under NAFTA. On the other hand, surplus agriculture such as almonds in the United States could be exported to Mexico or Canada.

3. NAFTA isn’t just an agreement – there are many institutions in place to facilitate it.

NAFTA includes a Free Trade Commission. This commission oversees the work of several working groups, committees, and other entities of NAFTA. There are many working groups in place to encourage investment and trade. These are in place to encourage cooperation in areas such as labor and environmental policies. Important aspects of NAFTA include customs, goods, agriculture, and business. Millions of people in each of the three countries depend on NAFTA every day.

4. President Trump hates NAFTA.

            

President Trump blames NAFTA for the loss of some U.S. jobs to Mexico. He has called the treaty the “worst trade deal in history.”  President Trump also remarked, “I’ve been opposed to NAFTA for a long time, in terms of the fairness of NAFTA.”

As President Trump said, the treaty caused some job loss in the United States’ Rust Belt, specifically in the manufacturing sector. However, millions of other American jobs depend on NAFTA In addition, there is no proven direct causation for any net loss of jobs being because of NAFTA, as job losses depend on many factors. For example, around the same time as NAFTA, China emerged as a manufacturing powerhouse and joined the World Trade Organization. China joining the WTO is one of the many potential factors that resulted in job losses in the United States’ manufacturing sector since 1994.

5. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have been renegotiating NAFTA for several months, and there is no end in sight.

Since President Trump took office, renegotiating NAFTA has been a top priority. The three countries have been negotiating a rewrite of the treaty for the past few months, with four rounds of talks completed so far.

In the most recent meetings, the NAFTA negotiators have decided to extend negotiations into 2018. The three North American powers have not been able to find common ground on several important points. These contentious points include how to rewrite the treaty and whether NAFTA should have to be renewed every five years. The fate of NAFTA is in jeopardy. Many experts believe that the dissolution of NAFTA could jeopardize North American competitiveness, making competing with China and the European Union more difficult. The current American climate of protectionism could hurt the economic growth of all three countries in the short term and long term.

Read More

November 16, 2017