International Relations Watch

Setting the Record Straight on Miranda

2011-03-25T13:22:00.007-04:00

While I wrote my comment on the extraterritorial application of Miranda v. Arizona, I felt that I had to spend what I felt to be an undue amount of time dispelling the myths around “Miranda rights.” Unfortunately these myths are being further perpetuated as we speak.

The FBI released a memorandum this week titled “Custodial Interrogation for Public Safety and Intelligence-Gathering Purposes of Operational Terrorists Inside the United States.” [1] Unfortunately, this document has been utterly misconstrued by every single news article I have seen. Take as an example the headlines: “Rights are Curtailed for Terror Suspects” by the Wall Street Journal, “Obama administration curtails rights for terror suspects“ by the Daily Kos, and my personal favorite “So Long, Miranda” in the self-identified neo-conservative Commentary Magazine. I’ve read the short memo several times now, and I have yet to find anything controversial or even new about the guidelines.

As I wrote in my comment:[2]

In popular culture, the phrase “Miranda rights” is often used to mean the Miranda warnings. But the issue of Miranda warnings is a red herring; there is not, and never has been, a right to be given Miranda warnings. Although Miranda has made its way into the public realm, belief that there is a right to Miranda warnings is a misconception held by both sides of the political aisle.

This misconception defines the public debate of Miranda. Recently Senator John McCain was criticized from right and left alike when he suggested that an American citizen suspected of terrorism should not have been given Miranda warnings. Politics aside, the Senator was right and the pundits on both sides got it wrong; the self-incrimination clause prevents a suspect from being compelled to be a witness against himself “in any criminal case.” Miranda v. Arizona does not convey a right to Miranda warnings at the time of interrogation; it instead conveys a right to exclude un-Mirandized statements at criminal trial.

Even within the territory of the United States no one, from an accused jaywalker to an accused terrorist mastermind, is entitled to Miranda warnings because Miranda is a right that only occurs at trial. Thus, the true question is whether the Constitution requires any particular statement, made in the absence of Miranda warnings, to be excluded at criminal trial.

There are several exceptions where un-Mirandized statements can be admitted at trial which include among others, an exception where public safety is at stake.

The FBI memo walks almost the exact line that I outline in my comment. It notes that the “Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda warnings, but instead may be violated only if and when the government introduces an unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant” and cites Chavez v. Martinez. I’ve read that case more than a few times, and take the FBI’s characterization as only “strongly suggesting” instead of “holding” that the Fifth Amendment is a right at trial to be a limited reading of the case.[3]

The Obama administration came up with an unnecessarily limited reading of one of the seminal cases on the issue which is actually leaning toward civil rights, not against them. And not to belabor the point, but the Obama administration cannot “curtail” rights that never existed in the first place.

--
Footnotes
[1] The New York Times published the full memo here, an hour before I wrote this article. It is worth noting that the New York Times was far more measured and accurate in its analysis: ”Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects.”
[2] While my comment Domestic Trials, Overseas Interrogations, and the Territorial Scope of Miranda v. Arizona currently awaits a publication decision, I have created an abridged version to use as a writing sample which may be found here. This includes the following excerpt with full legal citations.
[3] The issue is whether Chavez is a binding majority opinion or a non-binding plurality opinion on the question of whether Miranda is a right only available at trial. I count a five justice majority on this holding: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens & Ginsburg. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 789 (2003).

The Fourth Amendment Overseas, a brief summary

2011-03-03T23:49:00.001-05:00

In the past few months, I have written extensively on which parts of the constitution apply to non-citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. As I await official publication on my Miranda and Habeas articles, I wrote a brief explanation of the Fourth Amendment to share with a class. Rather than keep it to myself, I decided to post it online and share it here.

Verdugo after Boumediene: Why the Guantanamo Litigation is Not Limited to Obscure Habeas Corpus Issues, and Should Matter to Everyone Who Works With Non-Citizens

Note: This is the same United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez that Professor Vladeck and I debated in Blog Cross-Pollination.

Blog Cross-Pollination

2010-11-02T22:53:00.005-04:00

I had a lively debate with Professor Vladeck today about a key case I'm using in my comment. In the middle of the conversation, he started to write a blog post about our conversation - I'm glad to see that other people do this too. Anyway, I had class immediately thereafter, and by the time I got out, the article was finished and eight other people had already responded. My response is in there, but it is rather far down the list.

Link:
"When is a Majority Opinion Really a Plurality Opinion?" by Professor Stephen Vladeck

Miranda Overseas - Introduction

2010-09-30T23:41:00.001-04:00

One of the arguments justifying indefinate detention of detainees without charge in Guanatamo Bay was the constitutional right to habeas corpus did not apply to non-citizens overseas. In June 2008, the Supreme Court repudiated this reasoning in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that non-citizens in American custody in Guantanamo Bay are indeed entitled to the constitutional right of habeas corpus. But the question remains as to whether Boumediene was a narrow or a wide decision; the question of other constitutional rights overseas remains ambiguous. In particular, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the overseas application of other constitutional rights including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as interpreted in Miranda v. Arizona.

Miranda is more than just a forty-six year old Supreme court case on legal and social policy; it has become part of American culture. Unlike the much of the minutia of law and legal procedure that only lawyers deal with, even the average layperson has heard of Miranda. But this widespread knowledge of Miranda makes it ripe for political posturing, especially on whether Miranda should apply to non-citizens overseas. One Democratic congressman proclaimed "[t]here's not a single member of this Congress that believes that Miranda warnings should be given to terrorists." Similarly, one law professor noted that after September 11, "the notion that terror suspects would be given Miranda warnings seems almost quaint." The political edge of this issue seems to be citizenship status: the former presidential candidate John McCain was criticized from right and left alike when he suggested the accused Times Square bomber, an American citizen, should not have been given Miranda warnings. [For an analysis of the merits of this argument, see a forthcoming article Miranda Overseas - Defining Miranda.]

But these are political questions for the politicians and pundits to debate; a debate which will have little, if any, effect on the law. Miranda is a constitutional right, and the constitution applies to everyone within the borders of the United States. Without a doubt, American citizens arrested in the United States are entitled to the same rights regardless of the crime of which they are accused. As the law currently stands, documented and undocumented non-citizens arrested in the United States are also entitled to the same right Miranda rights as citizens.

Those who are frequent readers of this blog will know that the answers to the questions posed in Miranda Overseas will not be based on a political analysis. Indeed, while a definitive answer on this issue would upset one side of the aisle, it could also shift the winds to help that side of the aisle on the related issue of military tribunals. [Because of the significant lack of history on which to base my analysis, I do not take an opinion on whether Miranda could apply in the military tribunals.]

Rather, the question of Miranda Overseas is a metaphor for how far the the constitution, and the domestic case-law analyzing those constitutional rights like Miranda, follow us when we travel abroad, or when our government decides to charge a non-citizen captured overseas with a crime in American civilian courts. While the analysis of these issues will focus primarily on terrorism and drug cases, these issues are far from limited to these two issues. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter noted, "the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."

Habeas and [the tort of] False Imprisonment

2010-09-07T22:11:00.002-04:00

I was a little alarmed when a friend showed me an article which explained how in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, prisoners charged with misdemeanor offenses were incarcerated for over a year "doing 'Katrina time'" because "Governor Blanco effectively suspended habeas corpus ... for six months." [link to article]. The US Constitution of course reads: "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Without going into the specifics of whether the Governor actually tried to suspend habeas, it is first worth noting that no state actor [state supreme court, governor, legislator, police officer, etc] can violate your federal rights like habeas corpus, due process, speedy trial, etc. They may try, but you are always free to file a habeas petition in federal court; the federal constitution trumps pretty much everything.

Again, without investigating the veracity of the allegation, let's say you were arrested and it took six months before you were released without charge, or you were held for a year for a charge that had a maximum penalty of one month. This sounds like unquestionable unjust imprisonment, which could have been challenged with a habeas petition. But let's say you didn't challenge it while you were imprisoned - you didn't have a lawyer, your lawyer was overworked and didn't think of habeas, or your lawyer mistakenly believed habeas could be overruled by a governor. You are not out of luck - you are still entitled to sue for damages under the tort of "False Imprisonment."

As I continue to research habeas corpus issues, I am struck by the similarity of a habeas petition [trying to get out of jail because of unjust imprisonment] and the tort of False Imprisonment [suing for damages because of your unjust imprisonment]. But the beauty of the False Imprisonment tort is that, unlike with habeas, you can sue months and possibly years later, depending upon the statute of limitations. I doubt there have been many class action suits alleging false imprisonment in the past, but if the allegations are true, there could be a big one coming in Louisiana.

_________________________
Disclaimer - I would like to remind anyone reading this that presently I am law student and not a lawyer. While I may write about issues I find interesting, I cannot dispense legal advise. That said, in addition to the tort of false imprisonment, your attorney would be wise to also consider 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights [link].

What is History?

2010-08-31T21:34:00.000-04:00

As I begin to read Paul Halliday's Habeas Corpus - From England to Empire, whose premise is that conventional knowledge of Habeas Corpus is based on an incorrect perspective on history, I can't help but admit that he's right, at least so far about the analysis of the historical record.

I have never liked the phrase "history is written by the victor," because the victor isn't writing history - he's writing his perspective on history, which is no more valid than that of the looser. In the past, I had thought that merely reading two opposing interpretations of history was adequate to get a full perspective on a topic ... but when you think about it, what if both sides got it wrong? Or what if you never had an adversarial relationship to begin with, but over hundreds of years the original meaning eroded over time?

Back to the issue of Habeas Corpus, it wasn't in the Magna Carta in the 13th century, but definitely existed by the 17th century. Halliday writes that:

Despite the force of this belief, connecting the thirteenth century to the seventeenth along a single story line has always proved difficult. So much awkward silence separates them that some authors have thrown up their hands [saying the writ's origin "is lost in obscurity"]. Others have filled the silence with inferred lineages sprinkled with words of praise, borrowing heavily from nineteenth century historians. . . who in turn accepted [another historian's claims in the] 1620s as gospel truth. . . . Accounts of habeas corpus written in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries thus serve as durable examples of what Herbert Butterfield long ago called "whig" history. As Butterfield remarked, "the whig historian can draw lines through certain events ... to modern liberty." In doing so, the historian "begins to forget that this line is merely a mental trick." A linear approach to the writ's past that starts in 1215 fit nicely with a high Victorian impulse to write histories drawn in bold story lines with clear points of origin and arrival. But for all the power of such narratives, they do not amount to a history. (Halliday 16).

This paragraph blew my mind. Never before - even when getting a Masters degree in International Affairs [which is just a History degree with a cooler name], and taking all of those history courses had anyone laid out how it's all wrong. We're not basing our opinions by looking at original sources, your average history book is looking at tertiary sources who cited tertiary sources, who try to construct a false narrative to make it simpler than it actually is. Comparing two opposing perspectives of this kind of history does not lead to the truth, because both sides are equally wrong. You can't find the truth by averaging two or more incorrect statements.

So, what is history? I have always seen it as the study and search for the truth of the events that have happened in the past. When available, as it was with Halliday in his study of Habeas Corpus, History is Primary Sources. Then again, Halliday spent five years combing through thousands of medieval documents, something the average individual - or even scholar - just can't do. So in a case like that, history is a collection of secondary sources like Halliday's book, which heavily cites primary sources.

But in the end, I'm still not happy putting that much trust in one man, because even unconscious agenda's can color one's research and writing. In an ideal world, I would like to see these ancient documents scanned and made freely available online for anyone to read through, and come to their own conclusions, and maybe write their own book which also heavily cites primary sources.

IRWatch - Back doing what it does best

2010-08-31T20:34:00.000-04:00

Well, I've survived the gauntlet of my first year at American University Washington College of Law, and now that I can choose my own courses, and I'm back to what I do best - writing about topics that interest me. I am actually writing two articles this semester - "Do Miranda Rights Apply Overseas?" and another (currently untitled) work on Habeas Corpus rights. Now that I have interesting things to discuss, I will be making many more posts on these subjects in the weeks ahead. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well!

Dial M for Moderate

2010-05-31T22:09:00.002-04:00

A bit of inspiration, an excerpt from the humor blog "Clients From Hell" - entitled The Forbidden Fruit.

Client: Hey, just one final question before I send the deposit. Do you use a PC or a MAC?

Me: I use a MAC.

Client: That is a problem. Do you have access to a PC? I am not a supporter of Apple products.

Me: No, I don’t have access to a PC, but this will have little to no effect on the work itself.

Client: I am a Christian and Apple products are sinful, I do not want our website to be created by a product made by this corrupt group. You need only look at their logo, an apple with a bite taken from it. Do you not know the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? If I allowed you to create my website on a MAC I would be just like Adam, taking a bite of the forbidden fruit.

[Silence]

“Take my advise, destroy your mac and repent for when judgement day comes. It shall be you who is cast to hell for your sins.”

Me: [Block Contact]

I was having a conversation recently about a similar issue, and when I read this article I felt that I had to share it. This is a great example of my biggest problem with modern American politics - generally speaking if you know a person's person's view on one issue (like abortion), you know with relative certainty their view on any number of other unrelated issues (like hybrid cars). For a good list of these issues, see Geoff Nunberg's book "Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show." (See also the actual campaign ad on which the title was based - http://nyti.ms/aRLW8K). Apparently you can add "Apple Computer Products-Using" to that list. I swear I didn't know this when I bought my Mac, I guess I should destroy it and repent . . .

. . . Moving on, let's be honest. These issues have nothing to do with each other. A rational mind can be pro-choice and for SUVs, or for both nuclear power and gay marriage, or for both guns and Apple products, or love sushi and detest Hollywood. But these days, people on either side buy into the propaganda that if you're a good conservative/liberal republican/democrat (delete as appropriate) you need to hold all of these beliefs, otherwise you're a "Republican in Name Only"/"Blue dog Democrat" and therefore worthy of scorn. Democrats scorn Joe Lieberman (in 2006) and Barack Obama (present), because they don't match up with their beliefs enough; and the same can be said for Republicans and John McCain (2008), Arlen Specter (2009), and Charlie Crist (present).

I've said in the past that we need more moderates in Washington, more RINOs and Blue Dogs... and I admit my old point is oversimplification. In truth, it's not just our representatives that need to change, it's ourselves. We are the ones doing the scorning. We are the ones demanding ideological rigidity. People from both parties complain that Congress doesn't work; that's why in recent years it has such low poll numbers in comparison with the executive - both under the Bush and Obama presidencies, and with both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress. But so few recognize, or are willing to admit, it's as much our fault as it is theirs. We are the ones electing members of Congress who are unwilling to work with each other.

And this brings me back to the Apple Computer hating client from the humor website. I know what you thought when you first read it - she's crazy, ignorant, and offensive. Whether we like to admit it or not, many of us are more like her than we would like to admit. It's natural, everyone has strong beliefs on political topics like nuclear-power, wind power, health care, hybrid cars, off shore oil drilling, taxes and abortion. And that's fine; frankly I don't care what you believe. I just want you to be able to respectfully articulate their thoughts using reason and facts, and be willing to listen to alternative perspectives, and be able to look at things from another's point of view.

That's what it means to be a moderate. I take pride in the fact that my close friends are moderates - I hope you are one too.

Legal Citations Become [Slightly] Easier

2010-02-21T17:44:00.004-05:00

If you are a law student or a lawyer, it is very likely you find legal citation as annoying as I do. Ever since I laid eyes on the Bluebook - the 300+ page legal citation nightmare - I've wanted a more friendly accessible and searchable version. Today I found a way; it's free and perfectly legal to boot.

The Columbia Law Review Association, the organization who publishes the Bluebook, put old versions online for free as PDFs, from version 1 (1926) to version 15 (1991). To get a searchable version, all you have to do is download version 15, go to a public computer with a copy of Adobe Acrobat Professional (or buy a copy), open the file, document -> ocr text recognition -> recognize text using ocr -> all pages, (wait 20 minutes), and you're done.

Extra steps you might want to consider include:

Document -> Reduce File Size (my final version was 7mb)
Make your PDF into a true "blue" book by adding this PDF custom cover as the first page. http://bit.ly/cdW5iG. (Document -> Insert pages)
Adding bookmarks (click the bookmark icon on each page you want, and type a name)
Extract the commonly used tables into their own PDFs. (Document -> Extract Pages)

I know what you're thinking, and you're right. It's not the most recent version. But the only significant thing that should have changed in the last 19 years is how to cite online materials, and from what I've heard lawyers don't go out and buy a new Bluebook ones each time they come out with a new one.

Here's the link to Bluebook version 15 (first published in 1991):
www.legalbluebook.com/img/PastVersions/USC15.pdf

--
Post Script:
If you're interested in seeing the other versions, just change the two numbers in the link above. (e.g. USC01). Not counting the cover, the first version was only 26 pages long! Oh, how things have changed.

Google Scholar - Law: One small step that changed the world

2009-11-17T16:29:00.012-05:00

With little fanfare, Google today took a big swing at the legal establishment, by giving the world free access to its own database of case law. This is very big news. In fact, it is so massively big I'm not sure we can quite appreciate it just yet, but I will certainly try.

Yesterday, there were three major methods of reading a case. You could look at a printed court reporter at a law library, or search through the online database of rivals Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis. As you might imagine, using the online databases is significantly easier, but they came with a price. As a current law student, I am paying for unlimited access to Westlaw and Lexis as a part of my tuition, but it is very expensive for lawyers or the common citizen (Lexis rates; Westlaw's lack of advertised rates). This means that even if a common citizen had the knowledge to interpret the law, he could not afford timely access to it. These factors together made it unlikely that a common citizen could represent himself pro ce in court in any reasonable manner. That changed today. The current stories are focusing on this, as it was the general gist of Google's press release.

But this change is just as significant, if not more significant, for lawyers and their clients. Because together Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have a monopoly, they could charge lawyers exorbitant amounts to access these databases. These charges were passed onto the clients, increasing the cost of legal counsel. This also means that pro-bono (public interest; no charge to client) legal work suffered. The only way for a lawyer or a law firm to conduct pro-bono work was to pay Westlaw or Lexis out of pocket, or to go to the library and use books - an unappetizing prospect for any busy lawyer. Because of these two reasons, pro-bono work has been limited in the past. That changed today as well.

But without comparative analysis, this is all just speculation. As an example, I was recently assigned to research a false imprisonment case in New York. (example used with permission). The case hinged upon whether the detention was done in a "reasonable manner" or a "reasonable time." If you do a search in New York jurisdiction for - "false imprisonment" "reasonable manner" and "reasonable time" - you get 15 results, all cases that I had previously read in Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw as a part of my research. However, at present there are at least three ways in which Google Scholar - Law is currently inferior to Westlaw and Lexis. It does not currently contain state or federal statutes, it does not contain summaries of the cases, and it does not say if the case has been overruled (although it does give links to all the cases that cited it so that you could do the work yourself). I imagine that these oversights will be amended by the time that it is removed from "beta" status, hopefully by the time I join the job market as a lawyer.

Today Google changed the way that Americans will practice law. Even if Google Scholar - Law is currently somewhat inferior to its rivals, its low price will mean that it will be swiftly adopted, which will likely force Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to push down their own prices, or become obsolete. Today is a good day for the public, for lawyers and for our democracy. And on a more personal note, I am very happy to say that my summer pro-bono work just got much easier.

What an honest American really thinks

2009-10-19T14:22:00.012-04:00

I recently received a chain letter from a close family member, with the subject line "What an honest American really thinks" purporting to be by Andy Rooney. It is hard to resist that title, isn't it? Full disclosure, I am Hispanic and this particular family member is white. I decided that rather than having a long discussion again, which I know would make the family member feel singled out, it makes more sense to make it a post, hopefully making it into one of those "teachable moments." Anyway, the email itself is too long to do a full point by point debate, and it's laced with truisms such as "Guns don't make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer," which few would disagree with. Still, there are three important points that I would like to make.

First, a simple google search will show that this is a seven year old chain letter which Andy Rooney has disavowed. So at the very least, the author is not an "honest american;" he's not even honest about his identity. In fact, Andy Rooney want's to sue him for defamation.

Second - one that hits a little closer to home - I disagree with the racial views especially as implicitly targeted at Hispanics with the language issue. In an ideal world, would everyone speak the same language? Of course, mistranslation can be a big problem in international politics as well as daily life. However the phrase "[i]f you want to be an American citizen you should have to speak English" takes it a few steps further - it is pretty direct anti-immigrant rabble rousing. It is the logical equivilent to say if you don't speak English (implicitly if you speak Spanish), you're not worthy of citizenship. This rabble rousing has a negative effect on everyone who is Hispanic, be it for speaking Spanish, having a Spanish accent, looking Hispanic, or having a Hispanic name. I fit this category, and heck even my ethnically white spouse fits into this category too. The more anti-Hispanic sentiment increases, the harder it is for us to find jobs... there's no way to hide the second word in our resumes has to be a Hispanic surname. In fact, I've even been in a job interview where the interviewer said "you don't sound Hispanic." This proves to me that in the new environment where job applications are just online, a Hispanic surname is an obvious obstacle. But my spouse and I have discussed it, and we refuse to bow to external pressure and change our name. Linking this back to my preferred field of international politics, changing our surname would be little different than a country conceding to a terrorist's demands - in a word, unthinkable.

Finally, everyone has the right to say and believe whatever they want. The author is correct that he "[has] the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or tick him off" ... although the author does not have the right to defame Andy Rooney. Regardless, it is important to note that many - if not most - members of a racial group don't seek out to be lumped into a race. Instead, we have race thrust upon us by bigots such as this author - be it by skin color, accent or name. While it is obvious that the author "really thinks" these things, every time I receive an email like this I am disappointed to see that some members of my family believe in them enough to forward them to their friends and family.

It would be nice if everyone in the world was tolerant of each other, but being a student of realism, I doubt it will ever happen. At the very least, these family members should realize that this rabble rousing has an effect on members of their own family, often even the ones that they are emailing. Maybe that realization will help grow a little more tolerance.

For my part, I hereby pledge not to let casual bigotry from my family pass without a confrontation, and I welcome others in my family to do the same.

--
Non Sequitur Post Script: Seriously, and this goes to everyone out there - fact check your stories. You can read wikipedia, and blogs and chain emails, but if it doesn't sound real then it probably isn't. I personally limit my reading to articles have links to news sources - CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, NPR, BBC, Times Online - you know the news sources you've heard of before. For the newer political claims, try the non-partizan Factcheck.org, they write articles exclusively on this sort of thing, and - like me - they vigorously cite all of their sources. As their articles prove, they aren't a pawn of the Democrats or the Republicans.

Primetime Torture

2009-09-30T14:00:00.005-04:00

I recently attended a human rights luncheon about the efficacy of torture. Among the many issues that were discussed, I still find myself thinking about one in particular, the role of torture in the media. For the past several years, the prevalence of torture in the media has been nagging at me. I was working at the FSU movie theater when the movie Saw came out, and I could barely stand to be in the same room as the preview. But Saw became a franchise, and spawned knockoffs such as the Hostel series. Critical movie critics soon dubbed it a new genre, a bit beyond your classic horror movie. For my part, I complained to anyone who would listen thesemovies had no reason being just Rated R, and certainly had no business being advertised on television.

But let's be honest, it wasn't just movies that were embracing torture as a new genre. Television jumped on the torture bandwagon as well. With Primetime Torture by HumanRightsFirst.org, I am happy to say that I now have a source which confirms my suspicions, that the amount of torture in the media greatly increased after 9/11. In addition, they make a very good point:

It used to be that only villains on television tortured. Today, “good guy” and heroic American characters torture — and this torture is depicted as necessary, effective and even patriotic. Primetime Torture.

It doesn't matter if this increase in torture in the media was a cause or an effect of a shift in public opinion toward the use of torture, it legitimizes and furthers the acceptance of torture. I won't go so far as to say that this is a deliberate propaganda technique, but you've got to admit that it is subtly reminiscent of the "Two Minutes Hate" in George Orwell's 1984.

Wake up America, we're better than that.

An end to the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

2009-09-21T12:01:00.002-04:00

I've discussed the Eastern Europe Missile shield once or twice in the past, and I'm happy to see it go as a part of our continued relationship building with Russia.

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - NYTimes.com: "President Obama on Thursday announced a reconfigured system that won’t be based in Poland or the Czech Republic, and will be aimed at intercepting Iranian missiles."

A New Era - A New IRWatch

2009-09-21T11:51:00.002-04:00

Well a lot has happened since my last post. To make a long story short, I'm now a law student at one of America's top law schools for international law The American University - Washington College of Law in Washington, DC. Because of this, I'm going to open IRWatch to issues of domestic law and politics. I'm even considering slightly modifying the title - though I want to keep the abbreviation IRWatch and the irwatch.blogspot domain because I like brevity. Any ideas?

Swine Flu - An Alternate Narrative

2009-05-06T20:51:00.012-04:00

You would have to be living under a rock not to have heard about the H1N1-A or "Swine Flu," it's been heavily covered on every news outlet since it emerged. This latest flu is the latest example of how sensational American news has become, especially on international issues. But before I get to the Swine Flu, I’d like to mention a slightly older story that I find is a relevant back-story to the current debate.

Starting around 2006, a new national debate began on illegal immigration began, and throughout it all a few radical themes emerged. These themes were based on much older racial stereotypes, but in this case they were coated in a loose venire based on legal status. One of these themes emerged which is quite relevant to today’s topic - that Mexican illegal aliens are spreading disease into the United States.

Here we are today with a disease which seems to have begun in Mexico, which has spread into America. As you would imagine the anti-immigrant radicals are, as a friend put it, frothing at the mouth. This is because this international crisis conforms to the previous narrative, that Mexicans are bringing disease into America. But extremists aside, a slightly milder version of this narrative is still prevalent across the media – the Mexican people made a dangerous new flu and gave it to us.

It is important to remember that it has not been proven that H1N1-A came from Mexico, just that the first confirmed case is from Mexico, and an unexpectedly high majority of the deaths have been in Mexico as well.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the flu, but I do watch international news very closely, and I am disturbed how one very important element of this story has escaped the attention of the vast majority of American mass media: since January, Mexico City has been under severe water shortages. For more than three months, Mexico City – the largest city in the world – has essentially been having rolling blackouts with its water supply.

“In some parts of the capital [Mexico City] washing hands has become a luxury. In recent months, some neighborhoods - all of them poor - have been without water service for two weeks at a time.” (NPR)

After quite a bit of searching online, I have been able to find no American news outlet other than NPR who has even related extreme water shortages in the world’s largest city to the outbreak of the new flu. Lack of water is a natural correlation, aren't you supposed to wash your hands and drink plenty of fluids? Regardless, now that the connection has been made, let me put forward an alternate narrative.

This flu season, a slightly new version of the flu virus emerges somewhere in the world. This flu has the exact same mortality rate as the standard seasonal flu, and so it doesn’t attract any attention . . . until people in Mexico City with the flu begin dying. Someone decides to do a genetic analysis of what what’s causing the illness and to his or her surprise, it turns out to be a new type of flu. Cautious governments around the world quickly react, fearing a 1918 style pandemic. The flu spreads like a pandemic around the world, but as it turns out this new version of flu is essentially exactly as dangerous as the normal flu. As world governments breathe a collective sigh of relief, the story begins to subside, all the while ignoring the true story. The Swine Flu panic began because the Mexican Government can’t provide for its citizens; the Mexican government - not the Mexican people - is at fault. While the Swine Flu crisis may have been resolved, the underlying problem remains – the Mexican people are dying because they don’t have access to clean water. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why they're trying to emigrate to America.

--
Update:
Laurie Garrett, a Pulitzer prize winning author on pandemics, made a comment that industrial pig farms in the United States are a more likely source for the origin of the swine flu. (Video clip; after minute 4). "So take that Lou Dobbs."

Why torture should not be a partisan debate

2009-05-01T14:31:00.008-04:00

As I mentioned in my previous post comparing the foreign policies of Bush (43) to Truman and Obama to Nixon, the two parties don’t have as consistent a position on policies as the pundits would have you believe ... which is one of the main reasons why I'm an independent. Regardless, today's case in point – torture. Did you know that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the UN Convention Against Torture Treaty? (US State Department) That's the law that outlaws "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment". And yet all of the defenders of America’s policy of torture are of Reagan’s party - the party that still considers Ronald Reagan it's greatest hero.

Don't get me wrong, I’m not naïve; the reason that right-wing pundits are defending this torture is because September 11 and its aftermath happened during a Republican administration. Does anyone really believe that the same pundits would be defending the torture policy if it were done during a Democratic administration?

Herein lies my point. It makes perfect sense that the Republicans Richard Cheney, Jay Bybee and John Yoo are defending the policy of torture – they were the enablers of that torture. They are also members of a previous Administration whose “approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.” (Gallup - CBS News) But this does not mean that the debate needs to be a partisan one. During the 2008 Republican National Convention, there was quite a bit of buzz around how President Bush didn’t attend in person and how no one there would mention him by name. If it was alright for Republicans distancing themselves from an unpopular president, there is no reason why Republicans cannot distance themselves from an unethical policy of that president, which happened to also have been condemned by the great Republican hero Ronald Reagan.

If that argument doesn’t convince you, try looking at it this way. One of the criticisms of the originally released torture memos was that the conclusions could effect American citizens suspected of terrorism. Currently, there is a Democratic administration which says that it is against these methods. What if that wasn’t the case – and what if a right wing group threatened a terrorist attack or was merely suspected of links to terrorism?

Republicans – for whatever reason, do yourselves and the country a favor and do the right thing. Denounce the use of torture; it’s what Reagan would have done.

Never Again

2009-05-01T08:50:00.004-04:00

A few years ago, I participated in the Florida State University Holocaust Institute for Educators. Of course there were the standard pictures and films of the atrocities, but the true treasure of the event was that we were able to listen to and meet with several holocaust survivors. I bring this up because each time I try to sit down and write about the current Debate on Torture, I can’t stop thinking about something that one of the holocaust survivors said. Someone asked what I thought was an innocuous question at the time, but I vividly remember her answer. She was asked why she kept coming to these lectures and she answered: “So that I can put a human face on it, and do my part to make sure it never happens again.”

It is time for the United States to come to grips with the fact that we tortured. We have to accept what this truly means – we can no longer claim to the white knight on the world stage. With waterboarding alone we have stooped to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge, and the Gestapo. Just as with the Holocaust there will always be deniers, but in the end we need to expose the full horror of what was done in order to embarrass the population into understanding that torture is not acceptable and dissuade possible enablers in the future. Investigating, exposing and denouncing what happened can we begin to regain the trust of our allies, and in order to make sure this doesn't happen again.

There are quite a few things I would like to address on this topic; I will continue to write about this issue in the coming days. I invite everyone to join the discussion in the days and weeks to come.

Looking exclusively at the foreign policy of American Presidents:

2009-04-09T12:29:00.013-04:00

Bush (43) is to __________, as Obama is to ____________.

a) Reagan; Eisenhower
b) Nixon; Truman
c) Truman; Nixon
d) Eisenhower; Hoover

Show your work.
--

c) Truman; Nixon

Yes, this is meant to turn an eyebrow or two, but just hear me out. There are essentially two different world views: Realism/Pragmatism and Progressiveism/Liberalism. Realists essentially believe that a nation's power (economic, military, & soft) should be the main concern in foreign policy, whereas Progressives believe that ideals - human rights, freedom, democracy, et cetera - should be the main concern in foreign policy.

Too often, we get tied up in party politics, and are mislead into believing that if the Democratic President does something then it must liberal, and if a Republican president does something then it must be conservative. When we look exclusively at foreign policy, we can say with certainty that this is not the case. George W. Bush's foreign policy was often called "Neo-Conservative," but don't let the name fool you it as "Neo-Conservatism" is essentially classic Progressivism/Liberalism; it was just re-branded so that it would be more palatable for conservative voters. "Transforming the Middle East, and spreading American values, through regime change in Iraq" is textbook Liberalism (CSMonitor, 2003) which closely mirror's Truman's ideological views in the lead up to and beginning of the Cold War (for more on Truman and the beginning of the Cold War email me for a copy of my Master's thesis).

On the other hand, saying to Iran "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us," is a textbook example of pragmatism - the kind of diplomacy Nixon used when opening up relations with Communist China during the Cold War (State Department, 2009).

Which do you prefer? If a country we dislike has something we want, should we work with them or against them? Bear in mind the costs of war (IRWatch: Are Wars Good for the Economy?, On Deficits and Stimulus).

On Deficits and Stimulus

2009-03-09T11:47:00.009-04:00

I had quite a lively response to my previous post "Are Wars Good for the Economy?", and decided a followup post was in was in order.

I don't disagree that government spending can boost the economy, by definition it adds to GDP. The only concern I have is with deficits and debt. When the the economy is doing well, you should balance your budget or run a surplus, and when the economy is doing badly, you should borrow to increase GDP through spending or tax cuts (which one you choose can be battled out later, I actually like that this one has a mix of the two). The problem as I see it is that we were running huge deficits before the economic crisis, and while it is definitely in our short term interest to go even more into debt to get us out of the economic funk, it is in our long term interest to show the international markets we're borrowing from that we're going to spend responsibly in the future and that we won't run huge deficits when our economy is growing again. If our international lenders don't think we will be fiscally responsible in the long term, they would stop lending and things would get much worse and fast.

And small note on war and the economy, there have been significant extenuating circumstances the times when war has been seen as stimulative in the past, and there are even more examples of when it has been anything but stimulative. I hope that spending that money on making stuff at home instead of on blowing stuff up overseas might have a slightly more stimulative effect. My fear is that looking back we'll find that it doesn't matter what you spend government money on, it matters how you finance it.

Becoming the Land of the Setting Sun

2009-03-06T10:37:00.004-05:00

Dear Japan,

Japan we love you, but it’s time that you faced the fact that you’ve got a problem. You mean a lot to us - so much so that our new secretary of state went to visit you before any others. But after the lost decade of the 1990s, you can hardly afford to have your GDP shrinking at twice the pace of the GDPs of America and Europe - 12.7 percent last quarter according to Bloomberg.
It breaks my heart to say this, but you need to come to grips with the fact that if you keep this up, you won’t be the world’s number two economy for much longer.

We’ll still be there for you, but you have to understand that we have problems of our own. I know that it may hurt your feelings, but you should know that our new leaders might suggest sometime soon that is time for you to officially establish a military to help us out with East Asian security. On the surface it may look like we are being selfish, or that we are trying to leave you, but you don’t need to worry - our special relationship is not over, it’s just changing. Please understand that this request comes out of a deep respect for you and our belief that it could even help to revitalize your manufacturing industry. Just understand that we still care about you, and we only want what’s best for you. Please stay in touch, and let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

Sincerely yours,
-America

Are Wars Good for the Economy?

2009-03-04T20:02:00.006-05:00

There is a myth that wars are good for economies, and as evidence people point to World War I and World War II. This is not the case. It is important when discussing the extreme budget deficits and borrowing during World Wars 1 & 2, that America was mainly borrowing from its own banking system. More importantly, America was neutral during much of both of these wars, and during that time Europe was purchasing weapons and borrowing money from us, and it was the eventual repayment of these loans enabled the post war booms in America following both wars. America was doing great after the World Wars, but Europe was not. England and France lost their empires, and Russia and Germany lost even more.

Some have said that the only way to get out of our current economic funk is by entering into a war, or using an equivalent amount of government spending. The fact is we've been at war for seven years. The problem is that we've borrowed all of the money to conduct those wars, and thus our economy worsens.

Looking back at the example of World War II, the United States is playing the role of the European countries, while China is playing the role of America - sitting back and lending as we get in way over our heads.

Speaking macro-economically, war and long term overspending is not good for the economy. It is good for the lenders, but not the debtors.

I'm Back!

2009-03-04T19:34:00.005-05:00

My thesis is complete, I've got my Masters Degree, I'm in a new job where I have the freedom to blog, and I've finished my new more serious blog template. What's more, I've had quite a few things I've been wanting to write about, so get ready for an onslaught of posting! I also want to reintroduce my personal blog I've neglected: mrbento.blogspot.com. For friends and family, or anyone else who is interested, I'll be putting all further non-international politics postings over on that blog. One request though, please comment to let me know what you find interesting!

It's great to be back,
-Adam

It's Done ... Kinda

2008-09-28T22:05:00.007-04:00

Well I still have to defend the thesis... but I'm done with the writing. Let me know if you would like a copy by emailing me or replying to one of my posts. For a small taste here's the abstract.

The Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Things were fine for a time, but in recent years tensions have begun to emerge between these two nations. Policy makers in both Washington and Moscow seem to be reverting to their old habits of a Cold War mentality, and some have even said that we are witnessing the beginnings of a Second Cold War. But Cold War is not a natural state. In the over one-hundred and fifty year history of relations between the United States and Russia, only forty of those years made up the Cold War. The majority of these years were characterized by peace, and there were even times when the two called each other allies. Now must be another of those times.

The global threats of international terrorism, nuclear containment and proliferation, and plateauing energy supplies cannot be resolved by either the United States or Russia alone. Working for cross-purposes on these issues would lead to failure on both sides. However, due to the existing high tensions over American Anti-Ballistic Missile Diplomacy, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, and Russia’s invasion of Georgia, fruitful negotiations on these issues would be next to impossible at the present time.

The solution must be a confidence building measure, but one as far from Eastern Europe and the Caucuses as possible; one excellent opportunity is in Japan. Near the end of World War II, the issue of Russian involvement in the war with Japan was one of the issues of contention which would lead to the Cold War. Because of America’s role in Japan during the Cold War, Japan and the Soviet Union would never reach a peace agreement officially ending World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, low motivation and a minor border dispute have kept the two from reaching an official peace agreement. America’s role in these negotiations will be to nudge the two towards peace, while at the same time signaling to Russia that the Cold War is officially over and that the United States is open to discussions on the true issues of contention.

The United States needs Russia’s help with its greatest challenges as it continues in the twenty-first century. The time to end the Second Cold War is now.

Inspiration

2008-09-02T20:09:00.004-04:00

First, an apology: it's been a while since I've posted. I was very unhappy with my thesis... it felt like I had quite a few good points but they just looked too thrown together. So I trashed my original and have been writing it from scratch, just copying my old citations when necessary. And it's really paid off, I'm hours from completion and feeling really good about what I'm writing. You'll be seeing a lot of what I wrote, and my conclusions after weeks of deliberation very soon.

But in the meantime, I wanted to give my inspiration for continued blogging after my thesis has been completed. I stumbled upon a webpage "Technorati" which seems to index blogs and rate them by their interconnectivity: there are two other blogs that linked to IRWatch! One of the authors I know, but the other is completely new to me.

It's called The Third Site, and deals with news revolving around Eastern European missile defense and the beginnings of the "new cold war." It really feels good to know not only that people are reading what I have to say, but care enough about it to recommend it. Well I am going to return the favor, from what I've read so far The Third Site has done an excellent job of blogging about the most recent news. I'll have to let him/her know when I post regarding missile defense and Russia.

Normalization between China and Taiwan on the Horizon?

2008-05-28T11:47:00.003-04:00

When there’s so much going wrong with the world, good news often falls through the cracks. I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I read that the leaders of China and Taiwan met today. Chinese President Hu Jintao thanked Taiwan for Taiwanese relief aid following last month’s earthquake in Sichuan province and said "As long as both sides across the strait are concerned about each other and make exchanges with each other, a peaceful and stable development of relations across the strait can be expected."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/asia/beijing.php

Thoughts?

An Update on Kenya

2008-04-13T17:05:00.004-04:00

This update on Kenya is brought to IRWatch by our from Senior Correspondent Carl M. (who is too lazy to set up his own Blogger account).

Today I attended a seminar on Kenya's political climate. It was "headlined" by one of the few female parliamentary candidates that ran in 07. She talked a lot about the post-election violence, as well as highlighting the problems facing women in the country's political arena.

She was, as you were, disgruntled by western media outlets labeling of the "tribal violence". Her stance on the issue was that it was, at it's core, political protests against corruption. Violence to this and other issues, such as land use, was encouraged, and even paid for by tribal elders. This lead to much of the violence being along tribal lines, but not for tribal differences, rather it was over land use issues that the government has failed to resolve.

There were numerous cases of "warring" tribes taking each other in from the violence.

Another speaker pointed out that half the deaths in Kenya were caused by police in response to the protests. Live rounds were regularly used by riot police the moment anti-government protests turned violent. I do not know the source of her numbers, but the scenario is quite believable.

Concerning technology in Africa, one of the main reasons the populace believed they were robbed of the election is the widespread use of texting. Landlines are fairly rare, but cell phones are apparently quite common. Local election results were posted at each polling place. This information was spread through texting, and it was widely held by the populace that the challenging candidate won by a large margin. When results were delayed and eventually announced in favor of the incumbent, the protests that eventually turned violent began.

An Addendum on NATO

2008-04-12T22:52:00.006-04:00

I couldn't find a place to put this in my previous post (the Past and Future of NATO) on NATO that was going in my final thesis, but I found this interesting nonetheless. This is from Dr. Nile Gardiner of the Heritage foundation, and I have heard this slogan repeated on more than one occasion to berate NATO members who are not willing to get into the heavier fighting in Aghanistan.

"NATO is a war-fighting alliance, not a glorified peacekeeping group."
(The NATO Riga Summit: Time for Backbone in the Alliance)

Is it? Is it really? It started as a defensive organization, and since after the Cold War when it started actually intervening in conflicts, two of the three were definite peacekeeping missions. I really hate bumper sticker catch phrases because they rarely if ever have any basis in reality.

The Past and Future of NATO

2008-04-06T11:59:00.005-04:00

While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has little to do with international politics in East Asia, it would be amiss for a review of present day US-Russian relations not to mention NATO. Even aside from the aforementioned European missile defense, which NATO actually just approved (NATO Endorses European Missile Shield), Russia is frustrated by NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the United States is eager to gain more allies willing to commit troops to the war in Afghanistan. But why is Russia so frustrated by NATO's expansion, and why is the United States concerned with NATO membership when NATO is not the possible source for troops in Afghanistan?

In the late 1940s, NATO was created with the United States in Western Europe as a regional counterbalance to the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, it was a purely defensive alliance; throughout the Cold War it did not have a single military engagement. In fact it was not until three years after the fall of the Soviet Union, that NATO entered into its first armed conflict, in the final months of the conflict in Bosnia. In 1999, NATO was called upon again and quickly ended the war in Kosovo. In 2001, NATO agreed that the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States constituted an attack on a member nation, and in 2003 NATO took command of the war in Afghanistan. In addition, throughout the late 1990s, Eastern European countries were invited and began to become members of the alliance. Not coincidentally, tensions between NATO and the Russian Federation rose during this period as well.

But why does modern non-communist Russia so dislike NATO? A member of the Brookings Institution puts it this way: to Russia "NATO is a four letter word" (James Goldgeier, Power and Purpose p183). Russia feels this way because of a combination of factors: NATO was originally formed as opposing Russia, and has very recently become more militaristic, and is expanding into Russia's strategic back yard of Eastern Europe.

A true rethinking of the concepts behind NATO need to be considered. This is not to say that the United States should bow to Russia's concerns, but just recognize that the security interests of Russia and the United States are not mutually exclusive. Compromise on this issue could do a great deal to help the United States with its other issues of contention with Russia.

A Look at Eastern European Missile Defense

2008-02-05T22:39:00.002-05:00

We all know that the current Russian administration doesn't like proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe. In a previous post (Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern European Missile Shield), we've established that even pro-western Russian moderates such as Yegor Gaidar are "extremely worried about this [ABM] program". But what is the government's official stance on this program? In May of 2007, two proponents of this policy were called before Congress and asked to explain if the United States and Europe need a European missile defense system. Together they presented the following argument:

The world’s most threatening and unstable regimes can develop and deploy lethal nuclear arsenals and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to Europe and even the United States ... The Intelligence Community estimates that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States by 2015 if it chooses to do so ... The missile defense system that we are proposing to place in Europe—in cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic—would provide an extra layer of protection against possible missile attacks not only to the United States, but also to NATO allies and other European friends ... We cannot have U.S. security decoupled from that of our NATO allies. We cannot take a unilateral or isolationist approach to security.

...

The 10 interceptors we hope to field in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic would have little or no capability against Russia’s large strategic offensive force, which could overwhelm the U.S. system’s limited number of interceptors regardless of their location. In theoretical one-on-one engagements, U.S. interceptors located in Europe would have little or no capability to intercept Russian ICBMs launched at the United States as the U.S. interceptors are too slow to catch Russian ballistic missiles.

There is no reason to believe that traditional nuclear deterrence would not work both ways in relations between Europe and Iran. The real problem is that Europe is not sufficiently motivated to take military action against Iran, especially after the 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate which stated with high confidence that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

In addition, these plans made unilaterally with Poland and the Czech Republic because NATO was not willing to collectively sign onto the process. This unilateral action left the United States holding the bill for the cost of the system. But though the fiscal cost is significant, the diplomatic cost pales in comparison. It needlessly served to worsen US relations with Russian and led to Russia suspending its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (-BBC News).

_______________
Full transcript of the hearing:
Do the United States and Europe need a missile defense system? : joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, May 3, 2007.

What is a Cold War?

2008-01-27T22:53:00.001-05:00

After the Soviet Union had fallen, the Russian economy was in shambles, whereas the United States was the world’s only remaining superpower. Many areas of goodwill had already begun to emerge, and many believed the Cold War was over. The United States had little to fear from the new Russian government, but was this also true of Russia? Though the Warsaw Pact was had been dissolved, NATO remained, and in fact would begin expanding through old Warsaw Pact members. In recent years, nuclear arms talks would end. The United States would abandon the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and would not only begin building a ballistic missile shield in the United States, but in Eastern Europe as well. In response, the Russian Federation withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. Many have asserted that this is the beginning of a new cold war. But what is a cold war? What actually makes tensions into a cold war, and is it possible to stop it?

MLK and International Justice

2008-01-21T15:08:00.001-05:00

This article comes from IRWatch Senior Correspondent, Janelle F.

Today the US remembers and celebrates Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man known for his profound influence on the Civil Rights Movement and its intersections with American social politics. This is also a fitting time to recall Dr. King's activism in the realm of US foreign policy and world politics, specifically in his reactions to the Vietnam War. He saw the war in Vietnam as a symptom of a greater disease, one in which people's rights were denied and their welfare jeopardized – the same disease causing the ugly symptom of social injustice in the US.

On April 4, 1967, Dr. King gave a speech to Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City (the full text of the speech can be found here). He called for an end to the violence in Vietnam, but also for more than that. He called for sympathies that crossed racial, political, and national boundaries – for all people to unite in their common humanity, and allow that commonality to be the driving force in relations among nations and people.
"Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
…

"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and non-violence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."
Through mutual respect and compassion, Dr. King believed we could achieve a greater peace and find mutual benefit. However, he also had a rather sentient vision of the alternative:
"There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit. And if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing Clergy and Laymen Concerned with committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy."
Perhaps the best way to honor the legacy of Dr. King is not simply to rejoice in the great strides that have already been taken, but to continue to push forward toward the realization of his vision of true justice, equality, and peace.

______________
Source
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

"Japan plans Tokyo missile shield"

2008-01-15T09:57:00.002-05:00

Missile Shields aren't just for Eastern Europe and Alaska anymore. According to the BBC:

The Japanese military carried out their [Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)] assessment in the capital overnight.

According to a military spokesman, the two sites surveyed were Shinjuku Park, a business hub in central Tokyo, and a site in Ichigaya, not far from the Imperial Palace and key government offices.

...

PAC-3 missile defence systems have already been installed at two bases in Japan, with authorities planning an expansion to a total of 11 sites by 2011.

The Japanese government is also co-operating with the US on ship-based missile defence systems.

In December 2007, a Japanese warship successfully shot down a mock ballistic missile off Hawaii, in the first test of a system that will ultimately be installed on four destroyers.

Interesting. While Japan has more of a definable threat from North Korea than Eastern Europe from Iran, this leads me to bigger questions. Is the US actively proliferating ABM technology? Certainly seems that way.

______________
Source
BBC News - Asia Pacific, Japan plans Tokyo missile shield

Encirclement of Russia via NATO?

2008-01-12T20:41:00.001-05:00

This perspective is from Robert Alvarez and is in interesting contrast to the previous one I posted from Peter Brooks (here). At the time, Robert Alvarez was a senior policy adviser and U.S. Secretary of Energy for National Security.

The Russian under Putin has asserted in a more authoritarian manor, none the less he enjoys a great deal of popular support... At the same time the United States has been pushing the envelope in my opinion in terms of encirclement of Russia through NATO alliances, particularly in terms of seeking to have NATO troops in Ukraine and places like that. And given the long history of Russia and its extreme sensitivity about military encirclement, these are not looked upon kindly by Russia.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia and Oil from a former senior DoD official

2008-01-12T19:34:00.003-05:00

This is another interesting perspective from an older Diane Rehm show, this time from Peter Brooks, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Bush Administration.

They [the Russians] are using energy today as Russia's Cold War Red Army, the source of mother Russia's strength.

While I agree that the Russians are in fact using oil as a significant bargaining tool, I think the tone and vocabulary he uses is as interesting as the point he was making.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia, Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror"

2008-01-12T19:00:00.002-05:00

This perspective on Russia's views of Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror" from Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program. This is from an interview from the Diane Rehm Show, this one from July 2006. He gives several interesting perspectives on some of the key issues of contention between the US and Russia.

Diane Rehm: Are there parallels between the US war on terrorism and Russia's differences with Chechnya?
Andrew Kuchins: Well it gets to the way the US and the Russians perceive the war on terrorism, and for the Russians the war on terrorism is primarily Chechnya and the northern Caucasuses, and to a secondary degree would be Central Asia and then Afghanistan, which the Russians care a lot about and that's why the Russians supported us five years ago in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. When we get to our military effort in Iraq which we all know the Russians opposed, and when get to Russian concerns about a military operation in Iran which they also oppose, it gets to the differences in how they perceive the war on terror. Especially on Iran, this is interesting I think, for the Russians Iran is viewed more of as a strategic partner, a geopolitical partner. The Iranians have never, to my knowledge, supported terrorist groups or terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. In fact, the Iranians worked together with the Russians in diffusing the civil war in Tajikistan back in the 1990s, they worked together of course with the Russians and even us to supply the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban five years ago. So the Russians I think are quite wary about doing something which would associate themselves with punitive actions against Iran.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Welcome to new commentators!

2008-01-11T13:35:00.003-05:00

I wanted to welcome two new commentators to IRWatch! My good friends Robert M., Carl M., and Janelle711 have joined IRWatch to give their unique perspectives on international issues. Watch out for their commentaries coming soon!

NYU Professor weighs in on increasing tensions between the US and Russia

2008-01-09T13:48:00.002-05:00

I've come up with a new way of researching for my thesis, I've been listening to old radio programs that are on US - Russian foreign relations. It works surprisingly well because I can listen during work and after work, go back and transcribe the interesting parts (and even search for the commentors' other works). Here's one I found yesterday: Stephen Cohen, an NYU professor on Russian history, commenting on increasing tensions between the US and Russia. A quick search for his other works included "Failed crusade : America and the tragedy of post-Communist Russia" (Book, 2000), "Second Chance with Russia" (article, 2001), "The Struggle for Russia" (article, 2003), "The Media's New Cold War" (article, 2005), "The New American Cold War" (article, 2006), and "The Soviet Union, R.I.P?" (article, 2006).

You always have to ask how another country has seen us. We have a habit in the United States of always asking how we see things or how we should see things. But in such an important relationship as between the United States and Russia, it is important to understand, in my judgment, that there has grown in Moscow the view, it's very widespread and it's even among the people we used to call democrats, that Russia has been betrayed by the United States. Not once, not twice, not three times but repeatedly since the end of the Soviet Union. That American policy is essentially based on three things: broken promises, the military encirclement of Russia, by which they mean the movement of NATO forces and American forces around Russia, and a persistent view left over from the Soviet era in American policy that when push comes to shove that Russia has no legitimate interest apart from those of the United States. Russians now, many Russians, I'm talking about those in the policy elite not ordinary folk, see this and see it with bitterness in their hearts and in their minds because they expected something different from the United States. Now, the question for us should be, "is that a reasonable fact based interpretation of our behavior in Russia?" I believe that is substantially a reasonable perspective of the dynamics of American policy going back to the Clinton administration and continuing through the bush administration. So therefore this question if whether they've helped or not with terror has to be put in that context. … They did more than any other country in the world to help the United States fight the land war in particular in Afghanistan against the Taliban. We could go into all of the details which range from intelligence to the decision to allow the United States to use a Russian trained force inside Afghanistan. They also acquiesced to the stationing of American military bases in Central Asia, which Russia considers its Mexico, its backyard. The questions the Russians now ask themselves, instead of asking what more Russia did, is what they got in return. What did Russia get in return for that contribution during the first six months to a year of the war against terrorism? And there view is that they didn't get anything. In fact they were betrayed; NATO continued to move eastward. For example, the Americans have made clear, breaking an implied promise, that they are not leaving Central Asia. For example, the sudden arrival of American troops in Georgia also in the Caucus, in Russia's border. So the world is not only how Russia is seen from Washington, but how America is seen from Moscow. You've got to somehow put those two views together and that's the job of diplomacy.

...

If you were to ask me what factor most of all in Russia will influence the fate of democracy, and which factor has most influenced it negatively, since the democratic reforms began with Gorbachov, I would say it's this. When the Soviet Union broke up, all of the property of the Soviet state and that was virtually all the meaningful property in the land, billions and billions of dollars in assets, everything from oil and gas to tv stations, and railway lines, and buildings flew into the air and the struggle to catch it became the driving force, the quest for property, vast property, incredible property, became the driving force of Russian politics. And when most of that property was caught, by a very small group of people we call Oligarchs, but not only them, others who were in that oligarchical system, it was regarded as fundamentally illegitimate by the Russian people, in part because so many Russians at the same time fell into terrible poverty, where they remain today. It's those two circumstances, mass poverty and mass perception that wealth in Russia is illegitimate that has driven forward an anti-democratic politic. Just think about how Mr. Putin became president and why. Yeltsin, who had presided over these developments, fearful for his own security, wanted in power a man he was sure could protect him, and so Putin was chosen because who and what he was, put into power and maintained there. And it is interesting that Yeltsin has remained silent on all of this.

Cohen was wrong on this point, the next day Yeltsin and Gorbachov would speak out together against this move by Putin, read more about in this article from the Jamestown Foundation. Unfortunately the original source from the Moscow News has been removed.

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: September 15th, 2004 (Listen Online: Real Media)

Tensions with Russia - A Retrospective (Thesis Introduction continued)

2008-01-08T16:00:00.002-05:00

During the Cold War, international relations were easy for the lay person to understand. The United States was and much of the western world was united against a common enemy: the Soviet Union. This enemy was unquestionably a military threat, but it was not this merely this military threat that the United States challenged during the Cold War, it was the idea of Soviet communism. For years, the United States embarked on a strategy of containment of this significant threat. On the surface it seemed to be a Manichaean world, the United States and Russia competed in the build-up of nuclear arms, in space programs, and even competed for the favor of third world countries, sometimes with military consequences.

This world-view was shattered in the early 1970s when the United States began to negotiate and even agree upon nuclear weapon limitations with the Soviet Union. By 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed upon their first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT1) and an Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (ABM). In 1975, Russians and Americans shook hands in orbit in the first international space mission, Apollo-Soyuz. The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limited conventional military deployment throughout Europe in the late 1980s, and by the early 1990s, the Soviet Union dissolved and Russia gave up its communist ways. By definition, this was not a military, but a diplomatic victory for the United States. Despite Russia's identical nuclear arsenal, America learned to work with its former enemy on economic issues and further strategic arms reduction. In 1998, the United States even invited Russia to enter the G8.

Yet in recent years, tensions have begun to increase again with Russia. Why?

Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

2008-01-06T13:41:00.002-05:00

Back in December 3rd, I heard an interesting interview on the Diane Rehm show on U.S. - Russian Relations. One of the panalists was Yegor Gaidar, a self described pro-American former Prime Minister of Russia. He made some very interesting points regarding the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

Diane Rehm: Dr. Gaidar, President Putin is also opposed to a US missile defense system in Europe, please talk about why.
Yegor Gaidar: Well that is extremely delicate, the problem. And I am afraid that not even the high ranking officials in both the [US] State Department and my own [Russian] Ministry of Foreign affairs do understand the technical details like speed of the rockets, possibly the material targeting, possibility of the defense of decision making process, and I cannot share this information with you I am afraid. But to tell you frankly, if I would be in the place of President Putin, taking in mind that I am one of the last persons who could be accused of anti-Americanism in Russia, I would be extremely worried about this program. Not because of its anti-missile capabilities, they are entirely unimportant for Russian security, but because I know very well the systems which were elaborated in my country with double targeting anti-missile and ground to ground. I know when they were elaborated, I don't know when they were tested, I don't know the technical characteristics.

Our military thinks that they know about the similar systems elaborated at approximately the same years in the United States, so they inevitably because of their profession they have to count, to regard this system as potentially ground to ground system with they flying time of four minutes to Moscow. When we installed the missiles with the eight minute flying time to Washington [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] the world was the closest to the destruction of the ?? (pronounced. mi-no-na). And that is not eight minute, it is four minute flying time.
Of course, once again for one single second, I myself do not regard them as offensive missiles targeted to Moscow. But if you would place yourself in the position of Chief of Russian general staff, can you, just because you believe that America does not have any offensive intentions against Russia, to ignore this danger, then you would be irresponsible and unprofessional.

While I am not convinced that the anti-missile capabilities are 'entirely unimportant,' this does bring up several points worth considering. How far is this issue alone deepening the divide between the US and Russia? If the control of this system was a joint control between the US and Russia, how far would it go to alleviate tensions? For that matter, how far would discontinuing the program go to alleviate tensions? Are we, in America confident that this missile shield is exclusively to protect against Iranian missiles (which last I checked could barely get to Israel, much less to Europe or America)? And perhaps most importantly, is this missile shield making the United States safer?

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: December 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

International Law - Law Schools

2008-01-05T15:28:00.003-05:00

I have been applying to enter the Foreign Service for some time now, but I've come to realize that I can't place all of my hopes on that one goal. Instead, I have begun to put some effort into my backup plan: to become an international lawyer. I've already begun studying for the law school application exam, but admissions deadline for many law schools is February 1st.

In order to decide which law schools I would like to apply, I found a list of International Law journals and crossreferenced it with US News & World Report's list of the Top 100 Law Schools (and the US News' International Law Speciality list). This left thirty-eight possible options, which was a little more than I was expecting. Of course I can't apply to them all so I made a spreadsheet and tried to give additional pros and cons to each of them, and then sorted them by total number of "stars" and by their admission deadlines.

Does anyone have any ideas about other good law schools in international law or think I should reconsider any of these? My spreadsheet of schools can be found online here.

--
Update:
I started school at one of my top choices, American University - Washington College of Law! Hurray! The paid version of USNews rankings (which I recommend) ranks it as:

#2 in Clinical Training
#5 in International Law
#9 in Trial Advocacy
#21 in Intellectual Property Law
#39 in Legal Writing
#46 overall ("Tier 1")

What it doesn't take into account is location. Washington DC and New York are really the only two locations that should be considered for anyone interested in International Law... and DC is also a top location for anyone interested in working for a government agency.

Of these five programs, as a first year student, I've only had the chance to participate in the Legal Writing program, but so far it has been excellent. As it turns out, I really like Legal Writing, in its best form it's well researched, logical and concise... which I'll grant you aren't exactly new concepts to me, but it's nice to have prospective employment where I will get to use these skills on a regular basis. I'm really looking forward to putting them into practice in a mock court setting next semester, I think that will be even more fun.

"Tribalism" and the News from Kenya

2008-01-03T15:00:00.001-05:00

I have been mulling over the current violence in Kenya since the New Year, trying to congeal my feelings into coherent thought. I had previously heard that the Kenyan electoral system was revered as being one of the best in Africa, and of course this violence is a tragedy. Three hundred people have died in rioting, many burned to death seeking sanctuary within a church. From what I understand, the violence was sparked by a close election, the confusion of the news media being shut down during the election, the unilateral declaration of victory by the incumbent and the statement from the election chairperson saying that he could not say who had actually won.

However I believe one of the biggest problems with this issue is its coverage in the news. I not a person who comments on the political correctness of words, however I do have a problem with inaccurate and misleading terminology. In particular, I am referring to the words tribal and tribalism. A quick scanning of headlines on Kenya include "Tribalism Isn't on the Ballot, But in Kenya It's Key Issue" (- Washington Post), "Tribalism's latest stalking ground" (- National Post) and "Old scores settled in Kenya's tribal war" (- Daily Telegraph).

So what's the problem here? The word "tribalism" incorrectly simplifies a complex situation, worse yet it is a slur. It conjures up images of nomads, of pre-industrial society, and of irresolvable blood rivalries. Thus the use of the word tribalism is at best inaccurate, and at worst bigoted. Is it too much to ask for accuracy and dare I say it a little nuance in our news? The spark was a close election and confusion, the fuel was political opportunists using existing racial mistrust as tool to get themselves more power in the chaos.

Additional Source:
Diane Rehm Show: January 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

_________________________
Addendum:
I found this BBC article after writing my editorial. I thought I would add it because it comes to many of the same conclusions and goes into more depth on the details.

"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," screams the front page banner in the International Herald Tribune. "Kenya plunges into interethnic violence," says Le Monde.

But headlines can be misleading.

It is certainly true that the post-electoral violence in Kenya has taken on a tribal character.

Members of the incumbent (and controversially re-installed) President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been pitted against other smaller tribes.

But that is only part of the story.

A more complete headline might be: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population. ..." - BBC Africa News

Pakistan Delays Elections

2008-01-02T08:46:00.000-05:00

The Pakistani government postponed national elections for six weeks until Feb. 18, raising fears of a violent reaction by the supporters of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and protests from other opposition parties.

News of the delay could spark protests by opposition groups -- including Ms. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party -- which have demanded that the vote be held as scheduled, in hopes of capitalizing on sympathy arising from Ms. Bhutto's assassination Thursday.

Ms. Bhutto's husband ... has called a meeting of its leaders for today to discuss unleashing street demonstrations. ...

"We will not accept the delay in the polls even for one day," said Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for the PPP. "We will resist any attempt to postpone the elections," he added, warning of the potential for further violence after several days of rioting in the wake of Ms. Bhutto's death. -Wall Street Journal

So now there will be massive protests, will now have to watch what the Pakistani government does to quell these protests and if the protests become violent

Financial Winners and Losers in 2007

2008-01-01T00:36:00.000-05:00

Acknowledging of course that stock markets are only a small window on the actual health of economies, it is interesting to note the winners and losers in 2007 in the major world stock markets.

American Stock Markets:
Nasdaq: +9.8%
Dow Jones: +6.4%
S&P 500: +3.5%

World-wide winners:
Shanghai Composite: +97%
Hong Kong Blue Chips: +39%
Germany's DAX: +22%
London's FTSE: +3.8%
France's CAC: +1.3%

And I'm sorry to say to my Japanese friends that Japan's Nikkei was the big loser of 2007 with an overall decline of 11%.

残念だけど不幸中の幸いだ。

__________________________
Sources: Forbes (Asian Markets), Reuters (US Markets), AFP (European Markets)

Growing Tensions in Pakistan

2007-12-31T23:13:00.000-05:00

Of course, all the news media have been covering that Benazir Bhutto's husband and son have become the new Co-Chairmen of the Pakistan People's Party. Much more importantly is what the PPP has been saying (italics added):

The PPP's new leadership indicated yesterday that the party, seared by the tragedy, has now become a formidable enemy to the embattled Mr. Musharraf. "Cooperation with him is out of the question now," said Taj Haider, a senior PPP official and former senator. "What we are doing is accusing Gen. Musharraf of murdering Benazir Bhutto." ...

Harnessing suspicions of government involvement has become the key campaign plank of the PPP ahead of the national election Jan. 8 that is set to install a new prime minister to share power with Mr. Musharraf. The issue of Islamist extremism has virtually disappeared from the public debate. ...
The party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- which just two days ago declared it would boycott the election -- indicated yesterday that it will take part in the vote if PPP also participates. ...
In contrast, Mr. Musharraf's allies -- until now the most vocal backers of the Jan. 8 election -- have started to call for a delay. ...

PPP officials yesterday cautioned against any moves to prevent the Jan. 8 vote from occurring on schedule. ...

Should the government embark on this path, he added, the PPP will respond "on the streets," with massive unrest.

- Wall Street Journal (italics added)

Even if Musharraf had nothing to do with Bhutto's assassination, he now finds himself in a no win situation. Even before Bhutto's assassination, the January 8 elections were going to be seen as less than legitimate because the state of emergency was only lifted on December 15 (- BBC South Asia). And now his own supporters are pressuring him to 'postpone' them. Both will undoubtedly lead to further unrest and lead us all further from the goal of containing the Al Qaida and Taliban forces.

Nawaz Sharif on Bhutto's Assassination

2007-12-27T14:07:00.001-05:00

"Pakistani opposition leader Nawaz Sharif announced Thursday his party was boycotting next month's elections following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. He demanded that President Pervez Musharraf resign immediately.

"The holding of fair and free elections is not possible in the presence of Pervez Musharraf. After the killing of Benazir Bhutto, I announce that the Pakistan Muslim League-N will boycott the elections," Sharif told a news conference, referring to his party. . . "I demand that Musharraf should quit immediately," he said. "Musharraf is the cause of all the problems. The federation of Pakistan cannot remain in tact in the presence of President Musharraf." "

- Seattle Times, NPR 2pm newscast

This warrants very close international attention.

News on the Arctic Corridor

2007-12-27T13:19:00.001-05:00

"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years..." - BBC Science News

If true, this will have very interesting international ramifications. It will be interesting to watch Russia and Canada on this in the coming years.

Addendum-

"Only days after a Russian submarine planted a flag on the seabed at the North Pole, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, announced plans for new military bases in Canada’s Northwest Territories..." -London Times

Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto

2007-12-27T11:48:00.000-05:00

"Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb..." - BBC South Asia News

This is disappointing in so many ways. First of course it is a human tragedy, but this is a marker of how bad things have gotten in Pakistan. Let's consider for a moment what has been happening there lately.

The Taliban and Al Qaida have been growing their influence near the border with Afghanistan, and have made several major terrorist attacks in the past few months. The Pakistani military (which is supposedly headed by Musharraf) has been routed, so the US has been funding a questionable militia of local tribal members known as the "Frontier Corps" (-Foreign Policy). The New York Times reports that more than five billion dollars in US aid to Pakistan "more than five billion dollars in US aid to Pakistan has often never reached the military units it was intended for to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and was instead diverted to other programs" (- Yahoo News). Musharraf imposed martial law to keep himself in power by imprisoning supreme court justices who were going to judge his continued rule unconstitutional (- BBC South Asia). And now one of Musharraf's main opponents is killed, assumably by Al-Qaeda linked terrorists.

Questions will be asked if Musharraf was involved, whether members of the Pakistani military (the most powerful group in Pakistan) were involved. Right now we don't know the answer to this; we probably will never know for sure. In the short term we need to closely watch Musharraf, not for what he says, but for what he does to react.

However one thing is certain, the clear losers are all those who had hoped for a democratic Pakistan.

Thesis Statement - Getting Back from the Point of No Return

2007-12-26T13:41:00.002-05:00

By any accord, the first decade of the twenty-first century has been a turbulent one in international relations. This is especially true for the United States, not because of, but rather despite of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Initially after the terrorist attacks 2001 the world stood in solidarity with the United States and offered their support, but since this support has begun to dry (further explain and cite). The United States engaged itself in two wars, stressing the US military, some say to the breaking point (further explain and cite). During these two wars, many of the United States' closest allies from the Cold War, including NATO, England and Japan, have slowly distanced themselves from the United States' foreign policy. The US dollar has weakened against all major currencies, and its foreign trade deficit has spiraled out of control, and tensions have begun to rise with many of its old rivals including Russia and China.

With each of these in mind, US foreign policy finds itself at a point of
the beginning of the twenty-first century has seen a major decline in the international influence and power of the United States. As of late, there has been a temptation to place blame for this loss, but this point is counter-productive. There will be dire consequences if the United States continues to loose its influence into the next decade, and placing blame will not improve this situation. But this danger masks a great opportunity. In this atmosphere, the world will be very sensitive to changes in American foreign policy. Thus small changes during this time period will have the opportunity to make their largest impact on the international scene because solving many of the problems will also also improve American relations with the other world governments.

There are many places where this opportunity could be used, but the much of this effort should be focused where it would do the most good. Bearing this in mind two things must be taken into account: where the United States could make the most improvement, and where the building of stronger international connections would not adversely effect America's relations with other older allies. The Russian Federation fits this profile perfectly. It is the only member of the G8 which the United States considers a military rival. In addition, unlike the tensions between China and Taiwan, there is no country that would directly find normalization between Russia and the United States threatening. Though there are many issues of contention between the United States and Russia, and each of these issues can be solved to the satisfaction and betterment of both the United States and Russia.

Introduction

2007-12-26T12:58:00.001-05:00

I am an International Relations student currently working on my Master's thesis. Both in my thesis research and in my normal life I pay a lot of attention to world politics, and occasionally come up with gems of interesting information. Rather than selfishly keeping these notes to myself, I've decided to post them here.