Economics of the Ukrainian Crisis
With Russian on the march in Crimea, NPR’s Planet Money podcast recently discussed the economics of the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine and the role natural gas plays in the dispute.
Here is a description of the podcast from the Planet Money Blog:
On today’s show, how a policy that made natural gas very cheap for every household in Ukraine almost bankrupted the nation. And how that led, in part, to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
New Report Says Syria Responsible for Death, Possible Torture of 11,000
By
David Kailer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836550
The BBC’s report tracks a report released on the eve of the “biggest diplomatic effort yet to end a three-year conflict that has left more than 100,000 dead and millions displaced”. The convention, commonly known as Geneva II, will convene to discuss resolving the worsening situation in Syria.
The report was comprised with the cooperation of a “defected military police photographer” known as “Caesar”, who was in charge of photographing the dead to assist in producing death certificates and to confirm that executions had been completed. “There could be as many as 50 bodies a day to photograph…” Many of the bodies show signs of beating and emaciation, the consistency over the corpses suggesting to Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice “that the scale and consistency of the killings provided strong evidence of government involvement that could support a criminal prosecution”.
The article also tracks a developing argument over the legitimacy of the report, whether the photographs were actually from within Syria, and whether the report was financed by the country of Qatar, which a spokeman for the Syrian Ministry of Information suggested should completely undermine the findings of the report because of Qatar’s interests in the region.
Marie Harf of the U.S. State Department was quoted as saying, “The situation on the ground is so horrific that we need to get a political transition in place, and we need to get the Assad regime out of power.”
Is American or United Nations intervention appropriate? If so, what form should it take? What concerns would you have about America getting involved in another political struggle abroad?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed outrage at reports that the American National Security Agency allegedly intercepted conversations to and from her mobile cell phone. This comes on the heels of a similar claim from France that the National Security Agency collected tens of thousands of French phone records between December 2012 and January 2013.
The Chancellor argued that such spying constitutes a breach of trust, and that the United States will need to rebuild that trust going forward. The revelation about National Security Agency surveillance is merely the latest in a string of similar stories since former U.S. analyst Edward Snowden leaked that the United States had a very wide-ranging intelligence and surveillance program.
In light of the incident, the German Chancellor suggested limiting the current data-sharing agreement in place between Washington and the nations of the European Union. The article points out that any additional limitations on the free flow of information between the United States and its European allies could have damaging repercussions in the American effort to combat terrorism.
This revelation might prompt the European Union to additionally tighten data privacy rules it is already in the process of drafting. Such new legislation might hinder companies collecting data in Europe and then disseminating that information to non-European nations. The legislation might also impose stiff financial penalties on any country caught violating the new rules.
Any new laws would also affect a program called Swift, based in Europe, which collects data on an international scale about electronic money transfers. Leaks by Edward Snowden indicate that the United States may bee repeatedly violating the agreement underlying the Swift program by retrieving more information than it is permitted to. The article does not indicate whether this suggests the United States pulls more data, or rather collects data about an impermissible range of subjects. The European Union has moved to suspend operation of the program until data sharing laws and policies can be put in place, while the United States has voiced concern that limiting access to the information collected by the program would greatly impede our ability to conduct effective counter-terrorism.
The article ends with a quote from the former head of France’s secret services, Bernard Squarcini, “I’m bewildered by such worrying naiveté. You’d think the politicians don’t read the reports they’re sent – there shouldn’t be any surprise, [t]he agencies know perfectly well that every country, even when they cooperate on anti-terrorism, spies on its allies. The Americans spy on us on the commercial and industrial level like we spy on them, because it’s in the national interest to defend our businesses. No one is fooled.”
This article deals with the moral and legal gray area that is the use of intelligence directed against international allies. In the absence of any binding agreements prohibiting it, should the United States continue gathering secret information about its allies? Should international law reflect a belief that allies are prohibited from spying on each other? Despite the international backlash, are there policy reasons why it might be beneficial to allow allies to spy on each other without explicit knowledge or consent?
This article broke news concerning international talks held in Geneva between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran. The talks centered around Iran’s desire to develop nuclear capacity as a nation, despite historical resistance from the international community.
Iran has received sanctions by the international community because of the fear that Iran is using nuclear development as a guise under which the nation could develop a nuclear bomb. This fear is perhaps supported by the fact that Iran develops and pursues possession of enriched uranium, a vital component of for nuclear weapons.
Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and has forcefully argued that as a state, it has the right to develop nuclear capacity to pursue peaceful, civilian applications.
As press on these talks in Geneva has spread, Israel has issued statements arguing against the lifting of sanctions currently in force on Iran. As a critical ally of the United States, Israel’s perspective on these developments will likely have respectable influence.
The proliferation of nuclear capacity, for peaceful or military applications, consistently causes a stir in the international community. When a company has civilian nuclear capacity, there is a continued risk that the nuclear-capable state will pursue weaponization to increase its military capabilities.
As a disclaimer, it is probably obvious that support for Iran’s actions will disappear if it comes to pass that Iran pursues nuclear weapons. If Iran is acting in good faith and does not develop nuclear weapons, their approach might set a good precedent. There is a tension around the world between the nuclear states and the non-nuclear states. Those states who do not possess nuclear weapons might feel like second-rate global citizens, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons commands non-nuclear states to cease or avoid developing nuclear capacities, putting them at a strategic disadvantage in global conflicts.
Nuclear capability is something of a Pandora’s Box, the knowledge and capability is not going to disappear. The P5+1 should adopt an approach to deal with and/or assist nations who wish to develop nuclear capability, without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation.
Should the P5, or perhaps U.N. Security Council, be the gatekeeper of nuclear capability? Does every state have an inherent right to nuclear development? What are the risks of a worldwide community with nuclear capabilities, even if developed for peaceful goals?
Obama Administration Questioning Suspected Terrorists On Ships Rather Than CIA ‘Black’ Sites
This article discusses the Obama Administration’s emerging trend of detaining and questioning suspected terrorists aboard United States vessels at sea. This approach is the current administration’s response to George W. Bush’s reliance on Guantanamo and other “black sites” as locations for prolonged detention.
Bush’s policy engendered a great deal of controversy on political, legal and moral grounds, as United States citizens dealt with the reality that the federal government was detaining individuals far outside the reach of constitutional due process and typical criminal law procedures.
As part of his campaign platform, Obama insisted that Guantanamo Bay would be closed down, and that his administration was committed to prosecuting suspected terrorists within the currently established boundaries of criminal law and procedure.
While this is clearly a laudable goal from a civil liberties perspective, Obama’s administration has run into difficulty because their civil liberties approach is not the most efficient method of waging the War on Terror and protecting national security interests.
The United States population is generally familiar with the concept of Miranda Rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you…” and so on. The reality of the situation is that a suspected terrorist who is “Mirandized” is less likely to talk in order to minimize the government’s criminal case. Inevitably, this lack of information hurts the operators in the national security arena because they must protect national interests with less intelligence than if suspected terrorists were forced or encouraged to give up their information.
The administration’s solution to resolving the tension between these two objectives has been to detain suspects on at-sea vessels, classifying them as enemy combatants under the laws of war and the Laws of Armed Conflict while subjecting them to interrogation for valuable intelligence. Once this phase is completed, these suspected terrorists are re-questioned in accordance with constitutional criminal procedure so that the government can build a case against them for civil prosecution; any information given by the suspect before being read their rights is inadmissible in a court of law.
While the Obama Administration’s position is understandable, their solution is not all that distinguishable from the Bush Administration’s approach. Under both approaches, individuals suspected of terrorist activities are detained in an adversarial location and subjected to various “interview” techniques in the hope of gathering national security information.
It is easy to consider that the Obama approach might be more about satisfying the popular conscience than providing meaningful civil liberty protection.
Does the Obama Administration’s approach do a meaningful job of protecting the civil liberties of individuals suspected of terrorist activity? Is the population concerned with the civil rights of non-American citizens accused of suspected terrorist activity? Is there are more effective or efficient way of resolving the tensions between civil rights and the need for the best intelligence for the national security establishment?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/obama-terrorists-ships_n_4063003.html?ir=World&ref=topbar