During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution in the late 1780s, a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers were written. Primarily written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, the purpose of the Federalist Papers was to promote the ratification of the Constitution and expressed the underlying principles of the new American government. In addition to discussing numerous issues relating to the American national government, the Federalist Papers also examined the roles and responsibilities of the Presidency. One example of a Federalist Paper that discusses a critical issue regarding the Presidency is Federalist No. 68, which goes over the methods of electing both the President and the Vice President, and the roles of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the event of an electoral tie.
In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion of the executive branch, specifically the subject of what is the most efficient way to elect the President. In his argument, Hamilton states that a system based on the Electoral College is the proper way to select the President for several reasons. One such reason as to why Hamilton backed the electoral college system is because it would give individuals the right to have a say in who was to be elected President while at the same time maintaining the stability of the American political system. Hamilton argues that the direct election of the President could result in a corrupt leader taking power without the will or the people, or ultimately the downfall of the American national government. Hamilton further explains that the Electoral College would consist of capable people free of any bias resulting from the fact that they do not hold political office and are unaffiliated with electors from any other state. As a result of such factors, Hamilton believes that the Electoral College process would afford a “moral certainty” that the office of the Presidency is filled by highly qualified and trustworthy individual.
Federalist No. 68 goes on to describe the procedures to select the electors and what is to occur in the event of a tie in the Electoral College. Hamilton mentions that the people in each state will choose who will serve as the electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of such state in the national government. Their votes, as Hamilton describes, are to be transmitted to the federal government and the person with the highest number of votes is to be the winner of the Presidency. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives is to select out of the candidates with the five highest number of votes, the one who is the most qualified in their eyes. Hamilton goes further and references several specific guidelines that the electors must follow. The guidelines mentioned by Hamilton are meant to prevent any bias in the selection of the Presidency and are intended to encourage everyday individuals to gain a level of involvement in the electoral process in the respective states.
Alexander Hamilton also discusses the methods for the election of the Vice President in Federalist No. 68. The selection of the Vice President its to occur in a similar manner to the President, but instead, the Senate has the authority to vote in the case of a tie in the electoral vote as opposed to the House of Representatives. Hamilton is highly critical towards the idea that the Senate should elect the Vice President and goes over two arguments against that particular point. The first argument is that if the Vice President is elected by the Senate, they would be beholden to that particular body. As a result, the Vice President’s vote in the case of a tie in the Senate may be influenced by the opinions of other senators. The second argument is that the Vice President assuming the office of the Presidency without being selected by the Electoral College may raise questions about their legitimacy as a leader. Considering such factors, Hamilton expresses opposition to the idea that the Senate should play the primary role in electing the Vice President.
Overall, Alexander Hamilton makes several valid arguments for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68. The strongest argument that he makes is the fact that it allows for impartiality and reduces the chances of a corrupt or unqualified individual from becoming President. Furthermore, the electoral college system may encourage an increased level of citizen participation in politics and foster a higher level of political knowledge. On the contrary, it can also be argued that the Electoral College is unnecessary in the contemporary political environment because it compels Presidential candidates to focus primarily on campaigning in the states with the highest number of electoral votes. Additionally, it can be argued that the direct election of the President through popular vote is more in accord with longstanding democratic principles and will give people an increased say in who will govern them.
In Conclusion, the issues surrounding the election of both the President and the Vice President are explored by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68. The system that Hamilton advocates for is the Electoral College. Throughout Federalist No. 68, Hamilton makes a compelling argument for the Electoral College. With a Presidential election process based on the Electoral College, Hamilton argues that the selection of the President will occur in a way that preserves the stability of the American political system and that the office of the Presidency will be held by a highly qualified person free of any corruption. Furthermore, Hamilton also explores the procedure is which Presidential electors are appointed and the election process of the Vice President in Federalist No. 68 as well.
Source:
Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist No.68.” The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2016.
An example of a country with a multi-leveled domestic judiciary system is Poland. Poland is a parliamentary republic and is an active member of numerous international organizations such as the UN, the European Union, and the International Court of Justice. Poland was also a member of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the legal arm of the League of Nations that immediately preceded the creation of ICJ. Though there are no currently available cases in the ICJ, Poland appeared before PCIJ several times to litigate disputes with other nations, as in the case with Lithuania over the Landwarow Kaisiadorys railway line in 1931.
The constitution of Poland was adopted on April 2, 1997. It declares that Poland is a parliamentary republic with three branches of government in a system based on the principles of separation of power and balance between the executive, judicial, and legislative components. The legislature of Poland is bicameral and consists of the Sejm (lower house of Parliament) and the Senate (upper house of Parliament). The executive branch of Poland consists of both the President and the Council of Ministers, and the powers of the judiciary are vested in both the courts and tribunals within Poland. Additionally, Poland is a unitary state divided into 16 provinces. The sources of law in Poland are divided into universally binding legislation such as ratified international agreements and internal law, which binds domestic institutions.
The judicial system of Poland is composed of several levels. The lowest level is the common court system. The common court system within Poland is divided into three branches: regional, appellate, and district courts. Presently, there are 376 common courts in Poland, including 11 courts of appeal, 321 regional courts, and 45 district courts. The Polish president, with the consent of the National Judiciary Council, selects the judges within the common court system. The primary goal of the National Judiciary Council is to safeguard the independence of the court system and evaluate prospective judge candidates. The National Judiciary Council is composed of 25 individuals, each of whom is appointed by: the President, the First President of the Supreme Court, the President of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Minister of Justice, four Parliament members, two Senators, ten judges from the common courts, two Supreme Court justices, a judge of the military tribunal, and two judges from the administrative courts.
Cases regarding administrative law within Poland are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court. According to Article 184 of the Polish Constitution, the primary purpose of the Supreme Administrative Court is to exercise “control over the performance of public administration” and to settle disputes between private citizens and administrative agencies within the Polish government. The head of the Supreme Administrative Court is appointed by the Polish President and serves a six-year term in office. Another aspect of the Polish judicial system is the Constitutional Tribunal, which is set up to settle disputes regarding the constitutionality of actions by state institutions as well as any disputes between the central constitutional organs of Poland. There are currently 15 members of the Constitutional Tribunal, who serve for 9-year terms. The Tribunal of the State is another part of Poland’s judiciary and is set up to investigate any violations by the legislative and executive branches in Poland. The Tribunal of the State consists of 16 members and the President of Poland appoints its chairperson.
Polish Supreme court Building
The highest level within the judiciary of Poland is the Supreme Court. The Polish Supreme Court is considered to be the court of last resort, addressing judgments made by the lower court levels. The First President of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of Poland for a six-year term and is selected from a list of candidates proposed by the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Court. Additional members of the Supreme Court are also appointed by the President and serve for an undefined period. Members of the Supreme Court are recommended via a motion from the National Judiciary Council.
Poland is currently a member of the International Court of Justice, having first accepted compulsory jurisdiction by the court on September 25, 1990. On March 25, 1996, Poland withdrew and simultaneously recognized a new version of their acceptance of the ICJ statute with several reservations. Before its membership to the ICJ, Poland was also a member of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), the predecessor to the ICJ, from 1922 to 1946. In its capacity in the PCIJ, Poland appeared before the court a few times to settle several issues, many of which were related to territorial disputes and issues of Polish citizenship. One such case occurred in 1931 in which the PCIJ issued an advisory opinion a dispute between Poland and Lithuania over railway traffic from the Landwarow Kaisiadorys Railway, which linked both countries.
The background behind this dispute between Poland and Lithuania can be traced back to the immediate aftermath of World War I. Before the war, both Poland and Lithuania were part of the Russian Empire, and the Landwarow Kaisiadorys Railway Line represented an important commercial route to Russia’s naval ports within the region. As a result of the war, the states of Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania emerged out of territories from the former Russian Empire. Poland subsequently occupied a region that was directly adjacent to the non-occupied part of Lithuania. Poland then requested transit to the city of Memel, located in Lithuanian territory through the Landwarow Kaisiadorys Railway. Lithuania refused Poland’s request and subsequently shut down the railway route. As the situation escalated, the League of Nations demanded that both countries enter into negotiations to settle their dispute. Ultimately, the talks between both Poland and Lithuania failed, and the League of Nations asked the PCIJ to intervene in the case. Ultimately, the PCIJ ruled that Lithuania was not bound to open the Landwarow Kaisiadorys Railway for traffic under current international engagements.
Poland’s view towards international legal institutions may be shaped by its past experiences. The ruling against Poland in the 1931 railway dispute case may have played a role in the country’s perception of international law, perhaps reducing its opinion of the effectiveness of such organizations. In its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, Poland expresses several reservations, including over disputes of territory (“Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory”). As it did in the railway case, Poland litigated international disputes with neighboring states such as Germany. Generally, the PCIJ ruled against Poland in many of the cases. Within a few years, Poland was occupied by Germany and lost much of its sovereignty in World War II. When Poland did appeal to the courts prior to World War II, it suffered subsequent injustice from Germany. Therefore, Poland may have wanted to assert its territorial integrity through aforementioned reservations in 1996 to prevent similar conflicts. Poland was more active in international legal cases under the PCIJ as opposed to the ICJ after World War II. Perhaps not receiving justice under the PCIJ has deterred them from participating in international jurisdictions such as the ICJ. For example, the ICJ shows no history of cases involving Poland on its website.
In conclusion, Poland is an example of a nation with a strong, multi-level judiciary and is a member state to numerous international institutions. Furthermore, Poland’s perspective regarding international law and the role of international organizations could be negatively influenced by its past experiences. An understanding of Poland’s past experiences regarding international institutions may offer insight into future perceptions of international law.
Works Cited:
“Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory.” International Court of Justice. International Court of Justice, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
“The Judiciary in Poland.” Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Rakowski, Piotr, and Robert Rybicki. “The Polish Legal System.” NYU Law. Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law, Oct. 2005. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Railway Traffic Between Lithuania and Poland. Series A/B: Collection of Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions. Permanent Court of International Justice. 15 Oct. 1931. International Court of Justice. International Court of Justice, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.
“The Constitution of the Republic of Poland.” Constitute. Constitute Project. n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2015
Throughout the 2003 book FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, Jim Powell argues that the policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal did little to restore the American economy during the height of the Great Depression and that they only contributed to the stagnant economic situation and high rate of unemployment. In addition, he argues that the New Deal necessitated a heightened level of government intervention in the economy through the establishment of a myriad of regulations in nearly every aspect of economic life. To back up his argument, Powell examines the long-term effects of the New Deal and analyzes President Roosevelt’s policies in order to assert that they had an adverse impact on the economy overall. In the introduction, Powell attempts to clarify what went wrong during the Great Depression, declaring that it would have been “avoidable” with better governmental policies. He determines that “chronic unemployment persisted during the 1930s because of a succession of misguided New Deal policies.”
Overall, Powell’s assessment of President Roosevelt’s economic policies represents a new interpretation of U.S. economic history. The conventional belief among historians is that the New Deal reforms ultimately saved the U.S. economy from ruin and that the Great Depression was primarily caused by the lack of government regulation in the economy. For example, in the introduction to “The Great Depression: America 1929-1941,” historian Robert McElvaine argues that the Great Depression was caused primarily by the lack of government regulation and oversight in the economy, further stating that the policies of the New Deal ultimately succeeded in their goal to prevent another economic collapse as severe as the Great Depression. Additionally, McElvaine argues that President Roosevelt was too cautious with spending on the New Deal and that increased spending would have made the New Deal programs more efficient. In contrast, Powell argues that the Great Depression was caused in part by changes in monetary policy by the Federal Reserve in 1929 and due to the Federal Reserve’s failure to adequately respond to the subsequent drop in consumer demand.
Powell mentions that President Roosevelt harmed the economy by increasing taxes during his term in office. To end the Great Depression and restore economic stability in the U.S., Roosevelt sought to increase government influence over the economy by requiring higher taxes. Initially, Roosevelt pushed for higher excise taxes on products such as tobacco, liquor, and gasoline during his first year in office, and further sought to increase income taxes beginning in his second year. The 1934 Revenue Act impacted higher-income individuals, through raising taxes on all incomes above $9,000 annually. Additionally, the Social Security Act of 1935 introduced the payroll tax, which increased the cost of hiring people and prolonged high unemployment. The implementation of a variety of tax increases by the Roosevelt administration reduced the spending power of both average and wealthy Americans and prolonged the difficult financial situation.
Powell argues that the New Deal resulted in increased costs for consumers through the enacting of numerous federal regulations. Powell cites the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which set up the National Recovery Administration (NRA), as an example of a New Deal program that established new economic regulations. The primary goal of the NRA was to bring business, labor and government together to create codes of fair practices and to fix prices to reduce competition from monopolies. The NRA also implemented regulations requiring businesses to reduce output and keep established prices to increase the wages of their employees. In reality, the policies of the NRA increased the cost of consumer goods and did little to cure persistent unemployment. Additionally, the NRA created government-sanctioned cartels between industries through the establishment of uniform codes businesses had to follow. Ultimately, the NRA was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935. After the NIRA had been overturned, economists declared that “the NRA on the whole retarded recovery” by increasing regulations on businesses and raising the costs of consumer goods.
Powell then goes on to explore the economic effects of the public works program established through the New Deal such as the Public Works Administration (PWA), which was established to construct complex and large-scale public works projects such as highways, bridges, and dams. As a result, most PWA projects tended to employ skilled workers as opposed to poorer and unskilled workers affected most by the Great Depression. Much of the money allotted for relief and public works programs were also used to promote favoritism and patronage towards supporters of the Democratic Party and President Roosevelt, thus encouraging corruption at the highest levels of government. For the Democratic Party to attract the loyalty and votes of states such as Nevada and Utah, Powell contends that the Western region benefitted most from the New Deal public works programs even though the area was affected less by the Great Depression than the South and larger urban centers in the Northeast.
Powell contends that the recovery from the 1937-38 Recession was worsened by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which specified a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour. The implementation of a minimum wage depressed the economy by increasing the cost of hiring new employees and necessitating an increase in wages that many employers could not afford. The minimum wage particularly impacted African American agricultural workers in the South. For example, the Labor Department reported in 1938 that some thirty to fifty thousand workers, primarily southern African Americans, lost their jobs within two weeks of the implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result of the economic downturn in 1938, many Americans began to turn against the New Deal, and it increasingly looked like President Roosevelt did not have a clear economic policy.
Despite the factual basis of Powell’s argument, there are several instances of bias throughout the text. For example, Powell shows bias towards the economic belief that reducing taxes and government spending is the primary factor that leads to economic recovery. Powell exhibits this conviction in the final chapter when he is comparing the recovery from the Great Depression with recoveries from preceding economic downturns. Powell mentions that the reason the U.S. recovered from the 1837 Recession and the 1920 Recession was through reductions in government expenditures and taxes. However, his comparisons may not be entirely valid, as at the time such economic downturns took place, the U.S. economy lacked the 1930s-levels of industrialization and globalization.
Moreover, Powell at times criticized President Roosevelt in a way that lacks objectivity. For example, Powell compares Roosevelt’s actions regarding economic regulation to the actions of dictators such as Juan Peron and Mao Zedong. Additionally, Powell accuses some of the advisors to President Roosevelt as pushing for socialism through their support of progressive economic policies. Powell then implies that President Roosevelt’s advisors pursued economic policies based purely on a form of idealism that did not take into account the potential negative effects of government intervention in the economy. The chapter titles may also serve as an indicator of Powell’s own bias, as they are worded as questions asking the reader why a particular policy of President Roosevelt and the New Deal negatively impacted the economy.
To sum it up, Jim Powell argues that the New Deal programs and the economic policy of President Franklin Roosevelt ultimately failed to end the Great Depression and instead worsened the economic situation in the U.S. In order to back up his arguments, Powell cites examples of President Roosevelt’s economic policy such as the low effectiveness of the public works programs, tax policy changes during the 1930s, banking policy, and economic regulatory policy. Overall, Powell makes a compelling case against the New Deal through the factual basis of his opinions, though his own personal bias takes away from the central focus of his arguments at times throughout the text.
The international legal system depends on adoption by the domestic legal systems of individual states to function effectively. The international legal system is interpreted through diverse ways at the domestic level. The execution of international law at the national level is determined by governmental structure, the constitution, and the division of power in individual states. Many nations explicitly describe how international law will be applied within their legal systems in their fundamental laws, including their constitutions, charters, and basic laws. The two main theories regarding international law application are monism and dualism. Monist theory says that both the international and domestic legal systems are one and the same and that the international legal system takes precedence over the domestic system. On the other hand, proponents of dualism argue that international law should be applied through incorporation into the domestic system and that both the international and internal systems are to be separate.
One example of a state that has interpreted international law and adopted it within its domestic legal system is Greece. The current constitution of Greece was originally adopted in 1975 and amended most recently in 2008. Greece is a parliamentary republic with three branches of government. The three branches of government in Greece are the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The Greek parliament is unicameral and is elected by popular vote, and the total number of members is 300, as determined by law. The executive branch consists of the president, who acts as the head of state, and a prime minister, who serves as the head of government. The judiciary is divided between civil, criminal, and administrative courts that are presided over by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Special Supreme Tribunal. The Greek judicial branch also follows the tradition of civil law as opposed to common law. The background of civil law is based in Roman tradition and is prevalent in Eastern Europe, whereas common law is based in English tradition and is common to Western Europe and the U.S. Greece is subject to the laws of the United Nations and the European Union as an active member of both organizations.
International law is explicitly referenced in the Greek Constitution in several provisions. The first reference to international law occurs in Article 2 Section 2 of the Greek Constitution, in which it states that Greece will adhere to international law. The provision states that “Greece, following the generally accepted rules of international law, seeks consolidation of peace and justice and fostering of friendly relations among Peoples and States (Greek Constitution art. 2 par. 2). In addition, Article 28 Section 2 states that Greece will accept limits on their autonomy as voted by the majority vote of parliament when it states, “Greece shall accept restrictions on the exercise of national sovereignty by laws passed by the absolute majority of the total number of deputies, if this be dictated by important national interests, if human rights and the foundations of the democratic regime be not violated, and if this be effected on the basis of the principle of equality and on condition of reciprocity” (Greek Constitution art. 28 par. 2). The incorporation of such provisions within its constitution illustrates that Greece views international law as a significant characteristic in its own fundamental laws and that international law will take precedence over internal laws.
With regards to the provisions referencing the role of international law within its constitution, Greece is operating under the principles of monist theory as opposed to dualist theory. Monist theory stipulates that international law does not need to be translated into domestic law and that the act of ratifying a treaty incorporates both international law and national law. The provision in the Greek Constitution that supports monist theory is Article 28 Section 1. In Article 28 Section 1, the Constitution mentions that the generally recognized rules of international law will be an aspect of Greek law upon their ratification and will prevail over any contrary constitutional provision. In contrast, dualist theory specifies that international law is not directly applicable domestically and that it must be translated into national legislation before it can be applied nationally.
International law within Greece can be implemented through parliamentary procedures. For any treaty to come into effect, parliament must vote in favor by a 3/5th majority, as stated in Article 28 Section 2. Additionally, if the President opts to act as a representative of the state and personally endorse any “conventions on trade, taxation, economic cooperation and participation in international organizations or unions and all others containing concessions,” as referenced in Article 36 Section 2, all policies must be ratified by the Parliament before being enacted (Greek Constitution art. 3 par. 2). In constitutional law, the powers of judicial administration are granted by the constitution to the state and the state enacts legislation under its judgment to promote the well-being of all citizens. Fundamental law, on the other hand, explicitly states the laws for individual people. Because Greek law is dictated by parliamentary and executive operatives, it can be considered constitutional in nature. For example, Article 1 of the Greek constitution states that “Popular sovereignty is the foundation of government,” and, “All powers derive from the People and exist for the People and the Nation; they shall be exercised as specified by the Constitution” (Greek Constitution art. 1). This is saying that powers of government entities are dictated by the constitution.
In Greece, jurisdiction over issues such as whether rules of international law belong to customary international law and the clarification of international law provisions rests with the Supreme Special Court. According to Article 100 of the Greek Constitution, the Supreme Special Court is comprised of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts, four members of the Court of Cassation, and four members of the Council of State. The selected members of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State serve on the Supreme Special Court for a 2-year term. The Supreme Special Court is not a permanent standing court and only called when a case relating to its special competencies arises. Decisions of the Supreme Special Court are also binding and irrevocable for all the other branches of the judiciary.
Greece has interpreted the meaning of specific sources of international law within its domestic system. A recent example of Greece interpreting international law in its internal system occurred with its implementing of austerity measures as ordered by the European Union to solve the debt crisis the country has been experiencing over the past few years. As a result of the financial crisis of the late 2000s, the Greek economy has declined, and the level of government debt grew to unsustainable levels. As a consequence of the unstable economic conditions within the country, the European Union offered Greece a bailout to stabilize its finances and restore some order in its economy. The bailout came with the conditions that Greece would need to implement austerity measures such as tax increases and cuts in government spending. In response to the bailout provisions and reflecting their view that international conventions in which they are party to represent an essential part of their domestic legal system, Greece had to abide by the bailout conditions and implement a variety of austerity measures through their legislative and executive branches.
Another example of Greece interpreting the meaning of international law occurred through its declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory with several reservations in 2015. In its statement, Greece stated that it will hold any of the rulings of the court as mandatory with the exception of any dispute relating to military action taken to protect its sovereignty, any dispute concerning State boundaries or sovereignty over its territory and any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only in relation to or for the purpose of that dispute. Through the determination of such reservations, the Greek government is asserting its perception that the ICJ statute goes against what it views as customary international law.
The future of Greece’s perception of international law depends on several factors. One such factor is related to the ongoing Greek debt crisis. As a result of the economic turmoil within the country and the conditions brought about by austerity measures the country has taken, a potential backlash may emerge against organizations that Greece is a party to such as the European Union. In recent years, an active nationalist movement led by groups such as Golden Dawn also emerged in Greece in response to the issues facing the country and called for less participation in international organizations. In addition, the expressed reservations by Greece against the ICJ statute may serve as an indicator as to how Greece may perceive international law in the future.
In conclusion, the success international legal system is contingent on the adoption by the domestic legal systems of individual states and the interpretation of the international legal system at the national level is diverse and depends on several factors. Greece is one such country that has applied international law within its domestic system in several ways and has also had to interpret specific sources of international law. Through the study of Greece’s application of international law in the domestic law structure, one can determine how the country will interpret and apply international law in the years to come.
In the Islamic world, there has been much debate over the relationship between Islam and politics. Some Muslims argue in favor of increased secularism, whereas others argue that both Islam and politics are interconnected. As a result, a diverse array of political movements has emerged throughout the Islamic world. The individual goals and agendas of various political movements in Islam vary; in addition, the factors behind their origins are diverse as well. One such example of an Islamic political organization is Hamas, which is based in the Palestinian territory. Hama is currently one of two political parties active in the Palestinian Authority, having won a majority of the vote in the Palestinian national elections in 2006. As a result of its use of violence to achieve political goals, Hamas is controversially classified by the U.S., Israel, and the European Union as a terrorist organization.
The creation of Hamas can be traced back to the Six-Day War in 1967. As a result of the war, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan, beginning a long and brutal occupation of both territories. As a result of Israel’s occupation, the local populations became resentful, and a powerful resistance movement emerged. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood gained influence in Egypt as an Islamic political organization denouncing the occupation. One Palestinian cleric and activist in the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin began performing charitable work and preaching Islamic scripture in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some of Yassin’s work and that of other activists included setting up schools, clinics, and youth clubs in Gaza and the West Bank. Initially, Yassin’s efforts were encouraged by some in the Israeli government, as it was believed that these efforts would discourage violence and allow for greater stability in the occupied territories. By 1987, Yassin established Hamas as the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip. Hamas was founded shortly after the first intifada, which was a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
The main political agenda of Hamas consists of the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Palestine and the liberation of the Palestinian territories from Israeli occupation. As many political parties and factions in Palestine do, Hamas views the occupation as a human rights violation. In addition, Hamas operates schools, hospitals, and religious institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and manages a highly effective social welfare system. As a result, the organizations popularity among the Palestinian people has grown. To achieve their goals, Hamas often carries out attacks against Israel through its military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigade. According to a study by the Council on Foreign Relations, Hamas is believed to have killed roughly 500 people in 350 separate attacks since 1993.
By 2005, Hamas began to get involved in electoral politics and immediately became a success. During the 2006 legislative elections, Hamas was able to gain a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. As a result of Hamas’ win, the U.S., Israel, and the European Union placed economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. Fatah, a rival Palestinian political organization, initially formed a unity government with Hamas. However, Hamas ultimately seized unilateral control over the Gaza Strip in 2007. It was at this point that Israel began to hold Hamas responsible for all terrorist attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip and executed several military campaigns against Hamas. In the military campaigns, Israel conducted against Hamas in the Gaza Strip since 2006, some 5,000 people were killed, and much of the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip was destroyed. In addition, Israel implemented a blockade against Gaza to isolate Hamas. Despite the fact that Hamas was weakened military following its conflicts with Israel and internationally isolated, the Palestinian people grew to admire Hamas for surviving in the fight against Israel despite the odds stacked against them.
Despite the fact that Europe, Israel, and the U.S. have condemned Hamas and view it as a terrorist organization, opinions regarding the organization vary throughout the Middle East. While countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are wary of embracing Hamas, the leaders of Turkey and Qatar openly back Hamas as a way to bolster popular support in their countries. The main Middle East backers of Hamas are Iran and Syria. In the past, both countries supplied Hamas with weapons and various forms of sponsorship. As a result of events such as the Syrian Civil War, Syrian support for Hamas has been reduced. Furthermore, Hamas refused to send in troops to assist Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has instead supported rebel groups fighting against his government. Additionally, international diplomacy has convinced Iran to reduce its funding for Hamas, and Iran has sought to increase its ties with separate resistance groups in the region. Due to the mixed opinion within the Middle East, the conflict between Hama and Israel is developing to a conflict between extremists and more moderate elements throughout the Middle East. Furthermore, the popular support for Hamas throughout the Middle East shows that the organization is becoming a socio-political movement with a message in support of Palestinian sovereignty that resonates throughout the Middle East.
In conclusion, Hamas was originally established as a social movement to promote general welfare in occupied Palestine. Over time, Hamas has developed into a political and violent military faction with the support of a number of Middle Eastern countries. The methods of Hamas vary from conventional political activities such as participating in elections to less typical ones such as using violence to achieve its goals. In response, numerous Western countries denounced Hamas through sanctions and military actions. In addition, civilian casualties from Israeli attacks against Hamas have garnered sympathy for the group and the Palestinian people in recent years. The actions of both Hamas and Israel have polarized opinions across the world. Only time will tell if both Israel and Hamas will come together to mediate their disputes, which may not be possible at this point in time.
In the realm of international relations, law can develop from a number of influences. The sources of international law may either be formal or informal and either written down or based on longstanding customs in individual states. In addition, individual states have a number perspectives on the nature of international law. The Republic of Sierra Leone has had a long history of involvement in international affairs. Sierra Leone is centrally located along the coast of Africa and boasts the third largest natural harbor in the world. In addition, the country is rich in natural resources such as diamonds and titanium. Because of these factors, Sierra Leone has a long history associated with colonialism, government instability, and the smuggling of weapons across its borders. These three factors have developed the perspectives of the people of Sierra Leone and are contributors to the country’s involvement in international law.
A major aspect that helped to shape Sierra Leone’s view on international law is its political history. Sierra Leone was originally set up by British abolitionists as a settlement for repatriated and rescued slaves in 1787 and became a protectorate of Great Britain in 1896. By the mid-20th Century, widespread unrest began to spread throughout the country in response to British rule and demands for independence grew. In 1961, Britain finally gave in and granted Sierra Leone independence. The political history of Sierra Leone over the ensuing decades was characterized by corruption in government; rebellion by extremist groups such as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF); and mismanagement of the country’s resources. The instabilities within Sierra Leone came to a head with the start of a 10-year long civil war commencing in 1991.
UN Peacekeeping Force in Sierra Leone, 1999
As a result of the civil war, the UN sent peacekeeping forces to Sierra Leone in 1999 with the goal to enforce a peace treaty ending the war and to bring rebel leaders accused of war crimes to justice. UN forces remained in Sierra Leone until 2004 and helped to supervise the disarming of rebel groups and the establishment of a system of order in the country. In addition, the UN created a war crimes tribunal within the country in order to try senior leaders from both sides in the civil war. In the years since the UN mission ended, Sierra Leone is continuing to progress and has seen a marked increase in stability. Despite the progress, serious problems still exist, and the long-term legacy of colonialism and British rule continues to influence the country’s view on international law.
The geographical importance of Sierra Leone and its wealth in natural resources shapes its perception of the nature of international law as well. Sierra Leone is located along the Northwestern coast of Africa and is bordered by Guinea and Liberia. Sierra Leone boasts the third largest natural harbor in the world in the city of Freetown, which makes it a potentially attractive venue for international trade. Furthermore, Sierra Leone contains some of the world’s largest reserves of precious metals. Despite the fact that Sierra Leone is rich in precious metals, the country has struggled to maintain control of their export due to past instabilities. For example, much of the diamond and titanium mines in Sierra Leone were at one point under the control of rebel groups such as the RUF. As a result of the control of the precious metal reserves by rebel groups and the lack of a strong central government, a flourishing underground trade of precious metals for weapons emerged. Rebel groups traded diamonds from the mines under their control for weapons from countries such as Liberia, Angola, and the Congo.
An example of an international agreement that Sierra Leone is a party to is the Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty was adopted by the UN General Assembly on April 2, 2013, and came into effect on December 24, 2014. The main purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons for the purpose of promoting global peace and the eradication of the illegal trade of weapons. Opposition to the Arms Trade Treaty has mostly come from Iran, North Korea, and Syria, the only three UN member states that voted against the treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty has resulted in some controversy among policy makers in the U.S., who feel that the treaty will impede U.S. foreign policy by making it difficult to supply weapons to important allies such as Israel and Taiwan.
Sierra Leone Supported the UN Arms Trade Treaty and Ratified it in 2014.
Sierra Leone supported the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty and ratified it by accession on August 8, 2014. A key reason why Sierra Leone supported the treaty is due to its past experiences regarding the illicit trafficking of weapons. During the period of instability within Sierra Leone, groups such as the RUF traded precious metals and diamonds from the country’s rich mines for illicit weapons. As a result of the illicit arms trade and the smuggling of diamonds, the RUF was able to gain the weapons that it needed to and sustain in its fight against the government. In addition, the trading of illegal weapons further resulted in rampant instability and tumult that the Sierra Leone is still recovering from to this day.
A section of the Arms Trade Treaty that discusses the legal obligations between member nations is Article 6 Section 2. The section states that a state party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms as covered under Article 2 Section 1 if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms would be used in the perpetration of genocide, crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian, or other war crimes as defined by international contracts which it is a party to. The language in the section codifies existing international law through the concept of jus cogens, which are fundamental principles of international law that are accepted by the international community as a norm by which no derogation is permitted. Some examples of jus cogens include the prohibition of genocide, human rights violations, and war crimes. Through the adoption of such language, Article 6 Section 2 of the Arms Trade Treaty is upholding preexisting forms of customary international law.
The enforcement of the provisions of Article 6 Section 2 of Arms Trade Treaty is dependent on several factors. One such factor is the willingness of states to enforce the provisions of the treaty and the overall strength of the provisions. In addition, its enforcement may be strengthened because the provisions are based in part on customary international law that is considered to be the norm by the global community. The view of the treaty by Sierra Leone may determine its future conduct in international relations as well. By accepting the terms of the treaty, Sierra Leone has shown that it is moving beyond its past instabilities as a nation and is beginning to develop a positive reputation on the world stage.
To sum it up, international law can derive from a number of different sources and its interpretation by individual states varies. Some of the influences on a country’s interpretation include political and economic events, overall geography, and previous interactions with sovereign actors on the international stage. Sierra Leone is one such country that had its views on international law shaped by a number of events, both inside and outside the realm of conventional international law. Through the study of its reaction to sources of international law, one gains insight into how Sierra Leone could react in the future to events in international relations.
Works Cited:
Barcroft, Peter. “PGA Welcomes Ratification of Arms Trade Treaty by the Governments of Dominican Republic and Sierra Leone.” Parliamentarians for Global Action. Parliamentarians for Global Action, 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Oct. 2015.
Delgado, Andrea. “Explainer: What Is the Arms Trade Treaty?” The Conversation. The Conversation US, Inc., 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.
Goodenough, Patrick. “Unratified by the US, Controversial UN Arms Treaty Enters Into Force.” CNS News. Media Research Center, 23 Dec. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
Onishi, Norimitsu. “Africa Diamond Hub Defies Smuggling Rules.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Jan. 2001. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
“Sierra Leone Profile.” BBC News. BBC, 18 Mar. 2015. Web. 09 Oct. 2015.
Throughout the 1980 book The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America, Drew McCoy attempts to explore the competing economic visions in the U.S. during the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and how different leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton had conflicting ideas regarding what economic system would be the most suitable for the newly independent nation. Hamilton advocated a commercialized economy in which manufacturing was fundamental. On the other hand, Madison and Jefferson felt that an agrarian economy would be best for the U.S. and would ensure its success as a nation. McCoy explores the relationship between political economy and morality and how this definition shifted during early American history. Furthermore, McCoy argues that the economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were short-lived and that several factors prevented them from becoming permanent.
In the first chapter, McCoy discusses the debate during the 18th Century over economics and morality and how they would later influence the founding fathers. By the mid-18th Century, Europe was undergoing a commercial and industrial revolution that led to profound changes in its economic conditions. In addition, the rise of industrialization raised many questions about its effect on society and helped to alter the opinion regarding luxury goods. Since the middle ages, luxury was considered to be a corrupting influence in society and a danger to public welfare. However, the 18th Century marked a transitional period in the perception of luxury goods. As a result of increased materialistic impulses, some began to redefine the meaning of luxury and explore the societal implications of the increased emphasis on luxury goods.
McCoy describes the reaction to the changes in the economy by philosophers during the 18th Century. A major critic of the new social order was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the commercialization of society would have a harmful effect on society and would promote a multitude of artificial needs and desires in men, to which they would become enslaved. Furthermore, Rousseau felt that the drive for status and wealth would never fully satisfy individuals and that it would increase social inequalities. In contrast, David Hume defended the commercialization of society that came as a result of the industrial revolution. Hume argued that the advancement of commerce, mechanical arts, liberal arts, and fine arts were interdependent on one another. As a result of their interconnection, Hume argued that the advancement of commerce would be beneficial to society by establishing a more refined culture. The differences in opinion regarding the growth of commerce and its effects on society would soon influence the debate in post-Revolutionary America over which type of political economy would develop in the new country.
McCoy first discusses the economic ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who served as Treasury Secretary under George Washington. The political economy of Hamilton advocated an aggressive expansion of American commercial interests and the development of a strong manufacturing sector with the cooperation of a strong federal government. Hamilton’s economic plan called for a funding of the national debt and the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, which would help the new government establish its credit and encourage the investment of private capital in the development of a commercial sector. Hamilton viewed the development of commercial relations with Great Britain as a way to supply America with the capital and credit that could ignite the economic growth that he envisioned .
Additionally, Alexander Hamilton felt that a manufacturing economy was a sign of social progress and that the social inequalities resulting from it were inevitable. Proponents of the Hamiltonian system argued that a growing manufacturing sector would also increase individual liberty by giving people more freedom in choosing an occupation. Hamilton’s economic policy was further pushed forward by the Jay Treaty, signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1794. In addition to averting a major war between both countries, the Jay treaty opened up limited trade between the U.S. and several of Britain’s colonies. The resulting increase in foreign trade helped to fuel further the commercial revolution and made its eventual spread to the U.S. increasingly inevitable.
In contrast to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison advocated a political economy that focused on agriculture and the growth of a household goods industry as opposed to rapid commercialization. The main component of Madison’s political economy was westward expansion and national development across space rather than across time. By encouraging a spread across western lands, Madison argued that the U.S. would remain a nation of industrious farmers who could market their surplus crops overseas to purchase manufactured goods from Europe. As a result, America could remain a young and virtuous country and at the same time offer a market for advanced manufactured goods from Europe. Unlike Hamilton, Madison believed that the rise of industrialization in countries such as Great Britain was a sign of moral and societal decay. He concluded that Hamilton’s plan threatened to subvert the principles of republican government and would lead to the “Anglicization” of the American government.
McCoy then goes on to describe the political and economic aspirations of Thomas Jefferson after his election in 1800. Jefferson described his election as a return to the original values and ideals of America that were overturned and repudiated under Federalist rule. The main aspects of Jefferson’s political economy included his advocacy of western expansion as a way to encourage the continued strength of a primarily agrarian economy; a relatively liberal international commercial order to offer markets for American agricultural surplus; and a reduction in government spending and the national debt. Through such steps, Jefferson sought to evade the social corruption of an increasingly commercialized society and preserve the republican vision of American society. Jefferson’s political economy was enacted through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. By purchasing the Louisiana territory from France, Jefferson hoped that the addition of new lands would preserve the agriculture-based U.S. economy and add to his notion of a continuously expanding “empire of liberty” across the western hemisphere.
McCoy main thesis in “The Elusive Republic” is that the political economy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ultimately failed and was not realized in the long term. Overall, the basis of his argument is strong and is based on several key factors. The first two factors were the outbreak of the wars resulting from the French Revolution in 1792 and the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794. Despite the widespread belief that European demand for American exports would decline as a result of the wars, it instead increased dramatically after 1792. McCoy argues that the wars resulting from the French Revolution marked a major turning point in the American economy because it made it profitable for Americans to export goods and materials to Europe. Additionally, the Jay Treaty helped to open the door to increased international trade and cemented America’s economic ties with Great Britain.
Furthermore, McCoy argues that the Louisiana Purchase augmented the spread of slavery and in turn, undermined the political economy of Jefferson and Madison. Despite the fact that the Louisiana Purchase removed several obstacles to the realization to Jefferson’s republican vision, it also exposed some of the contradictions within his vision. For example, the supporters of Jefferson frequently boasted of the isolation and independence of the U.S., but in reality American republicanism depended on both an open international commercial order and the absence of any competing presence in North America. The U.S., McCoy argues, could isolate itself from foreign influences only if it were to resign itself from international trade and westward expansion (204). In addition, the Louisiana Purchase fueled the spread of slavery as the U.S. expanded westward. The Jeffersonian political economy had hoped by the controlled exploitation of land would reduce the need for slavery and that it would eventually die out. In reality, the demand for slave labor increased dramatically as the agricultural industry expanded westward (252).
In conclusion, Drew McCoy explores the competing economic visions in early America in The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America. The major figures in the debate over political economy in America were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Ultimately, the political economy of Jefferson and Madison did not come to define the U.S. in the long-term, and several diverse factors prevented it from becoming permanent. Furthermore, McCoy discusses the implications of the shift towards a highly commercialized economy and the changing moral beliefs regarding luxury goods throughout the 18th and early 19th Centuries.
One of the major foreign policy issues facing the world over the past few years is the Syrian Civil War and the formation of groups such as ISIS as a result of the instabilities created due to the conflict. In spite of the urgency of ending the conflict and combating the rise of organizations such as ISIS, there has been little effort on the world stage to come up with an adequate plan to do so. A major reason the international community has yet to come up with a plan to fight ISIS and end the Syrian Civil War is due to different visions between world powers over the best way to do so. The U.S. argues that the ultimate goal of any intervention in Syria would be that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would peacefully step down from power. In contrast, Russia is a close ally of Assad and their only military outpost in the Middle East is in Syria. Russia believes that any regime change in Syria would lead to increased instability in the Middle East and threaten their military presence in the region.
In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russian presence in Syria and has begun a military build-up in the country. U.S. diplomats have cautioned Russia against such a move, arguing that it would lead to even greater instability and violence in Syria. Additionally, the U.S. fears that a potential confrontation may emerge between U.S.-backed coalition members and Russian forces in Syria if Russia continues expanding its military presence in the region. Despite the differences in opinion between the U.S. and Russia, Putin has come up with several proposals to combat ISIS, put an end to the Syrian Civil War and restore a greater sense of stability to the Middle East.
Vladimir Putin’s plan includes several components. The first part is that the U.S. and its allies coordinate their actions against ISIS with the Russian, Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian armies. Through the coordination of their actions, Putin hopes that any conflict between coalition members can be reduced and that a consensus to stop the spread of ISIS can emerge on the international level. Also, Russia also stated that their plan would put in place measures that would gradually transition political power away from Assad. Putin has also stated that if the U.S. and its allies reject his offer, he would be prepared to take military actions against ISIS in Syria unilaterally. Putin is hoping that the U.S. will accept his plan on the basis of it being the only realistic way to bring an end to the Syrian Civil War and contribute greater stability to the Middle East.
The reaction to Putin’s proposal has been mixed. For example, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers has stated that the U.S. would be unwilling to join in a coalition with the Syrian army because of Syrian Bashar al-Assad’s human rights record and alleged actions over the course of the war. Also, U.S. officials question Putin’s motives and feel that his plan is not comprehensive enough to be successful. Despite their reluctance to side with Russia, the Obama Administration did announce that it would be willing to engage in talks with Russia over the issue in the coming weeks. Additionally, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the U.S. has become more receptive to Russia’s position and that it moderated two parts of its Syrian policy, that Assad must step down from power and that it will not negotiate with his government.
The proposed course of action by Russia regarding the Syrian Civil War could involve resorting to several components of international law. For example, Russia could present its case before the UN Security Council. After reviewing the case, the Security Council may call on the parties involved in the Syrian Civil War to settle their disputes via peaceful means. Furthermore, Russia can receive the authority to strike ISIS forces within Syria if it is given permission by the Syrian government to do so. If Russia acts without Syria’s permission, they would be in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another country in terms other than that of self-defense. On the other hand, Russia could use the argument that their actions against ISIS are purely self-defense. At that point, Russia’s actions would be in accord with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that any member nations has a right to self-defense until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.
In conclusion, the Syrian Civil War has been a key issue facing the international community over the past few years and has destabilized the Middle East. The rise of ISIS is a major problem that has arose out of the instability brought on by the Syrian Civil War. Russia has devised a plan including several components that would potentially end the war and stop ISIS and is seeking support from the U.S. and its allies for its actions. If the U.S. rejects their offer, Russia is prepared to act unilaterally in Syria. The Russian plan for the Syrian Civil War can be implemented through existing channels of international law. Only time will tell if the plan can gain support on the international stage and successfully put an end to the Syrian conflict
In the Foreign Affairs article “Restoring America’s Strength,” US Senator Marco Rubio puts forward his vision for U.S. foreign policy assuming that he is elected president in 2016. Rubio argues that as the world has become more connected over the past few decades, American leadership has grown critical to maintaining world order and protecting the interests of the American people. Rubio feels that President Obama refused to recognize that fact and instead his policies resulted in American interests becoming less secure and threatened throughout the world. In contrast, Rubio puts forward a foreign policy that involves restoring American strength, promoting the spread of economic prosperity and defending freedom and human rights.
Marco Rubio states that the most important part of his foreign policy is the restitution of American strength, based on the idea that the world is safest when America is strongest. In addition, another major component of Rubio’s foreign policy plan is the importance of protecting open international trade. Due to an increasingly globalized world, millions of people have jobs dependent on foreign trade. Thus, their prosperity is dependent on keeping international trade open and free from threats. Another component of Rubio’s foreign policy proposal is the need for the U.S. to speak out against human rights violations and defend the cause of freedom throughout the world. Overall, Rubio feels that the recent departure from those principles caused chaos and discord throughout the world and that it is necessary to reassert those principles through an active U.S. foreign policy.
In international politics, a major theory is Realism. Realists argue that the primary goal of states is survival and the need to act within their self-interest, that political decisions are more important that morality and that international politics is driven by an endless struggle for power and influence. Several important figures in Realist thought were Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. The assertions that Marco Rubio makes in “Restoring America’s Strength” both reject and support Realist principles. One example of Marco Rubio rejecting Realist theory occurs when he speaks about President Obama ignoring human rights abuses committed by China when negotiating economic issues. A proponent of Realist theory would argue that morality is subservient to political decisions and that it is in the best interest of the U.S. to not question China’s position on human rights issues.
Another example of Marco Rubio rejecting realist theory occurs when he discusses Russia’s policy in Ukraine and China’s aggression the Pacific. Rubio argues that a central reason for Russia and China’s actions in Ukraine and the Pacific is a decline in U.S. global stature during the Obama Administration. In contrast, a Realist would argue that the main reasons why Russia intervened in Ukraine and why China is asserting its influence in the Pacific is due to both countries self-interest. On the other hand, Rubio embraces a concept from Realism when he remarks that Russia, Iran, and China are challenging the U.S. on the world stage. A Realist would argue that they are doing so because they sense that the U.S. is in a weaker position on the world stage and that they have a chance to expand their power and influence.
In conclusion, Marco Rubio discusses out his potential foreign policy agenda in “Restoring America’s Strength.” The main foreign policy planks that Rubio brings up consist of three components that he argues will make America stronger and more respected on the world stage, improve human rights and spread the cause of freedom and protect international trade from any major threats. The main points that Rubio brings up both reject and embrace the main assumptions of Realist thought
One major foreign policy issue facing the world over the past few years is the rise of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). ISIS is an anti-Western militant group whose goal is to establish an independent Islamic state. ISIS currently controls territory in both Iraq and Syria and is seeking to gain more territory throughout the Middle East. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, ISIS has taken advantage of regional instability and publically promoted itself online with graphic videos of threats and violence. The rise and spread of ISIS has further confounded policymakers with regards to their promoting stability in the Middle East. In recent years, there has been much debate at the highest levels of government over ways to combat ISIS and the reasons behind its creation and expansion. As with many other foreign policy issues, the debate over ways to fight ISIS has evoked debate on both sides, with some arguing for a more forceful response and others seeking to stay out of the conflict. The underlying reasons behind the rise of ISIS can be contributed to a number of factors such as the current instability in the Middle East, cultural and religious differences, and intervention in the region by western powers such as the U.S.
The formation of ISIS can be traced back to 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in response to the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein from power in 2003. AQI played a major role in the Iraqi insurgency that followed. They reacted to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq with a variety of violent acts that resulted in the deaths of civilians and U.S. soldiers alike. Despite the fact that AQI was weakened after the death of al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, the organization survived and a faction of AQI separated and began to rebrand itself. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as head of this organization in 2010, changed its name to the Islamic State (IS) in 2011, and the group grew more violent as U.S. forces began to withdraw from Iraq.
As the U.S. further withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, IS began to expand its efforts into Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. In 2012, IS established the Al-Nusra Front, a satellite organization of IS headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, establishing a base for IS outside of Iraq. The expansion of efforts into Syria gave IS an opportunity to expand its ideology into a newer territory. In an attempt to prevent a rift between both organizations, al-Baghdadi unified Al-Nusra Front and IS in 2013. The name of the organization was then changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, al-Julani refused to align his group to al-Baghdadi and switched his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of the rivalry between the two groups, Al-Zawahiri announced the unification (between ANF and IS) had been annulled as of June 2014. On January 3, 2014, al-Zawahiri announced he had severed all connections with ISIS. As a result, the disputes between ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front worsened, leading to violent clashes between both groups and further adding to instability in the two countries. As of today ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, and Al-Qaeda all operate in the region.
One of the major underlying reasons behind ISIS’ rise is the instability of the Middle East. Historically, preexisting disputes in the region have been cultural and religious in nature and have only worsened with the addition of western intervention over the past century. One of the main religious disputes has been between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. This dispute causes tension and a desire for dominance in the region between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest and most stable powers in the region. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, whereas Iran is primarily Shia. Interestingly enough, Iraq and Afghanistan, two unstable countries, have sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Furthermore, the recent escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and debate over nuclear proliferation has stirred tension. In addition, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has destabilized the country and made it a prime recruiting ground for ISIS.
Another reason for ISIS’ creation is the Middle Eastern backlash against western intervention and foreign policy. After the discovery of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, numerous western powers sought to gain a foothold in the region in order to meet their need for resources. With the increasing demand for oil, the U.S. began to assert its influence by supporting western-backed dictators in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In addition, the U.S. has intervened on numerous occasions in order to keep these leaders in power in order to preserve its own interests, such as supporting regime change and military action against leaders who reject U.S. goals and interests U.S. policy of intervention in the Middle East is manifested in the Carter Doctrine, which was laid forward by President Jimmy Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address. The Carter Doctrine stated that the U.S. had the right to intervene in order to defend its interests in the Middle East, in particular, to ensure the access to oil. As a result of the Carter Doctrine, the Middle East became a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, resulting in increased anti-American sentiment throughout the region.
The most notable example of the U.S. intervening in the Middle East occurred in Iran in 1953 through Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was the CIA/Mossad backed a coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, giving more power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled Iran as an absolute monarch for the next 26 years, executing an estimated 160,000 political opponents, using secret police forces such as SAVAK to torture and intimidate regime opponents such as leftists and Islamists, and allowing little dissent against his rule. One of the major reasons behind the US/Israeli-backed coup was that Mossadegh sought to nationalize Iran’s oil production and use the profits to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. This commandeering of its oil reserves did not align with U.S. interests. Operation Ajax is considered to be an important factor behind the 1979 Iranian Revolution and another reason Iran and the U.S. have a strained relationship today. This reaction to U.S. intervention resulted in heightened instability in the country, which allowed for the current Islamic Republic of Iran to take control. Similarly, the volatility derived from U.S. actions in Iraq and the Syrian Civil war has now promoted the recent rise of the similarly-titled “Islamic State” of Iraq and Syria.
The main ideology of ISIS is based off Wahhabism, a form of Sunni Islam that follows a strict interpretation of the Quran and promotes violence against non-believers. ISIS’ primary goal is to establish an independent Islamic State in the Middle East and expand its influence into other parts of the world. In order to achieve these goals, ISIS uses several brutal methods, such as mass killings, beheadings and systematic cruelty against those who would challenge their actions, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In addition, ISIS promotes its goals through videos and social media sources, by which the group seeks to gain more recruits. ISIS justifies its actions through religion, as members feel that they have a moral obligation to kill whoever stands in the way of their establishing an independent Islamic State.
ISIS has received funding from a variety of different sources. The main source is from oil smuggling on the Turkish border, through which ISIS sells oil from Syrian oil fields that it controls for as little as $25 per barrel. Another source of funding for ISIS comes from wealthy individuals in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These donors have long served as sources of funding for ISIS as well as for other violent anti-Western militia groups in the Middle East. Between all of those sources, U.S. officials estimate that ISIS is bringing in close to $1 Million per day in order to fund its operations.
ISIS also relies on foreign fighters from a number of countries. Some 20,000 foreign nationals are currently fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with roughly 3,400 from Western countries. In addition, an increasing number of U.S. citizens are seeking to join ISIS. According to Congressman Michael McCaul of the House Homeland Security Committee, the number of U.S. citizens seeking to join ISIS this year is 150, up from only 50 last year. McCaul also stated that 18 Americans have already succeeded in joining ISIS and 18 others who have joined the similar Islamic terrorist groups. One of the members included is Douglas McAuthur McCain, a Californian who was killed in August while fighting alongside ISIS in Syria.
There are several possible ways in which the international community can defeat ISIS and restore a sense of stability to the Middle East. At this point, a ground invasion of Syria and Iraq by US troops would only make matters worse because it would result in another major war in the Middle East and directly play into the goal that ISIS has of drawing Western powers into the conflict. One such option to fight ISIS would be for the core countries such as the US to change their economic policy towards the Middle East. If the Middle Eastern Countries become economically interdependent on the United States and each other, the beginning of trade would bring an end to the fighting, leading to increased stability. Stability in the region would help to defeat ISIS because ISIS needs the instability of the region to survive. Furthermore, another thing that would go a long way to help encourage more stability in the Middle East would be for the US and other Western powers to acknowledge their past instances of intervention in the Middle East. Doing so would increase the level of trust between them and the governments of many countries in the region and make them more willing to work to defeat extremism and terrorism. Additional options to fight ISIS include working with local governments in the Middle East in order to identify threats, identify funding for ISIS and similar groups and work to increase public understanding with regards to the reasons why ISIS was created and its stated goals and ideology.
Works Cited:
Cambanis, Thanassis. “The Carter Doctrine: A Middle East Strategy past Its Prime.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners LLC. 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Dassanayake, Dion. “Islamic State: What Is IS and Why Are They so Violent?” Express. Northern and Shell Media Publications, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Dehghan, Saeed Kamali, and Richard Norton-Taylor. “CIA Admits Role in 1953 Iranian Coup.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Dilanian, Ken. “US Intel: IS Militants Drawing Steady Stream of Recruits.” AP News. Associated Press, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 May 2015.
Ghitis, Frida. “Why ISIS Is so Brutal.” CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
“ISIS: Portrait of a Jihadi Terrorist Organization.” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 26 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 May 2015.
Reynolds, Ben. “Iran Didn’t Create ISIS; We Did.” The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 31 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
One of the most influential pieces of legislation in recent memory is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as “Obamacare.” Ever since President Obama signed the PPACA into law in 2010, there has been much debate over the planning and execution of the law as well as controversy about its effectiveness. Proponents of the PPACA argue that it will gradually lower health care costs, expand preventative health care measures, make health care coverage more universal and improve the economy in the long term. On the other hand, opponents of the PPACA contend that the law will instead increase healthcare costs, negatively affect economic growth, eliminate patient choice and also be proven unconstitutional. In addition, some opponents feel the law is not comprehensive enough and will do little to create any lasting reform in a broken healthcare system. Support for the Act is also divided on the political spectrum, with Democrats generally backing the Act and Republicans nearly universal in their skepticism towards it. This controversy between the two sides has provoked both support and backlash, but the effectiveness of the Act is still being measured.
Before the PPACA was enacted, the U.S. healthcare system had numerous flaws. Insurance providers were almost universally privatized. Healthcare premiums were rising exponentially. There existed frequent discrimination and restrictions on people with preexisting conditions, as well as a lack of oversight and regulation in the healthcare industry overall. In response to those issues, President Obama campaigned on a platform of reform of the healthcare system. In a speech before Congress in February 2009, Obama cited the issue of the “crushing costs of healthcare” and the effects of this problem on individual Americans, including bankruptcy and the loss of property. Additionally, Obama stated the issue of rising healthcare costs result in small businesses closing, increased outsourcing of jobs and the stagnation of wages. The Act was initially proposed with a “public option” that would address these issues. Numerous reactions immediately took place with protesters denouncing the Act as “socialized medicine” and supporters likewise embracing its potential. After much debate, the bill was finally passed on December 24, 2009, and signed into law on March 23, 2010.
The PPACA is relatively large in scope and contains several different provisions.
The scope and size of the Act are wide-reaching and it has several major provisions. One major requirement of the PPACA is the implementation of health insurance exchanges that are meant to allow people without health insurance provided by their employers to purchase plans from a wide array of providers. This also allows for employers with 100 or fewer workers to purchase plans. These health insurance exchanges are either run by the individual states, the federal government, or by state-federal partnerships. In addition, the federal government provides subsidies and tax credits in order to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for lower and middle-income individuals. The rationale behind the establishment of these health insurance exchanges is to reduce the overall cost of health insurance and increase the number of individuals with coverage.
Another key provision in the PPACA is the banning of discrimination by insurance companies on patients with pre-existing medical conditions. At first, the provisions only covered children with pre-existing conditions, but the requirements came into effect for adults in 2014. Prior to the passage of the Act, insurance providers routinely discriminated against individuals with pre-existing conditions and either denied them insurance coverage or charged them higher premiums. In addition, all existing or new insurance plans have to cover dependent children of policyholders until the age of 26.
The loosening of medicaid eligibility requirements is a another key aspect of the PPACA.
Another provision of the PPACA is the loosening of Medicaid eligibility requirements and the reduction and ultimate closing of the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap. Under the current policy, Medicare patients have to pay out of pocket for a portion of the cost of their prescription drugs. The eligibility provisions for the Medicaid program were revised to cover anyone who earns less than 133% of the poverty line. The Act also stipulates that the federal government would pay 100% of the cost of the new enrollees until 2016 and then gradually shift more of the cost onto the states. In addition, the Act reduces the coverage gap in the Medicare part D prescription drug plan (known as the “donut hole”) gradually by 2020.
A major aspect of the PPACA is the individual mandate component of the law. The individual mandate requires all U.S. citizens to purchase basic health care coverage or face fines and additional penalties. The main penalty, if one does not purchase health care insurance, is a tax that can vary from $695 to $2,085 per year, per family. The tax is to be gradually phased in over a 3 year period and is to be increased annually due to the cost-of-living adjustment. In addition, businesses with 50 or more employees will be charged a penalty beginning in 2014 if they do not offer healthcare benefits to their employees.
Federal funding finances the PPACA through several payment systems. The Act mandates that an excise tax will be levied on the most expensive employer-sponsored healthcare plans and the Medicare payroll tax for higher-income workers will be increased. The PPACA has imposed several restrictions as to what is covered as well. Federal funding of all abortions with the exception of rape or incest are prevented through the inclusion of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment. In addition, illegal immigrants are prohibited from purchasing coverage through the health care exchange programs.
President Obama is a major proponent of the PPACA and argues that it will result in lower healthcare costs and increased health care access.
Proponents of the PPACA argue that the law will help to reduce healthcare costs overall. In a November 5, 2014, press conference, President Obama indicated that “health care inflation has gone down each year since the Affordable Care Act was passed” and that “we now have the lowest healthcare costs in 50 years.” Some articles have found this claim to be exaggerated, as in reality, healthcare spending growth rates have slowed down but not actually decreased. A recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services stated that U.S. healthcare spending will be $500 Billion less in 2019 than was originally projected by the Congressional Budget Authority (CBO) in 2010. In addition, the study also stated that the lowering of total healthcare spending would have a positive effect on the U.S. fiscal situation and would prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund for an additional 4 years. The data gathered by both agencies gives credence to the original claim that the Act would be cost-effective and help to slow down the ever-increasing growth in the overall cost of healthcare.
Another argument used by Proponents of the PPACA is that the law will increase the number of people who have basic health insurance and, in turn, make coverage more universal. One of the major provisions of the Act is to increase the access to healthcare insurance and reduce the number of uninsured citizens. According to the Urban Institute’s Health Reform Monitoring Survey, the number of uninsured Americans declined by 2.7 percent from the time the first enrollment period into the healthcare exchange began in September 2013 through March 2014. In addition, the percentage of people who are uninsured is higher in states that had rejected the Medicaid expansion provisions of the Act as opposed to states that accepted the expansion.
The PPACA increases funding for preventative health care measures.
Proponents of the PPACA also argue that the law will increase the number of people with access to preventative healthcare. Prior to the passage of the Act, many insurers did not cover preventative care measures. Due to the fact that insurance companies are now required to cover basic healthcare measures, the number of people taking advantage of preventative healthcare is increasing, especially among people between the ages of 19 and 25. According to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine, the number of 19-25-year-olds receiving routine checkups has increased 5 percent since the main provisions of the Act came into effect. In addition, the number of young adults with private dental coverage increased from 37 to 42 percent during the same time period. A possible reason as to why the number of young adults receiving preventative healthcare has increased is due to the provision in the Act that allows them the option to remain on their parent’s insurance plans until they are 26.
Another argument from supporters of the PPACA is the possibility that the law will benefit economic growth over the long run. In a 2012 article, Jonathan Gruber, one of the main figures behind the development of the Act, stated that he believes this legislation will improve economic growth. Gruber held that the Act will result in greater economic security for uninsured families due to the lower cost and increased accessibility of care. Gruber also expressed that the Act could potentially increase consumer spending, as uninsured people who previously set aside money to cover medical expense would now be able to free up that money for consumer spending. Gruber further cites that, when the federal government expanded the Medicaid program during the 1990s, consumer spending increased amongst the newly-insured. In addition, Gruber feels that as demand for medical care grows, job opportunities for doctors, nurses and technicians will rise, thus improving the job market.
In the debate regarding the PPACA, opponents criticize the provisions of the Act, saying it will result in negative consequences. Critics take the position that the Act will increase healthcare costs, negatively affect the economy and say the law itself is unconstitutional. In addition, some critics believe that the Act will not go far enough to increase coverage and will not result in any lasting changes in the healthcare system.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are the two leading opponents of the PPACA
One of the major points that opponents of the PPACA argue that the Act will harm economic growth and competitiveness. Two major opponents of the Act that believe it will harm job growth are House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on November 5, 2014, both Boehner and McConnell spoke of their intentions to repeal the Act which “is hurting the job market along with America’s healthcare.” A survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia stated that roughly 18 percent of U.S. businesses have either stopped hiring or reduced their staff due to concerns about the expenses and provisions of the Act. Business who have 50 or more employees are the most reluctant to expand due to the new regulations and requirements that have been pushed onto them due to the Act.
Opponents of the PPACA say that the law will ultimately reduce quality of care and patient choice. According to report by the National Center for Public Policy, the quality of health insurance declined prior to the Act’s implementation. The study found that the health insurance plans offered by the healthcare exchanges provided a less comprehensive quality of care than comparable plans on the private market. The study also found that the average deductibles for the bronze-tiered plan (the least costly plan) in 2014 were about 42 percent higher than those in plans from the individual market in 2013. In addition, patient choice may be limited under some of the healthcare plans on the exchange. In order to reduce costs and lower premiums, many of the insurance providers have opted to only cover certain doctors under some plans, restricting patient choice.
Opponents of the PPACA also question of the constitutionality of such a law, specifically the individual mandate provisions in the law. Despite that fact that the Supreme Court had ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional in a 5-4 decision in 2012, there are still some arguments against its constitutionality. Opponents argue the Act itself will result in an unchecked expansion of Congressional and executive power beyond the limits of the Constitution and that the individual mandate is a violation of an individual’s right to choose. In addition, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that the individual mandate is “the greatest challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history” and that “it is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers.”
Senator Bernie Sanders feels that the PPACA doesn’t go far enough in providing universal healthcare.
Challengers of the PPACA further argue that the law itself does not go far enough in providing universal healthcare coverage. An example of someone who feels that the Act is not comprehensive enough is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. While arguing that the Act has resulted in some improvements to the healthcare system overall, Sanders stated that the law will do little to foster long-term change to the healthcare system. In addition, Sanders feels that the U.S. healthcare system should be modeled after a single-payer system similar to the ones that are present in Europe. He believes that a single-payer healthcare system would reduce the feelings of insecurity that individuals and small businesses have regarding the availability of health insurance and result in more cost-effectiveness in healthcare In addition, a single-payer healthcare system would have a positive benefit on the economy, as small business owners and entrepreneurs would have more freedom to develop their business plans without the worry and cost of providing healthcare to their employers. Sanders cited the Medicare and Medicaid programs as models of an effective single-payer healthcare system.
Though the PPACA has received a good deal of negative press from opponents who question the constitutionality of the law, the potential for effectiveness, and the general far-reaching implications of the Act, I myself remain cautiously optimistic about the long-term ability of the law to meet the objectives of those who initiated it. As stated, the Act is dependent on many factors such as enrollment and its acceptance by those who are still opposed. Some downsides include the slow rollout of the program, difficulties in accessing the Internet framework of the exchanges, legal challenges presented against the program, and questions about its overall effects on a still-weak economy. Of course, the measurable success of the program will be directly correlated to enrollment of those previously uninsured, good revenue growth within the program, the attraction of qualified physicians and practices who will embrace the program and confidence in the quality of care in the selections available for coverage.
In conclusion, reform of the healthcare system is long overdue and has been proposed often throughout the past century. The last real healthcare reform was the Social Security Act of 1965. The most recent attempt to reform the healthcare system occurred during the Clinton Administration in 1993, but this did not pass. Restructuring is imperative in order to remedy the unbridled spending, bureaucracy, waste and inequities in the current healthcare system. The divide between critics and supporters is indicative of a lack of clarity and transparency in the current healthcare system. In addition, the divide in opinions on the Act is segregated on ideological and political-party lines, with Republicans mostly opposed to it and Democrats in favor. The Act attempts to reform the healthcare system by setting up an exchange network and regulating the accessibility of healthcare for Americans. While opponents are skeptical of the effectiveness of the Act, we do not know for certain how successful the PPACA will be.
The issue of immigration reform in the United States has ignited a series of political debates over the last few years and has increased the partisan divide between both political parties. In the debate over illegal immigration, some argue that the proper solution is to enhance border security and to provide a program that establishes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. On the other hand, others argue that illegal immigration negatively impacts taxpayers, tarnish the public perception of immigrants, and jeopardizes the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens along the US-Mexican border. Additionally, opponents of comprehensive immigration reform argue that in effect, any reform would “reward lawbreakers” at the expense of immigrants who come to the United States through legal means. The issue of immigration reform has also resulted in several different proposals at the Congressional level by members of both political parties.
To address a number of issues surrounding illegal immigration, President Obama issued a series of executive orders in November 2014 meant to protect some 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow for a percentage of undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The response to President Obama’s executive actions has been mixed, with Democrats almost universally in favor and Republicans nearly unanimous in their opposition. In addition, the sweeping nature of the executive orders has led some to argue that President Obama’s actions are unconstitutional and represent an instance of executive overreach. In response to the allegations of the order’s unconstitutionality, several states have signed on to a federal lawsuit challenging the Obama Administration. Overall, it can be argued that President Obama’s actions are unconstitutional and represent an abuse of executive power.
The main point of contention against the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration is that they go against the principle of separation of power and usurp legislative authority regarding the implementation of immigration laws. The historical precedence regarding immigration law is that Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and legislate any laws surrounding it. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution goes on to entrust the legislative branch to “establish a uniform role of naturalization.” Such language confirms the fact that Congress is to have the primary power in establishing laws that determine how noncitizens are to become citizens of the United States. The idea of Congress having the power to regulate immigration has been upheld by the Supreme Court cases in many cases such as Henderson v. Mayor of New York and Arizona v. United States.
Additionally, President Obama using an executive order to influence existing law may set a precedent for future Presidents to use executive authority to address matters explicitly reserved for other branches of government.
Additionally, opponents of President Obama’s immigration executive order argue that his decision to not enforce existing immigration law is a violation of his Constitutional powers. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Such guidelines mean that the President cannot nullify or not enforce laws that they do not agree with. An example of a law passed by Congress that President Obama has chosen not to support through his executive order is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). The purpose of the Act was to improve border security by increasing the powers and responsibilities of agencies charged with monitoring visa applications. Additionally, the law gave federal agents increased latitude with deporting undocumented immigrants. Considering such factors, it can be argued that President Obama is acting outside of his Constitutionally defined powers by issuing the executive orders regarding immigration.
In conclusion, the debate over immigration reform has emerged as an important political topic over the past few years and has served to highlight the partisan divisions between both the Republican and Democratic parties. Numerous solutions were proposed to address the issue, but the stark divisions between both sides have thus far prevented any substantial reform from emerging. The executive orders issued by President Obama has added to the debate over illegal immigration and has raised numerous questions about the powers of the executive branch. It can be argued that President Obama’s executive order are in violation of the principles of separation of power and are in violation of the President Constitutional powers, in particular, their obligation to uphold and execute all laws. Only time will tell if the issue of immigration reform will become settled law and whether or not President Obama’s executive actions will be deemed Constitutional or not.
One of the most important aspects of the debate over economic policy is the effectiveness of the Minimum Wage and the prospects for its increase. The ongoing debate over the minimum wage is an important facet of the country’s economic future and helps to determine its economic competitiveness. Proponents of the minimum wage increase argue that the benefits of having a higher rate outweigh the costs. Opponents of a higher minimum wage, on the other hand, argue that a higher minimum wage is, in fact, harmful to the economy overall. The objective of this report is to discuss the effects of the minimum wage and to analyze the respective positions of both sides of the argument.
The first federal minimum wage law in the United States came into effect in 1938, through the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the minimum wage at a rate of $0.25 an hour (roughly $4.13 in today’s dollars). In addition, the Fair Labor Standards Act also banned the use of child labor and set the maximum workweek at 44 hours (Grossman). Over the ensuing years, the minimum wage has been gradually increased to different levels. The most recent increase occurred in 2009, when the federal minimum wage rose by about 10%, from $6.55 to $7.25. Over the last several months, there have been various proposals discussed that would boost the federal minimum wage once again. The most prominent proposal came from President Barack Obama. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama suggested a $10.10 federal minimum wage, which would amount to a 40% increase from its current level. The proposed increases in the minimum wage ignited a large number of discussions on both sides of the political spectrum, with Democrats favoring the increase and Republicans nearly universal in their skepticism of such a plan. Furthermore, most economists cannot reach a consensus regarding the effectiveness of such a move.
Proponents of an increase in the minimum wage argue that a higher wage would not have a huge effect on businesses and would not lead to an increase in prices of goods. According to recent data compiled by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), there is no direct evidence to claim that an increase in the minimum wage would have an adverse impact on employment. That data contradicts the argument used by opponents of increasing the minimum wage that any increase would have a detrimental effect on employment and economic growth. Furthermore, the same research shows that a hike in the minimum wage would not have a huge impact on the prices of goods and services provided by companies. For example, assuming that the minimum wage is to be increased by 10% over a 2 year period, the prices of goods would only increase by roughly 0.18%. Those increases in prices are negligible when compared to the overall gains in purchasing power for many workers.
Another argument in favor of increasing the minimum wage is that an increase will help to reduce the poverty rate. For example, if the minimum wage was to be increased from $7.25 to $10.10, it is estimated that the number of people who live below the poverty line will reduce by about 4.6 Million. In addition, the average incomes of the bottom 10% of earners are expected to increase by $1,700 per year due to such a raise. The belief that an increase in the minimum wage can reduce poverty is shared by many economists, even those who are skeptical about the results of the minimum wage on businesses. For example, minimum wage opponent David Neumark wrote in 2011 that an increase in the minimum wage by 10% would reduce poverty among 21-44-year-olds by 2.9%.
Proponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that the current minimum wage is too small when compared to the overall cost of living. While the federal minimum wage is $7.25 and is as high as $8.00 in states such as California, the minimum wage is often not enough for people to keep up with the cost of living. A worker who works 40 hours per week at $7.25 an hour can expect to only earn $15,080 per year. In contrast, the federal poverty line for a two-person household is $15,130. According to a study by Amy Glasmeier, the cost of living in various cities ranges from $12-15 per hour in smaller cities and up to $20 per hour in larger cities. Often, people who earn the minimum wage have to rely on working multiple jobs in order to keep up with their financial demands and continue to scrape by on a meager lifestyle.
Another argument from proponents is that raising the minimum wage will help to reduce income inequality. For example, the income rates of the top 1% of earners rose by a whopping 275% between 1979 and 2007 while the bottom 20% only saw an 18% increase during that comparable period. If the minimum wage had kept up with the productivity increases during that time, it would be $21.72 today, according to research by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). Over the last several decades, income inequality and class distinctions have become a major societal issue in the United States and the stagnation of the purchasing power of the minimum wage is partially to blame. According to data provided by the Economic Policy Institute, the federal minimum wage had reached a peak in overall purchasing power in 1968 and since has declined by close to 23% over the past four and a half decades.
Furthermore, it can be argued that a higher minimum wage can also help to reduce gender inequality. When considering who earns the minimum wage, women made up roughly 64% of overall minimum wage earners in 2012. In addition, the minimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 per hour and women comprise approximately 72% of all tipped employees. Furthermore, women are disproportionately paid a lower wage than men. The economic inequality between men and women is a serious economic concern that the U.S. continues to face and could weaken the economic prospects of the country in the years to come. An increase in the minimum wage could have a positive effect on the economic prospects of women and decrease the inequalities regarding gender than many women face on a daily basis in the workplace.
In the debate over increasing the minimum wage, there are numerous economists who take the position that a hike in the minimum wage is, in fact, harmful to the economy and not beneficial to the very workers that it is intended to help. Opponents of increasing the minimum wage often argue that a higher minimum wage will have a drastic impact on the economy. Opponents often argue that a higher minimum wage will have an effect in reducing employment among low-skilled workers, create an undue burden on businesses, harm U.S. economic competitiveness and increase consumer debt.
One common argument among proponents of the minimum wage is that an increase in the minimum wage will help the poor. However, according to the American Enterprise Institute, an increase in the minimum wage will do little to help the poor improve their standard of living and will reduce employment levels among lower skilled workers. Research indicates that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage can reduce employment among low-skilled workers by roughly one to three percent. The proposed 40 percent increase can have an even greater effect on employment. In addition, studies by the AEI show that nearly all minimum wage jobs are held by teenagers from middle-class backgrounds who seek part-time employment. Furthermore, additional analysis by the AEI shows that only 10 percent of minimum wage earners came from households below the poverty line in 2007.
Another argument that can be used against raising the minimum wage is that a higher minimum wage can have a negative impact on economic growth and competitiveness. Those who are skeptical to a hike in the minimum wage feel that the effects of a higher minimum wage are especially felt on those who are seeking employment in entry-level jobs. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office speculated that if the minimum wage were to be increased to $10.10 per hour, a job loss of over half a million could potentially occur. That belief is further corroborated in a study by David Neumark. In his study, Neumark uses a panel approach analyzing data regarding its effects and found that a higher minimum wage, in fact, increases unemployment.
It can also be argued that a higher minimum wage can lead to companies deciding to outsource their jobs to areas with considerably lower labor costs. One of the major economic problems that the U.S. faces are the outsourcing of jobs to countries overseas with lower costs of labor and prevailing wages such as China, Mexico, Brazil, and India. One can draw a direct correlation between a higher minimum wage and the outsourcing of jobs. As businesses seek to expand their profits, a higher minimum wage can ultimately affect their profit margins. In order to make up for their loss in revenue, a business may decide to transfer most of their jobs to an area where the minimum wage is considerably less. The practice of outsourcing is a common practice by many major businesses and is a major factor in the loss of a competitive edge in many economic indices by the U.S.
Opponents of increasing the minimum wage also argue that a higher minimum wage will discourage people from finding work in the U.S. by limiting the negotiation power for higher wages by prospective employees. A major work ethic philosophy in the U.S. is that one should find work at a rate that the free market determines as fair for one’s skill level. Though there are mandates on business by government, such as a minimum wage, people often lack the bargaining power to negotiate a fair rate for their skills and are trapped at the lowest wage level. Due to their lack of negotiation powers, people often decide not to seek employment and in turn, increase their reliance on government assistance programs such as food stamps and various forms of welfare. With the current financial status of the U.S., further demands on its entitlement system can potentially have a devastating effect on its economic future in the years to come.
Proponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that a higher minimum wage will lead to higher economic growth and more consumer demand. While most evidence shows that a hike in the minimum wage can boost consumer spending in the short term, overall a minimum wage increase can lead to consumers taking on more debt on the purchase of durable goods. According to a paper by Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, most adult workers at the very bottom end of the wage scale spend an additional $700 per quarter in response to a $1 wage hike. Most of the additional spending is paid for through forms of credit. When factoring an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, a worker in the bottom of the economic scale would spend an additional $1,995 per quarter on consumer goods, again mostly paid for by increasing their personal debt.
Through the analysis of both sides of the debate over the minimum wage, it can be concluded that a clear position regarding its results is not reachable. When going over the data gathered by economists over many decades, it seems that the minimum wage affects many groups in entirely different ways. The effects of the minimum wage tend to be negative, as a higher minimum wage can potentially reduce business profits and harm economic competitiveness. On the other hand, a higher minimum wage will provide a myriad of benefits to workers such as the ability to keep up with the ever-rising standard of living and allow for a reduction in economic inequality. With regards to the proposed legislation on increasing minimum wage to $10.10, a compromise position can be reached that can satisfy the demands of both employers and workers. An example of a compromise would be to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 at a more gradual rate. Furthermore, such a plan could also call for granting companies several incentives such as tax credits or a slight reduction in their income taxes if they hire more employees. A proposal such as that would reduce the potential adverse effects of a large minimum wage hike on business and also allow the workers at the bottom of the economic scale to have a chance to improve their standard of living.
In conclusion, the debate over the minimum wage is one of the more controversial economic debates in the U.S. today. Much like with other debates, the dispute over the minimum wage is split along political lines. Those in support of a higher minimum wage explain its merits and illustrate its positive results, while opponents of a higher minimum wage take the contrary position. In addition, proponents of both sides of the minimum wage debate take many different positions and go over numerous arguments to back up their respective beliefs. Furthermore, many economists have not reached a conclusion regarding the ultimate effect of the proposed minimum wage increase. As time goes on, the true effects of the minimum wage increase may become more apparent and a conclusion regarding the future of the wage can be reached.
Elite Media is defined as reporting of news and political events in as narrow a focus as possible, presumably to influence the political agenda of other mass media. The Elite Media presents biased information that is tweaked to garner ratings and can be defined as sensational, manipulative or provocative. Mass media may be defined by the technology in which it is conveyed. Some examples are internet (web pages, internet sites, and blogs), television, print media (newspapers, magazines), radio shows, music, film and billboard. Mass media is just another way of saying “mainstream media”, which is defined by point-of-view and content. Mass media uses technology at hand to convey its message quickly as well as in a deeply penetrating way. It is quick, decisive and relentless in its broad effect and connection to a large amount of people.
Both Elite and Mass Media cover stories that are considered newsworthy due to their relevancy to the public (Mass Media) or to a special audience (Elite Media). Of special consideration the emphasis on “gossip” and “celebrity news” tends to distance any audience from political and local news issues and helps to dilute the social and moral impact of news on the population. The selling of advertising for companies and products has driven the Media into a nearly trillion dollar industry. In our society competition for news, air time and advertising has reached a frenzied peak. News reporting in the United States has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
Two examples of Elite Media networks in the U.S. are the Fox News Chanel and MSNBC. Both take on their own sides and present the news in a way that might be considered by some to be one-sided or biased. Programs from both networks were analyzed in order to see the differences in reporting styles and political viewpoints of both networks.
The programs that were analyzed were on Fox News were America’s New Headquarters and the Fox Report, as originally broadcasted on October 26, 2013. Topics discussed included the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, the protests in Washington DC regarding the allegations that the NSA engaged in spying on world leaders, and the recent ban on women from driving and Saudi Arabia. The programs analyzed from MSNBC were Politics Nation and Hardball with Chris Matthews, as broadcasted on October 28, 2013. Some of the topics discussed on both shows were the efforts of Senator Ted Cruz to derail the Affordable Care Act, the fact that the anti-abortion law passed by the Texas state legislature in June 2013 was blocked by a federal judge, the fact that there is still a great deal of controversy regarding the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya in September of 2012, and the differences in the campaign styles of Republican gubernatorial candidates such as Chris Christie in New Jersey and Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia.
Overall, both news sources exhibited several instances of bias. For example, the hosts of Fox News tended to ask Democratic commentator more difficult questions than the Republican commentators and tended to portray the Affordable Care Act in a more negative way by highlighting its potential problems. Additionally, MSNBC expressed bias by having the hosts of its programming only interviewing more liberal pundits and by its hosts expressing openly-liberal viewpoints. Additionally, the topics discussed on the Fox News programming was presented in a reltively straightforward and superficial manner, whereas the topics discussed on MSNBC were preseted in a more in depth and detailed manner.
To sum it up, the two methods of media reporting in the U.S. served to highlight the way that reporting influences cultural, political and sociological beliefs systems. Furthermore, an analysis of specific news programs on different networks and news events reported on in different styles helps us to understand the way that people perceived politics based on those reporting styles.
This I Believe in all the principles that make our country strong. The main principle that makes our country strong is freedom and democracy. Those principles make our country a shining beacon of light for all the repressed people throughout the world to look up to. Despite the strengths of the principles that make our country strong, the values that we hold dear are being threatened every day by a variety of things. Those threats have become more and more pronounced over the past several decades.
The biggest issue facing our country is the decline of the American Dream. Through policies put forward by the federal government and by foreign threats alike, the prospects of average American citizens of finding the American Dream are becoming dimmer and dimmer. Throughout the past few decades, we have seen a major decline in the standard of living for the middle class and a widening disparity between the rich and the poor in our society. We have seen the elites in our society bring down the economy through their own unbridled greed and selfish interests. We have also been attacked by outside groups looking to bring down our country and way of life.
Despite the negative events that have impacted us throughout the last several decades, we have seen countless acts of humility and unity throughout our everyday lives. After the 9/11 attacks, there was a sense of unity in this country that had not been seen for many decades. In addition, when natural disasters hit, we have seen that people were willing to risk their own lives by helping their less fortunate neighbors. Those examples of humility helped me to understand that while the American Dream is threatened, many people are willing to look past that and still help their fellow man.
I believe that the American Dream will someday be renewed. Our country is not one to turn its back on pressing issues and harsh challenges. Through faith and sacrifice, we can overcome any problem that we face as a country. Furthermore, by overcoming such challenges, our country will become much stronger and continue to remain as a beacon of light beckoning people from all across the world looking to find freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
A current economic issue facing the U.S. is the aftermath of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. The Subprime Mortgage Crisis coincided with the late 2000s economic crisis and was characterized by a substantial decline in home prices, increases in the rate of foreclosure, and intervention by the federal government through the issuing of bailouts. The causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis are directly traced back to several factors. One such factor was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banks. The repeal of Glass-Steagall encouraged banks to engage in higher risks to earn a larger return on their investments. Additionally, the Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to 1 percent after the early 2000s recession, thus encouraging investments in high-yield mortgage-backed securities instead of lower-yield government bonds.
Another factor behind the Subprime Mortgage Crisis was misguided intervention by the federal government in the housing market. For example, both the Reagan and Clinton administration sought to encourage higher levels of home ownership through the loosening of mortgage requirements for lower income borrowers through the reform of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As originally established in 1977, the CRA mandated regulators to consider whether a bank was serving the needs of the community in which they operated. New regulations for the program implemented in 1982 and 1995 required banks required the use of flexible lending practices to address loan needs of low-income borrowers. The less stringent standards vastly encouraged speculation in the housing market, spurring a bubble in home prices.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed several ways to address the subprime mortgage issue. The Democratic party has offered to make it easier for families to refinance their mortgages and to provide tax credits to first-time homebuyers. The Democrats also proposed requiring financial institutions to provide relief to struggling homeowners. In contrast, Republicans argue that the best way to solve the subprime mortgage crisis is to establish a mortgage finance system based on free enterprise and one that promotes personal responsibility on the part of borrowers. Additionally, the Republicans feel that a reduction in federal involvement in the housing sector will be crucial to reducing fears on the part of borrowers.
The policy proposals by the Republican party make the most sense to address the subprime mortgage issue. A key factor discouraging recovery in the housing market is a lack of confidence. Through establishing a mortgage system that balances both regulation and competition, trust in the housing market will improve. Another reason confidence in the housing market remains weak is due to the bailouts by the federal government directed the largest financial institutions involved in the crisis. The Republican proposal for promoting personal responsibility on the part of borrowers will serve as a way to limit federal involvement in the housing market and prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts from being used in the future.
In conclusion, a major economic issue currently facing the U.S. is the aftermath of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. The crisis came about through actions by the federal government and private sector. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have come up with their own sets of solutions to address the subprime crisis and restore confidence in the housing market. The debate over ways to address the aftermath of the subprime mortgage crisis will continue to define U.S. economic policy over the coming years.
In his most recent Foreign Affairs article “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” political scientist Kenneth Waltz explores the background behind the debate over the Iranian nuclear program. Since 2002, a major discussion has emerged at the international level regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the true nature behind it. Many countries such as the US, Israel and the UK have argued that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, whereas the Iranian government has denied such claims and instead argues that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Additionally, the issue has resulted in increased tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel and serves as a roadblock preventing the normalization of ties between all three countries. In contrast to other political commentators and policy-makers, Waltz argues that that Iran possessing nuclear weapons would restore stability and correct the imbalance of power in the Middle East.
Waltz feels that the Iranian nuclear program crisis could end in three possible outcomes. The first outcome is that Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions in the face of increased international sanctions and diplomacy. The next possibility is that Iran develops breakout capability (the ability to develop a nuclear weapon quickly), but stops short of testing a nuclear weapon. The third scenario is that Iran goes ahead and tests a nuclear weapon. Even though the US and Israel are strongly opposed to the last outcome, historical precedent shows that when a new state develops nuclear weapons, imbalances of power are reduced and regional stability typically emerges.
Waltz argues that Iran is seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons in response to Israel’s nuclear weapon monopoly. For example, Israel has been a nuclear-armed state at least since the late 1970s and is one of 4 nuclear-armed states that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons has served to increase instability within the Middle East, in addition to its hostile relations with its neighbors and support by the US. As opposed to using nuclear weapons offensively against the US or Israel, Waltz states that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons for its own purposes of national security and to correct the imbalance of power within the region.
Waltz also mentions that another concern among Western leaders is that other countries would follow suit in developing nuclear weapons if Iran tests one, but history shows that there has been a slowdown in nuclear proliferation over the past few decades. Waltz further states that if both Iran and Israel are nuclear-armed states, they will deter each other and the chance of a major war between both will be less likely to occur. In conclusion, Waltz believes that the U.S. and its allies should give up their concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons and take comfort in the regional stability that may emerge as a result. The arguments that waltz makes throughout the article present an entirely different picture regarding the Iranian nuclear program and offer an alternative view on the factors behind it.
A major policy issue affecting the US over the past 10 years has been the War on Terrorism and the most effective ways to reduce terrorism at the international level. Because of events such as the 9/11 Attacks and the growing threat posed by terrorist groups, global terrorism became a key public policy concern in the US and formed the overall basis of US foreign policy. The start of the war on terrorism has also necessitated a change in US policy at the international level towards terrorism and highlighted the need for a comprehensive global strategy to fight terrorism. A comprehensive approach to preventing and fighting against global terrorism is the most efficient way to discourage potential attacks because it allows countries to more effectively find and defeat terrorist groups and implement policies that discourage terrorist groups from gaining support. Additionally, recent terror attacks highlight the influence that global terrorist organizations have and show that past policies towards terrorism are less efficient in an increasingly globalized world.
The purpose of this article is to explore the evolution in the approaches to global terrorism by the US in the years before and after the 9/11 Attacks. Additionally, this paper seeks to examine the overall effectiveness of both the pre-and post-911 policies and to propose additional steps that the US can take to create a more efficient strategy to address the threat of terrorism at the international level. The topic was identified in the 9/11 Commission Report (2004), which recommends a comprehensive US strategy at the international level to fight against terrorism based on cooperation between the US and other countries. The topic of the US policy advocated in the international arena against terrorism is important because it underscores the significance of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the need for unity in the primary goals of the principal countries involved in the War on Terrorism.
US Policy to Terrorism at the International Level Prior to 9/11 The threat of terrorism has long been a policy concern for the US government and the need for a comprehensive strategy has been proposed at various times. For example, Leich (1984) refers to President Ronald Reagan proposed a series of policy proposals in 1984 to create a more efficient response mechanism to the growing threat of terrorism. In his speech before Congress, President Reagan noted that over the past decade, terrorism had become a “frightening challenge to the tranquility and political stability of the US and its allies” and that efforts against terrorism required close cooperation between the US and other governments. Additionally, President Reagan highlighted the growing concern with state-sponsored terrorism, in particular, the direct use of terrorism by states and training, financing, and logistical support to terrorists by individual states. Two of the four policy proposals were the implementation of international conventions on terrorism, whereas the next two were legislative proposals.
Leich (1984) then mentions the policies proposals of Reagan. The first two proposals were the Aircraft Sabotage Act and the Act for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Hostage-Taking. The goal of the Aircraft Sabotage Act was to make the US a party to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, in which the member-states agree to prohibit and punish any behavior which may threaten the safety of civil aviation. The Act for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Hostage-Taking was legislation meant to implement the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. The next two proposals were the Act for Rewards for Information Concerning Terrorist Acts and Prohibition Against the Training or Support of Terrorist Organizations Act of 1984 The laws were meant to increase incentives for people to report any information regarding potential attacks. In addition, the laws gave the Justice Department the power to prosecute individuals involved in support of terrorist activities and to sanction states using terrorism. Such legislative proposals show that the concern with terrorism was growing in the years preceding 9/11 and the fact that international cooperation between the US and its allies is necessary to create an effective response to terrorism.
The role of the US in addressing terrorism through its capacity as a member of the UN Security Council is another important point concerning the evolution of US counter-terrorism policies in the years preceding 9/11. Kramer and Yetiv (2007) refer to the fact that prior to the 9/11 Attacks, only 13 resolutions by the UN Security Council dealt with the issue of terrorism, and only 2 of the 13 recommendations dealt with terrorism in more general terms. Additionally, most decisions dealt with terrorism for more practical purposes and very few terrorist attacks were referred the Security Council before 9/11. Since 9/11, the tools available in the fight against terrorism have changed as well. Before 9/11, sanctions remained the primary instrument available to the Security Council to respond to terrorism and were used three times in the 1990s against Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan. The US was the driving force behind the implementation of the sanctions regimes implemented during the 1990s and used its role on the security council to enforce such policies. Even though the use of sanctions had mixed results overall, they helped to consolidate a growing consensus that terrorism was an illegal tactic that needed to be addressed through international cooperation.
Parker and Stern (2007) argue that the lack of a unified approach to global terrorism by the US was a contributing factor that reduced the overall response to the 9/11 attacks. Even though the motives of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda were well-known to policy-makers at both the national and international level, little was done to formulate an adequate response to terrorism. The lack of a strong response to terrorism resulted from several different factors. The first factor was that the US and other countries did not fully understand the threat posed by global terrorist organizations and continued to rely on inefficient methods to fight against terrorism. The second factor is that there was a lack of unity between countries with regards to their efforts in implementing counter-terrorism policies. This lack of cooperation was caused by differences in policies and goals and an overall lack of concern about the threat of terrorism. Because of such factors, US policy towards terrorism at the international level remained relatively weak before the 9/11 Attacks and the start of the War on Terrorism.
US Policy to Terrorism at the International Level After 9/11 In response to the 9/11 Attacks, the US began to rethink its policy towards terrorism and sought to look towards different methods to implement a more effective counter-terrorism policy. At the federal level, several different and controversial changes were implemented with the goal of reducing the threat of terrorism and increasing national security with the goal of discouraging future attacks. In addition, the US also looked to alter its policy at the international level to terrorism. Some of the policy changes proposed by the US include a revised national security policy and further cooperation with other countries to devise new policies against terrorism. Despite its sweeping policy changes, the overall record of the US in implementing anti-terrorism policies at the international level has been mixed.
Sanjay Gupta (2004) argues that it would be beneficial for the US to follow a comprehensive, multilateral approach to counter-terrorism. Such an approach would consist of the US working closely with other countries with similar goals to fight against and reduce the spread of terrorism worldwide. A multilateral approach to the threat of global terrorism would be practical for several reasons. The first factor is that a multilateral approach would allow for a more unified approach to global terrorism. A unified approach to terrorism would be effective because it would enable countries with common goals to join to develop stronger responses to terrorism and helps to frame terrorism as a global issue affecting all countries as opposed to only the US. Moreover, a multilateral approach would create more efficient responses to terrorism and allow countries to recover more quickly from any attacks that do occur. The final reason why a unified approach to terrorism would be successful is that it would lead to uniformity in responses to terrorism. A critical issue in many of the responses to terrorism in both the US and other countries is a lack of consistency. Increased uniformity would create a model of the proper responses to terrorist attacks and overall serve to strengthen responses to any attacks.
Peter Romaniuk (2010) explores some of the reason a multilateral approach has not been fully implemented and argues that the high level of variation in the institutionalization of counter-terrorism policies at the international level prevents such an approach from emerging. The variation often stems from the role that formal institutions play in fighting terrorism. Institutions often play a role in counter-terrorism only when they are backed by powerful countries such as the US. Thus, the stronger countries often view international institutions as a way in which they can exercise a level of influence over weaker countries. Additionally, both powerful and weaker countries are sensitive to the both the political and economic costs of cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The fact that they are sensitive to the costs causes variations in how they view international efforts against terrorism. Countries such as the US also tend to rely on other countries, both weak and powerful, in the fight against terrorism and uses its power to convince them to follow a specific course of action (p. 597) Because of such factors, there exists much variation between counter-terrorism efforts, which prevents countries such as the US from responding adequately to the threat of terrorism.
Another factor influencing the effectiveness of the US strategy against terrorism post-9/11 is the changes in US defense policy implemented over the past few years, as described by Laurence Korb (2008). For example, President George W. Bush executed a new defense policy in 2002 through The National Security Strategy of the United States. The new policy proposal stated that the US would not hesitate to take pre-emptive actions to defend itself from potential terrorist attacks and to protect its national security. Additionally, this policy called for the US government to take unilateral action if it was deemed necessary to defeat terrorist groups and to protect the American people from further terrorist activities. Because of its language, the 2002 National Security Strategy raised some concerns among the allies of the US. One such concern of was that the strategy was a violation of international law through its advocacy of pre-emptive strikes to protect the US from future attacks. Additionally, another concern was that the strategy put in place by the US government disregarded the international consensus for global cooperation in the face of emerging threats. The implementation of such policies has further influences the overall effectiveness of US policies in the realm of counter-terrorism.
Todd Sandler (2005) looks at the fact that the lack of coordination at the global level has also defined US policy towards international terrorism since 9/11. Coordination of anti-terrorism efforts in the international arena is often difficult to achieve due to the overall scope of counter-terrorism measures and stems from several different factors. The first factor is that terrorist organizations are often nonhierarchical, with loosely tied networks of terrorist groups that work independently of each other. The nonhierarchical nature of terrorist groups makes it so that captured terrorist leaders can provide only limited intelligence to international organizations. The overall structure of governments such as the US also reduces the effectiveness of consistent international efforts against terrorism. For example, the structure of the federal bureaucracy and governmental agencies often reduces the effectiveness in waging an anti-terrorism campaign and gives terrorist groups more potential targets to attack. The final factor that reduces the efficiency of concerted counter-terrorism efforts is the fact that countries often have different views on the definition of terrorism and which groups can be considered as terrorist organizations. Policies to combat terrorism may also be short-lived depending on the political realities within a country and often change due to shifts in who is leading government at a certain point in time. Because of such factors, concerted international efforts against terrorism are difficult to implement, and countries such as the US instead turn to unilateral counter-terrorism approaches.
In conclusion, the threat posed by global terrorist organizations has been a major policy concern within the US in recent years. Because of events such as the 9/11 Attacks and the subsequent start of the War on Terrorism, policy makers in the US began to realize that global terrorism was an increasingly growing problem and that there needed to be change in both domestic and international policies to address such challenges more accurately. Additionally, US policy towards international terrorism has changed over the past few decades. Before 9/11, the US government did not view terrorism as a major issue and did not have any particularly strong counter-terrorism policies in place. Moreover, the international community did not recognize the need for uniform and cooperative approaches to fighting terrorism and reduce the reach of global terrorist organizations. In contrast, the US began to develop more effective counter-terrorism policies after 9/11 and looked to establish more uniformity in its response. Overall, the polices implemented by the US at the international level since the 9/11 Attacks have had mixed results and did not lead to an entirely cooperative and uniform approach on the international scale against terrorism.
Sources:
Gupta, S. (2004). The Changing Dimensions of International Terrorism and the Role of the United States: A comprehensive and Multilateral Approach to Combat Global Terrorism. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 556-587. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856077
Kramer, H., & Yetiv, S. (2007). The UN Security Council’s Response to Terrorism: Before and after September 11, 2001. Political Science Quarterly, 122(3), 409-432. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20202886
Leich, M. (1984). Four Bills Proposed by President Reagan to Counter Terrorism. The American Journal of International Law, 78(4), 915-928. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2202214 doi:1
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States., Kean, T. H., & Hamilton, L. (2004). The 9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.
Parker, C., & Stern, E. (2002). Blindsided? September 11 and the Origins of Strategic Surprise. Political Psychology, 23(3), 601-630. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792594
Romaniuk, P. (2010). Institutions as swords and shields: Multilateral counter-terrorism since 9/11. Review of International Studies, 36(3), 591-613. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40783287
Sandler, T. (2005). Collective versus Unilateral Responses to Terrorism. Public Choice, 124(1/2), 75-93. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30026704
There are some moments in life that are the result of hard work and determination. One such moment in my life was getting the opportunity to attend the New Jersey Boys State program during the early summer of 2011. There was never a more important and prestigious program that I was able to attend before it. It was the culmination of many long and arduous years of hard work and determination that finally paid off towards my favor. Most importantly, attending Boys State helped me reach the conclusion that the political and law fields are where I want to seek a career for myself after college graduation.
The Boys State Programs is run by the American Legion and is a hands-on mock government program that is meant to educate each participant about how the political process works. Roughly 900 delegates are selected from towns all across New Jersey and meet for a week at Rider University. The delegates are then divided up into 16 cities which make up several counties. The residents in each city elect their representatives and pass laws relating to the problems facing the city. The delegates also elect state officials such as the governor, lieutenant governor, and two senators. Throughout the week, there are many other activities for the delegates to take part in such as sports, band practice and seminars relating to several careers.
I was utterly surprised when I was selected. My history teacher and my guidance counselor felt that I was an excellent candidate for Boys State due to my strong academic performance and strong interest in history and politics. My parents were thrilled at my selection and felt I deserved it due to the fact that my academic performance had improved markedly so during my time in High School. Upon hearing the news about me being selected, my family began preparing for me to attend it as soon as possible with the utmost speed.
Despite my initial excitement towards attending, I had a feeling of anxiety towards the idea of having to stay away from home for a week at an unfamiliar place. When I attended the orientation for Boys State, I was surprised to see that several of my classmates were attending it as well. Seeing them helped assuage me from some of my anxiety towards attending the program. Despite the fact that I felt less anxious about staying away from home, the prospects regarding meeting new people still made me feel relatively uneasy. The day that I embarked on my journey to Rider University approached fast and I felt ready to go. I met up with my counselor and fellow delegates at the local American Legion post and then proceeded with them on a bus to the university.
While I was on the bus traveling to Rider University, I began to hear an extremely loud and persistent thud coming from the motor of the bus. It sounded almost like a knocking sound when listened to closely. At first, I thought the noise was nothing major and just a minor annoyance, but it did not stop and instead grew louder and louder as the trip progressed. My fellow delegates and I began to fear that the bus was going to break down in the middle of the road. Ultimately, the bus driver pulled over to check out what damage had occurred. Upon his further inspection, it appeared that the motor of the bus was seized and could not run. The bus breaking down could not have come at a worse time, as it was hot enough outside to boil water along the road and we had to be at the campus within the next hour. My anxiety level increased dramatically and I feared the worse. After the dramatic breakdown of the bus, a more reliable one was swiftly brought in and we made it to the campus in a short amount of time.
When we were divided up into our respective cities, my anxiety began to drop, as I found out that I shared several interests with my fellow delegates. One person had a huge interest in politics and history just like me while another person was also interested in record collecting like me. Another delegate from my city even started a yhatzee club in his school and taught me and several other people how to play it. In addition, many of my fellow delegates came from diverse backgrounds all throughout the state. I then realized that there were people that shared the same interests as me and that it is not that hard getting to know new people who come from much more diverse and varied backgrounds than the ones I am accustomed to from my previous experiences.
The dorm room that I was assigned was clean and orderly for the most part, but the furniture in it, especially the bed that I had to sleep on, was dilapidated and worn down from decades of use. In addition, the food that was served to us was second-rate in quality, especially the food served to us for breakfast and dinner. After getting settled in our dorms and having our first meal there, our cities counselor called us into a meeting to discuss how the political aspects of Boys State worked. After the meeting, our city had its first election for the mayor of it. I decided to run for mayor along with four other people. I tried to run an energetic campaign that focused on the needs of my city and how to find practical and forward-thinking solutions for the issues that it faced. Despite my persistent efforts, I lost the election, but received the second largest amount of votes out of all the candidates. I ultimately was appointed as the city public works administrator by the person who won the mayoral election. Although I lost the election, I gained a great insight into how to run a campaign and how local politics works.
There were several current political leaders that spoke to us at the seminars. The first person that spoke to us was Congressman Leonard Lance, who spoke in well-expressed terms about his experiences attending Boys State nearly 40 years earlier. Moreover, former Bush Administration Press Secretary Ari Fleischer spoke at a later assembly about what path to take when getting started in politics. The most noteworthy person to speak to us was Governor Chris Christie, who had a question and answer period in which any delegate could as him a question. I was unable to ask him anything due to the fact that several hundred delegates formed a line to talk to him. Although I was not able to ask him a question, seeing Governor Christie was inspiring to me because I knew that he came from a relatively average background and was able to succeed in politics.
Another fun experience at Boys State occurred on the second day. After we had lunch, our counselor divided up our city into two teams for a dodge ball game. The game quickly became very intense and exciting, although several participants were resistant to playing it at first. The game got very intense at time, but luckily no one walked away with any serious wounds once it ended. After the epic game was over, we learned that the team that won it would get an award for it at the graduation ceremony. My team won it, so I was thrilled to get the award at the graduation ceremony.
On the last day of Boys State, a picnic was held for all the delegates and their families before the main graduation ceremony from the program. When my parents came to the picnic, they were very proud that I was able to attend such a program and noticed that I had grown as a person during my short time there. At the graduation assembly, current U.S. Senator Robert Menendez spoke to the delegates about his experiences attending Boys State and how it changed him as a person. During the graduation ceremony, I felt a sense of deep pride and cheerfulness in what I was able to accomplish.
After I had packed up my bags, I felt a feeling of sadness as I left my city and my delegates. I had grown as a person and met many new and diverse people that I could build a lasting friendship with. I also had a feeling of satisfaction knowing that I was able to take part in such a great and educational program. Most importantly, I realized that a career in politics is what I might want to pursue in the future.
