JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
What is the Significance of the First Union Store at Starbucks?
Brief #132 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
The recent union vote, at a Buffalo, NY Starbucks, represents the first success in the company’s 8000 corporate retail outlets. Workers United is the entity representing the workers and is affiliated with the Service Employees International Union. Another area store failed to vote in a union while a third one had a successful outcome which has been contested by both sides.
Dams Versus Salmon on the Snake River
Brief #130 – Environment Policy
By Timothy T. Loftus, Ph.D.
This past October, the Northwest News Network reported that a coalition of conservation groups, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the State of Oregon reached an agreement with the Biden Administration and federal agencies to pause, until next summer, long-running litigation over the operations of Snake River dams within the Columbia River Basin.
China: Genocide and the Olympics
Brief #137 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
The detention (or internment) camps that are housing the Uyghurs (and several other ethnic minority groups) are essentially prisons. According to NBC News, they reported that a high-level Communist Party official in Xinjiang described, in leaked documents, the security measures of the camps and they more closely align with a prison than a “vocational center”.
The leaked documents mention video surveillance in/around classrooms, dormitories, and even watch towers. The Chinese government has cited worries about extremism and even terrorism from within the Uyghur population as a main driver of these policies.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 6
Brief #30 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The investigation into the January 6 attack on our nation’s capitol is currently well underway; there have been numerous subpoenas issued, thousands of tips collected, and many depositions and interviews conducted.
Inflationary Trends Cut Into Rise in Wages
Brief #131 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Wages are increasing significantly in all sectors. As workers have gradually rejoined the labor force, taking their time even as federal subsidies to unemployment benefits ended, starting wages and service work especially have seen large increases. Wages increased 4.9% between October 2020 and October 2021.
DOI Will Not Stop the Drilling in the Face of Climate Commitments
Brief #129 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
With President Biden’s COP26 climate pledge as backdrop, his administration has been issuing oil leases at a record pace. Biden said that climate change is “the challenge of our collective lifetimes, an existential threat to human existence as we know it. And every day we delay the cost of inaction increases.” His pledge is to cut U.S. emissions by up to 51% over the next nine years. At the end of October, the administration had approved 3,091 new drilling permits on public lands at a rate of 332 per month, outpacing the Trump administration’s 300 permits per month in fiscal years 2018-2020.
Biden Administration Reinstates Remain in Mexico, Under Federal Court Order
Brief #132 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
Nearly a year ago, the Biden Administration suspended the Trump era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aka Remain in Mexico. The policy consisted of a set of rules requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexican border towns while their cases were processed in the US. In April 2021, the Attorney-Generals of Texas and Missouri sued the Biden Administration for suspending MPP and called for an injunction to pause the policy’s termination.
Last Minute Agreement to Raise Debt Ceiling
Brief #130 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
After persistent bickering Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer reached a procedural agreement allowing the Senate to pass an increase in the debt ceiling with a simple majority. This bill passed Thursday and is likely to quickly lead to an increase in the debt ceiling of 2-2.5 trillion dollars, which will cover the government’s debt payments through next year’s election.
The Future of Abortion Rights In The United States
Brief #178 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade. That case ruled that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The basis of the ruling by the Court was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a “right to privacy” which includes the choice to have an abortion. The case then laid out a balancing test that focused on each of the three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy.
Why is There No Covid Vaccine for Children?
Why is There No Covid Vaccine for Children?
Health and Gender Policy Brief # 122 | By: S. Bhimji | Aug 9, 2021
Header photo taken from: Science News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: AAMC
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For much of 2021, only the adult population has been getting vaccinated in the USA but children have not been a priority. Now that schools are about to open, people are asking why children have not been vaccinated.
In the USA, the plans were to only vaccinate the children in the later stages of the vaccine roll-out. As of yet no vaccine has been approved for use in children under the age of 12.
But why has it taken so long to make a Covid vaccine that is effective in children? Surely we have had at least a dozen childhood vaccines that have been used for close to a century with great effectiveness like the polio, rubella, mumps, rubella, pertussis, etc, vaccines. So how come there is no Covid vaccine for children?
Policy Analysis
Experts in infectious disease state that there are no childhood Covid vaccines as of yet is due to two reasons: 1) Unlike adults, children have been less affected by covid-19. When the Covid pandemic started only 3% of children were affected but the latest data indicate that there at least 23% of children have acquired covid-19. Yet death rates and hospitalization have been rare. 2) The majority of clinical trials have only involved adults.
As of Aug 2021, the safety of all Covid vaccines in children under the age of 12 has not been established. In the latest Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial that involved more than 43,000 participants, not a single person under the age of 16 was enrolled. Hence, without clinical trial evidence, no manufacturer can claim that the vaccine is effective in children.
In the rush to get adults vaccinated ASAP, children unfortunately were left out of the trials. The key reason for this is that the early Covid experience revealed high mortality in older adults, especially those with comorbidities; children were rarely affected by the coronavirus. It has all been a question of priorities.
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
According to the latest figures released by the CDC, only 335 children under the age of 17 have died since the Covid pandemic started. In that same period, close to 49,000 children died from other causes-so the death rates from Covid-19 in children are very low. Further, children under the age of 17 represent less than 1.5% of hospital admissions and have much milder symptoms than adults.
It is not clear why children are less susceptible to Covid 19 but it is suspected that there may be fewer receptors in the airways for the virus to attach itself and/or that children may also be exposed to many other viruses which may offer defense from coronavirus-but these are only theories and not proven facts.
Photo taken from: Healio
The timeline for children being vaccinated in North America still depends on the results from clinical trials but it is expected that a roll-out may start at the time of the 2021-22 school year. Companies that make the vaccine are taking a more cautious approach and want to ensure that the vaccines are safe.
Another problem is that without data from clinical trials it is still too early to determine the dose of the vaccine in children. Children do have a robust immune system and may need a lower dose or even a single dose-but how they will respond is another story.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
COVID-19 Vaccines for Children and Teens:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html
Clinical Trials in Children:
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/children
COVID-19 Vaccines:
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
Part 2: The World Trade Organization
Foreign Policy Brief # 125 | By: Ailín Goode | August 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: theconversation.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs here
Photo taken from: World Trade Organization
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
This is the 2nd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS series that examines the effectiveness of our global governance organizations.
The United States has been an active member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since its creation in January 1995. As of 2019, the U.S. had been a party in 179 cases managed using WTO dispute settlement procedures. It remains active in the creation and maintenance of the agreements set for by WTO to organize and govern world trade.
The US is also one of the loudest voices calling for reform within WTO. In July, the US brought the latest revision of the transparency proposal before the General Council. The proposal, first introduced under the Trump Administration, “seeks to enhance transparency and improve Members’ ability to comply with notifications.” Notifications are – “ a transparency obligation requiring member governments to report trade measures to the relevant WTO body.” The most recent revision of the transparency proposal is supported by one-third of WTO members including the EU, Japan, and Singapore.
In addition, the US is continuing to block any new appointments to the Appellate Body of the organization. A decision which has essentially nullified one of the key functions of WTO, its trade dispute settlement process. The United States itself has brought 124 cases before the Appellate Body, the seven person body that hears appeals of panel decisions in trade disputes. However, the AB has been rendered ineffective in recent years by the US choice to block new judges from appointment following concerns of perceived threats to US sovereignty and claims of bias within WTO judges. As the terms of members have continued to expire, the Body no longer has the numbers necessary to hear cases.
As the world’s nations and economies continue to struggle with the effects of COVID-19 and the growing demands of globalization, collaborative organizations such as WTO have come under increasing scrutiny. In the case of WTO, its effectiveness is being called into question for good reason.
Policy Analysis
The World Trade Organization was founded in 1995 as a follow-up to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was established after WWII as part of the post-war effort of nation states to foster international cooperation. GATT addressed tariffs, anti-dumping agreements, and other trade barriers. As GATT became outdated by the growing needs of the global economy, its members agreed via the Uruguay Round to establish WTO.
The 164 member nations of WTO account for roughly 96% of global trade. It exists “to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.”It has six major functions designed to protect both consumers and producers and to liberalize global trade by reducing trade barriers between developed and developing countries.
Photo taken from: Wikiwand
They are: Administering WTO trade agreements; serving as a forum for trade negotiations; handling trade disputes; monitoring national trade policies; providing technical assistance and training for developing countries; and engaging in cooperation with other international organizations.
WTO enforces roughly 60 global trade agreements between its 164 member nations. These agreements regulate global trade, but also act as a framework for other bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations , many of which have been successful, such as The Bali Package.
However, the processes by which these global agreements are negotiated has come under strong criticism for their lack of transparency, exclusive nature, and systemic bias towards more powerful nations. Such was the case of the multiple breakdowns of The Doha Round negotiations.
Also referred to as the Doha Development Agenda, The Doha Round was initiated in 2001. It is the most recent and the last round of trade agreement negotiations to involve all members of WTO. Its focus claimed to be the needs and interests of developing countries and its aim was to lower global trade barriers and address issues in agriculture. However, multiple negotiation attempts failed.
Photo taken from: South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation
The breakdown of the 2008 talks regarding The Doha Round was due to disagreements between developed and developing nations on subjects like tariffs and food sovereignty. Multiple countries expressed frustration that many of the talks involved only seven major trading powers, while the representatives from other developing nations remaining uninvited. India’s trade minister at the time “accused the US of putting the livelihoods of a billion of the world’s poorest people against “commercial interests.””
It is thought by many commentators that, after multiple deadlines for concluding The Doha Round talks were missed, the Nairobi Package of 2015 signaled a shift in WTO negotiations to smaller, more focused trade agreements. Both the Bali Package of 2013 and the Nairobi Package addressed parts of The Doha Round talks. The Bali Package was approved by the 9th Ministerial Conference, the Nairobi Package by the 10th.
The Bali Package addressed food security, development and Least-Developed Countries (LDC) issues, cotton subsidies, and The Trade Facilitation Agreement. The Nairobi Package had six decisions on issues including agricultural subsidies, market access, and enhancing provisions for LDCs. Both packages are considered a success, particularly in benefiting developing countries.
WTO’S struggles are evident in the last 20 years of negotiations involving the global fishing industry. Government ministers and other world leaders have struggled since 2001 to agree on a solution for addressing unsustainable fishing practices and fishing subsidies. As of July, an agreement had not been reached, however the Trade Negotiations Committee expressed confidence that, though there were still issues that needed to be addressed, the revised text for negotiation should be a functional basis for agreement by December.
Photo taken from: The Hindu
Another current impasse within WTO is over the proposition to waive intellectual property rights for vaccines in order to address the shortages being faced by developing countries during the continuing pandemic. The Biden Administration released a statement in May backing the proposal introduced by South Africa and India to equalize global access to the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the most recent talks held in July, failed to reach a consensus among member states regarding the implementation of the waiver. Talks are scheduled to continue in September, almost a year after the proposal was first introduced.
Despite one of its goals being to aid developing nations, WTO has fallen under heavy scrutiny for exacerbating economic inequality. In particular, its actions regarding agriculture and intellectual property have drawn criticism from economists and activists alike. In her book Blame it on the WTO?: A Human Rights Critique, Sarah Joseph (Director for the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law) criticizes The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) , writing that, “TRIPS presently mandates the regressive transfer of wealth from the South to the North because most patents are owned by people, particularly companies, from the North.64 Populations in the South, where patent rights were not generally respected prior to TRIPS, must now pay more for patented goods. The biggest losers are the poor in developing countries, who cannot afford the price increases.”
She cites the 2005 Human Development Report, that also challenges the idea that trade liberalization automatically leads to economic development and greater financial equality. “Participation in trade can exacerbate inequality as poor people absorb the adjustment costs of increased competition from imports, while people with assets and market power take advantage of opportunities provided by exports.”
One of the most utilized functions of WTO is their dispute settlement procedures. Through their dispute settlement system , WTO outlines the process countries must take to challenge perceived violations of trade agreements. The steps include various means to settle disputes through consultations, panel procedures, and the establishment of an Appellate Body. These procedures were designed to avoid potential military and political conflicts by giving nation’s a separate, clearly structured, mechanism to handle economic disagreements. However, of the 605 disputes brought before WTO since 1995 only around 350 have been ruled on.
With the upcoming Ministerial Conference set for December of this year, many countries are offering their suggestions and requests for organizational reform. As WTO continues to struggle on its most prominent fronts, its future remains uncertain. It is clear that its continued effectiveness as an organization will require much work and the willingness of its member states to compromise.
Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space
Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space
Technology Policy Brief #60 | By: Henry Lenard | August 6, 2021
Header photo taken from: military.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Sputnik News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Even as space commerce soars to new heights, it appears the world continues to gird itself for the inevitability of warfare in the heavens.
At the official opening of the new UK Space Command on July 30, two top British military officers directly criticized China and Russia for their “reckless” behavior in space, such as using weapons to destroy satellites. That activity has left a trail of dangerous space debris in Earth’s orbit.
The two commanders also left open the possibility that the UK could develop its own weapons to defend assets in space for the first time.
“I am not ruling out what we might do in the future, but we don’t want to weaponize space,” General Sir Patrick Sanders of Strategic Command, told Sky News.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, the head of the Royal Air Force, added: “When diplomacy has run its course and we find ourselves in a global conflict, it might not start in space, but I am in no doubt it will move very quickly to space, and it will most likely be won or lost in space.”
The UK Space Command, which will take charge of all military work involving space, is now considered a domain of operations alongside land, sea, air and cyberspace. The new organization will bolster the UK’s ability to track threats in space, from space junk to deliberate attacks in coordination..
The move follows the creation of the U.S. Space Force (USSF) two years ago as the newest branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. It was established December 20, 2019 with enactment of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.
USSF organizes, trains and equips space forces to protect U.S. and allied interests in space and to provide space capabilities to the joint force.
Photo taken from: Born to Engineer
It was established within the Department of the Air Force, giving the Secretary of the Air Force overall responsibility for the USSF, under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, a four-star general known as the Chief of Space Operations serves as the senior military member of the USSF and is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The bill establishing the Space Force passed Congress in 2019 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Several Democrats in both the House and Senate also crossed the aisle to form bipartisan Space Force caucuses in each chamber.
The importance of a military branch dedicated to the defense of space was underscored by the release on February 11, 2019 by the Defense Intelligence Agency of an unclassified report on U.S. space capabilities. That report identified threats posed to our space assets by four key adversaries: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Both China and Russia, according to the DIA, are developing military capabilities in space, from laser weapons to ground-based anti-satellite missiles. DIA’s report said China “is second only to the United States in the number of operational satellites.”
To counter that threat, the USSF is planning secret satellite dish bases in the UK, Australia and Texas to protect satellites from Russian and Chinese weapons. The Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability system will be able to spot objects the size of footballs from 22,400 miles away. It will monitor the skies for both suspicious activity and dangerous space debris. It is expected to be operational by 2027.
Policy Analysis
Playing out against the backdrop of the Cold War, the “Space Race” between the U.S. and the Soviet Union always had a military component to it.
It had its origins in the ballistic missile-based nuclear arms race between the two adversaries following World War II. Both countries saw the opportunity to demonstrate technological achievements in space as necessary for national security and part of the ideological symbolism of the era.
Soon after the dawn of the Space Race, with the launch of the first satellites in 1957, the United Nations took the lead in formulating rules governing space activities. The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was set up by the General Assembly in 1959 to govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity: for peace, security and development.
COPUOS was instrumental in the creation of the five treaties and principles of outer space: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1968 Rescue Agreement, the 1972 Liability Convention, the 1975 Registration Convention and the 1979 Moon Agreement.
Photo taken from: US Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law and was open for signature on January 27, 1967 and entered into force on October 10, 1967. As of February 2021, 111 countries are parties to the treaty, while another 23 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.
Among the Outer Space Treaty’s main points are that it prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons in space, limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only, and establishes that space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations, but that no nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body.
Being primarily an arms-control treaty for the peaceful use of outer space, it also expressly prohibits the use of celestial bodies for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications. However, the treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit, and thus some highly destructive attack tactics, such as kinetic bombardment, are still potentially allowable. The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial body such as the Moon or a planet.
Photo taken from: Department of Defense
Outer space has since been used as an operating location for military satellites and some ballistic missiles pass through outer space during their flight.
A military satellite is mostly used for communication, navigation and intelligence gathering. Some satellites were also developed for early warning of approaching missiles. Due to secrecy and some countries having GPS satellites serving both military and civilian use, it is difficult to know the exact number of military satellites in space.
Tabulated from various sources, the U.S. has an estimated 200-250 military satellites, and Russia and China approximately 200 each. Other countries, such as France, Germany, Israel, Italy, India, the UK, Turkey, Mexico, Columbia, Spain, Denmark, Japan, Algeria, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan and Chile have less than 10 each.
China’s stated goal is to become a space power and recently designated space as a military domain. Pentagon officials have grown increasingly worried about the vulnerability of spacecraft to anti-satellite weapons as Beijing’s space programs continue to mature.
In June 2020, then Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper released the Defense Space Strategy, which identifies how DoD will advance space power to be able to compete, deter and win in a complex security environment characterized by great power competition.
“The Defense Space Strategy is the next step to ensure space superiority and to secure the Nation’s vital interests in space now and in the future,” said Esper.
Through the strategy, DoD will advance space power through three objectives: Maintain Space Superiority; Provide Space Support to National, Joint, and Combined Operations; and Ensure Space Stability.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
U.S. DoD Defense Space Strategy Summary:
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/17/2002317391/-1/-1/1/2020_DEFENSE_SPACE_STRATEGY_SUMMARY.PDF
U.S. Space Force:
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency 2019 ‘Challenges to Security in Space’ report:
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space:
Are We Going to Need Booster Shots of the Covid Vaccine?
Are We Going to Need Booster Shots of the Covid Vaccine?
Health & Gender Policy Brief # 121 | By: S Bhimji | Aug 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: Pink Sheet Informa
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: WebMD
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There is no longer any question about the efficacy of Covid vaccines. Most studies indicate that they prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death. However, breakthrough infections are being reported with a higher frequency. A few months ago, there were only a few sporadic reports but now it appears the numbers are rising.
As of July 26 2021, data released by the CDC indicate that more than 163 million individuals in the USA have been fully vaccinated against Covid 19. At the same time, reporting from 49 states and territories reveals that there were 6,587 patients with Covid 19 vaccine breakthrough infections who required admission to the hospital or died.
It is also important to be aware that the data on breakthrough cases is incomplete and not undertaken by every state. Most US experts say that the breakthrough cases are rare and have been known to occur with many other vaccines because no vaccine is 100% effective. More importantly, the data reveal that the vast majority of Covid 19 cases including hospitalization and deaths in the USA are in unvaccinated individuals.
But now more dominant Delta strain is being reported everywhere in the USA but robust data on the effects of vaccine on this strain are lacking.
While American infectious disease experts do not seem alarmed by the slight increase in breakthrough cases, the UK is taking a different approach.
Policy Analysis
It appears that the British government is considering large scale immunization of its population with a booster shot, but the question is will it be worthwhile or an exercise in futility?
The UK government is planning to administer booster shots to all adults over the age of 50 starting Sept 6. This decision to administer the booster follows advice given by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization just a month ago.
UK experts reveal that the reason behind the booster shot is that benefits of immunization tend to wear off over time and the boost shot may restrict the damage caused by the delta variant and may also prevent the exacerbation of symptoms caused by the flu virus in the fall.
Britain is not alone in considering the booster shot; Israel has also started administering booster shots to individuals who have compromised immune systems.
Photo taken from: The BBC
And just recently the Israeli government announced that the booster shot program will be extended to all adults over the age of 60.
While the CDC has rejected the third shot, the Advisory Committee on Immunization has recommended it for Americans with a suppressed immune system.
Asides from Israel and the UK, no other nation has recommended the booster shot for people over the age of 50.
Experts from the UK believe that vaccines offer good protection for at least 6 months and thus the booster shot may help extend the immunity. So far in the USA most people are only 4 months after full vaccination and it is not known when and if the immunity will wear off. The other problem is that many US states are no longer monitoring for symptoms of recurrence.
Photo taken from: thehill.com
The third shot may not be a bad idea. The reason is that a small South African study suggested that the AstraZeneca booster vaccine had an efficacy of only 21.9% against the beta variant. However no studies were conducted on the delta variant.
But a universal program of administering a third shot does come with one major issue; so far our government has been saying that vaccines are very effective and everyone should be vaccinated. But recommending a third shot after just 4 months of being fully vaccinated, this may undermine the public’s confidence; this is especially true in the unvaccinated population who already believe that the vaccines do not work.
So far there is very little data on how fast the immunity fades with the different vaccines. The big question is, ‘will the vaccines really overcome the pandemic or will we need to wear masks, maintain our distance and continue taking booster shots for a long time?
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months:
Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Vaccine Boosters
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/07/08/joint-cdc-and-fda-statement-vaccine-boosters.html
Britain starts planning for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots this fall
An Update on Efforts to Reform the Police
An Update on Efforts to Reform the Police
Social Justice Policy Brief # 21 | By: Erika Shannon | August 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: Louisiana Illuminator
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs here
Photo taken from: WBUR
Statistics show that black people are three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, which is why police reform and rebuilding trust between law enforcement and minorities is so important in today’s climate. Local leaders have proposed using the funds to expand law enforcement, invest in social services, or develop technology used to prevent gun violence.
While it is evident that there is not one, simple approach to police reform in the U.S., over the past year we have seen several cities and states attempt to make changes in their police departments. From implementing crisis response teams to eliminating no-knock warrants and chokeholds, all efforts are a step in the right direction. Last year, police officers killed over 1,100 people in the U.S., and any steps towards reforming law enforcement agencies are a step in the right direction.
In Louisiana, three new police reform measures will take effect on January 1, 2022. House Bill 129 establishes new mandates for the Council on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which will establish training curriculum and will certify all law enforcement officers in the state with its standards. This means that all police officers in the state will have to go through an in-service anti-bias training program, and in order to investigate officer-involved shootings, law enforcement agencies must be certified and have completed necessary coursework and training. House Bill 430, will change parts of the “officer’s bill of rights,” with regards to internal investigations.
It will give more time for internal investigations to be completed, as long as mandating that complaints remain in an officer’s personnel file for at least ten years. This is a good thing, as it forces police officers to be accountable for actions taken while on the job. It doesn’t apply to unsubstantiated claims, but any complaints supported by evidence will remain for those ten years at minimum. The final piece of legislation, Senate Bill 34, prohibits chokeholds and no-knock warrants and mandates policies for officer’s dashboard and body-worn cameras.
Any law enforcement agency vehicles that are equipped with dashboard cameras are now required to use them. This bill also states that there must be a new policy drafted regarding the activation of an officer’s body-worn camera.
In Washington State, House Bill 1310 was signed into law earlier this year and has recently gone into effect. This new law governs when and how police officers can use force against members of the public. The law will create an expectation for officers to de-escalate and requires police to exercise care in the use of any force. The idea behind it is to reduce violence and prioritize the sanctity of life.
There has been a bit of resistance as people worry that cops will not respond to certain calls for fear of breaking the law and losing their job. However, the new law just requires them to use reasonable care when engaging with people, especially those in crisis.
Washington has started a massive police reform effort, and the bill will also do things like ban chokeholds, neck restraints, and no-knock warrants. Police will also be restricted as to when they can engage in car chases, and de-escalation techniques must happen before they use any force.
Photo taken from: GovTrack.us
Other states will likely follow in the footsteps of Louisiana and Washington, as calls to reform the police have been ramping up since the death of George Floyd in May of 2020.
Minnesota passed a law banning the police used of chokeholds and neck restraints last year; while just this year Illinois passed House Bill 163, which also bans chokeholds and legally requires officers to step in if another cop is using excessive force.
Certain cities across the country are also implementing crisis response teams in order to reduce police officers injuries, as well as reduce the number of incidents where police officers use force.
The idea is that police officers are not adequately trained to respond to mental health crises, and sending out members of a special crisis response team to individuals with mental illnesses, rather than have them be arrested with no access to mental health services, is a wise alternative.
We have not seen a lot of police reform at a federal level recently, which is understandable. Police departments across the country are run differently depending on their location, and it will be hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution.
The federal level efforts we have seen have been part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. President Biden hopes that local officials will invest some of the money in police departments and establish community-based programs to help rebuild trust between people of color and law enforcement.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- For statistics on police-involved violence, as well as names and locations of victims, visit the Mapping Police Violence website.
- To read more about trends in policing in the U.S., visit The Marshall Project.
Space Tourism Puts Focus Back on Commercialization of the Outer Limits
Space Tourism Puts Focus Back on Commercialization of the Outer Limits
Technology Policy Brief # 59 | By: Henry Lenard | August 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: India Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Parabolic Arc
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The successful space tourism flights of Richard Branson aboard his Virgin Galactic craft and Jeff Bezos on his Blue Origin rocket have drawn new attention to what is happening in the skies above us. It also has many asking the question who has oversight of commercial ventures in space.
Since the earliest days of spaceflight, U.S. companies have been involved as contractors to government agencies. Outer space was soon found to be a place with abundant opportunities for commercialization. Telecommunications services proved to be the first successful space commercial application, to be followed by remote sensing and global navigation services. In the last decade, the rapid development of space technologies has brought space tourism and space mining to the forefront of space commercialization.
How the federal government makes use of commercial space capabilities continues to evolve. NASA used to own and operate the space shuttles that contractors built. That changed in 2012 when Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the first private aerospace and manufacturing company to ship cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). In 2019, NASA announced a new directive that further opens the ISS for commercial use.
Congressional and public interest in space is also becoming more focused on commercial activities, but who has jurisdiction over outer space?
Soon after the dawn of the space race, with the launch of the first satellites in 1957, the United Nations took the lead in formulating rules governing space activities. Over time, The UN passed five international conventions, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1968 Rescue Agreement, the 1972 Liability Convention, the 1975 Registration Convention and the 1979 Moon Agreement.
These five conventions within the framework of the UN constitute the nucleus of space law and guided the development of space activities for several decades. At that time, however, space was monopolized by the United States and the Soviet Union, and the UN failed to consider future commercial applications of space.
Today, oversight is provided by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its Scientific, Technical and Legal Subcommittees, which operate based on consensus.
Photo taken from: Luxembourg Space Agency
By far, communications satellites make up the lion’s share of space commerce. The Union of Concerned Scientists has assembled a satellite database that lists more than 4,084 operational satellites currently in orbit around Earth. Of those, 2,505 are American; Chinese, 431; Russian, 168; and other countries, 980. Of the U.S. satellites, 2,091 are for commercial use; military, 216; government, 166; and civil, 32.
Realizing the challenges in adopting legally binding international rules, the UN encourages countries to enact their own national space legislation guiding domestic space commercial activities.
Now, commercialization has resulted in competition from other developed regions and countries, primarily Europe and Japan. Realizing the challenges in adopting legally binding international rules, the UN encourages countries to enact their own national space legislation guiding domestic space commercial activities.
In the foreseeable future, it is expected that the development of soft laws and national space legislation will be the mainstream regulatory activities in the space field, especially for commercial space activities.
In the U.S., multiple federal agencies regulate the commercial space industry, based on statutory authorities that were enacted separately and have evolved over time.
During the Trump Administration, several of these agencies made significant changes in their regulations affecting commercial space. For example, one change had the Department of Transportation streamline the process for licensing approval for space launches and re-entries. Another designated the Department of Commerce as a hub for space commerce.
The 117th Congress may examine the implementation of these regulatory changes and consider whether additional legislation is required.
In the U.S. Senate, the Subcommittee on Space and Science has jurisdiction over national and civil space policy. In the U.S. House of Representatives, it falls to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Policy Analysis
The commercialization of space is more than flights to zero gravity for wealthy tourists. It is about transitioning the space industry from one supported by the federal government to one funded by private industry.
NASA’s 2019 directive on the ISS opens it to U.S. industry for commercial ventures in low-Earth orbit. NASA says providing expanded opportunities at ISS to manufacture, market and promote commercial products will help catalyze and expand space exploration markets for many businesses.
More than 50 companies already are conducting commercial research and development on the space station via the ISS U.S. National Laboratory. In addition, NASA has worked with 10 different companies to install more than 14 commercial facilities on the station that support research and development projects for NASA and the ISS National Lab.
Photo taken from: Space.com
This effort is intended to broaden the scope of commercial activity on the space station beyond the ISS National Lab mandate, which is limited to research and development. The NASA directive enabled commercial manufacturing and production and allowed both NASA and private astronauts to conduct new commercial activities aboard the orbiting laboratory.
NASA’s ultimate goal in low-Earth orbit is to partner with industry to achieve a strong ecosystem in which it is one of many customers purchasing services and capabilities at lower cost.
Photo taken from: GianAngelo Pistoia
Beyond NASA, responsibility for space is spread across several agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration licenses commercial launch and reentry vehicles as well as commercial spaceports. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration licenses commercial Earth remote sensing satellites. The Federal Communications Commission licenses commercial satellite communications. The Departments of Commerce and State license exports of space technology.
Related ongoing efforts, such as the proposed reorganization of space offices in the Commerce Department and the shift from the Department of Defense to civil responsibility for space situational awareness are also likely to attract congressional attention.
Agencies are considering a host of new opportunities, including acquisition of weather data from commercial satellites, acquisition of science data from commercial lunar landers, and expanded commercial utilization of the ISS for technology development and demonstration as well as other purposes. The 117th Congress may address these developments primarily through oversight of agency programs and decisions on agency budgets.
Among the agencies of which the Senate Subcommittee on Space and Science, and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, have oversight are NASA, the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the Department of Commerce Office of Space Commerce, and the National Space Council.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Space and Science:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/space-and-science-subcommittee
U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:
NASA Space Tourism and Commercialization:
https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/space-tourism-and-commercialization
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs:
US Makes Vaccine Available to Overseas Visitors
US Makes Vaccine Available to Overseas Visitors
Health and Gender Policy Brief # 120 | By: S Bhimji | July 30, 2021
Header photo taken from: Reuters
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: CNET
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Because of the high cost of healthcare in the USA, for much of the past 20 years, many Americans have sought medical care abroad going as far as India for heart surgery, Thailand for massage therapy, to Israel for liposuction, and so on. In addition, many Americans have undergone cosmetic and weight loss surgery in Central American countries and Europe. The cost of healthcare in these nations is only a fraction of what it would cost in the USA.
But now America has opened up its borders for foreigners in search of the COVID vaccine.. You can get the covid vaccine here for FREE- even if you cannot speak a word of English, and have never lived in America.
Policy Analysis
Reports indicate that most medical tourists who want the covid vaccine are from Central and South America. And for the past 7 months, the number of tourists arriving for the vaccine has increased dramatically. Just from Peru alone, 70,000 of its citizens made the trip north for vaccination. And airline owners in Latin America have noticed a major spike in trips to the USA, especially for the vaccine.
Latin America has a severe shortage of vaccines because of shipment delays and only 3% of Latinos have been fully vaccinated against covid 19. For those who can afford the airfare and cost of a hotel stay, this is one way to solve the vaccine shortage.
Photo taken from: Daily Advent
Many South Americans feel that their governments are simply not doing enough and they have no choice but to come to the USA. The visitors who do get the vaccine are immensely grateful to America. It is not just the South Americans who are into vaccine tourism- many Canadians who reside in Florida have also got the vaccine for free in the US.
However those who do come here to get the vaccine are generally wealthy enough to afford the associated travel and other related expenses. While there is nothing wrong or illegal in providing them with a COVID shot once they arrive, they represent a small and privileged segment of their country’s population. It would be better if the US could make more of its surplus vaccines available for the entire population of these counties.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Vaccine tourists are coming to America
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/26/americas/vaccine-tourism-usa-latam-intl/index.html
Can Visitors Get Covid-19 Vaccine in the US?
https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immigration-law/vaccine-tourism/
Covid vaccines: Tourists head to the US to get vaccinated
Spyware Technology: A Global Threat top Democracy and Human Rights
Spyware Technology: A Global Threat Top Democracy and Human Rights
Technology Policy Brief # 58 | By: Scout Burchill | July 29, 2021
Header photo taken from: Middle East Eye
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Human Rights Watch
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
A flurry of articles have recently been published on the Israeli based cyber-surveillance company NSO Group thanks to a recent leak exposed by Forbidden Stories, a collaborative non-profit journalist organization, which revealed a list of about 50,000 phone numbers alleged to have been targeted by the company’s Pegasus surveillance software.
Pegasus is an exceptionally powerful surveillance and spying software that targets phones and can be used to steal account passwords, call records, emails, text messages, audio recordings and photos from unsuspecting targets. It can also monitor a user’s activity, take screenshots, and enable the phone’s camera and microphone, turning it into a real-time surveillance bug and hidden camera. But wait, it gets worse. The malicious software can be installed on phones remotely by merely sending a text message. This zero-click method does not even require the user to interact with the message. NSO Group claims that Pegasus is sold only to governments and law enforcement agencies that agree to use it “appropriately.”
Even though this is far from the first time that NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware has made headlines, the leaked “surveillance list” once again suggests that Pegasus spyware is routinely used by authoritarian governments to target journalists, dissidents, activists, academics, and opposition politicians. The NSO Group’s spyware has already been implicated in Saudi Arabia’s monitoring of dissidents abroad and in the tracking of Jamal Kashoggi before his murder in Istanbul.
This new list, while not fully confirmed, includes: Roula Khalaf, the editor of the Financial Times, individuals and family close to Kashoggi, the assassinated Mexican reporter Cecilio Pineda Birto, a number of journalists from CNN, the AP, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and The New York Times, and perhaps most shockingly three sitting presidents, including French President Emanuel Macron, ten current and former prime ministers and the King of Morocco.
Furthermore, journalists from countries such as Azerbaijan, France, Hungary, India and Morocco are believed to have been hacked by Pegasus spyware, and a source familiar with NSO contracts has revealed that NSO software has been sold to the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, India, Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. NSO Group strongly denies accusations of wrongdoing.
Policy Analysis
The NSO Group’s recently leaked surveillance list comes as no surprise to those who have followed the steady stream of alarming articles written about the company over the past few years. The story of NSO Group highlights a steady and worrying trend that has only picked up steam in the digital age: the privatization of security industries by unregulated firms driven by pure profit.
These industries have no qualms or ethical misgivings when it comes to empowering the most repressive and brutal regimes on earth and their business model seems to be working. The market for privatized spyware alone is estimated to be around $12 billion and is expected to continue to grow as more actors seek the services of these digital mercenaries.
Photo taken from: PBS
NSO Group is far from alone in this murky, global enterprise mired in secrecy. The firm’s success has inspired homegrown spin-offs like DarkMatter in the United Arab Emirates.
DarkMatter has hired and continues to employ a number of former NSA and CIA officers, offering them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their valuable experience. The opaque and mysterious nature of these firms allows governments to contract out responsibility, further shielding their actions from the light of transparency.
With the amount of money and interested actors in the private spyware business, it is no surprise that NSO Group has deep ties in Washington. Anita Dunn, Biden’s former campaign manager who now works as a senior advisor to the president, lobbied on behalf of the firm through her company SKDK as recently as 2019. NSO Group also paid Jeremy Bash, the former chief of staff of the CIA turned MSNBC analyst, through his consulting company Beacon Global Strategies until early 2020.
Photo taken from: The Guardian
Much like the global arms trade or the military contracting business, the global spyware market represents a lurid enterprise that must be faced head on. While it will not be easy to regulate, transparency and accountability are desperately needed. Beyond the horrific human cost exacted daily by these industries, the willingness of officials and representatives of democratic nations to transfer powerful technologies and tools of oppression to authoritarian regimes betrays an utter lack of principle and foresight.
As these most recent leaks prove, it is only a matter of time before these technologies are used against the same democratic nations that are now complicit in selling away their expertise as well as their values. A 2019 United Nations report called for a moratorium on the sales of all spyware until stricter human rights protections are put in place. Unfortunately, there has been little follow through and spyware technologies continue to be sold and developed for the purposes of repressing and debasing the rights of individuals all over the globe.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Amnesty International
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/pegasus-project-spyware-digital-surveillance-nso/
Access Now
https://www.accessnow.org/indian-government-nso-pegasus-spyware/
Reporters Without Borders
https://rsf.org/en/news/urgent-need-escape-surveillance-technology-jungle
Internet Freedom Foundation
Sources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Forbidden Stories’ Pegasus Project
https://forbiddenstories.org/case/the-pegasus-project/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/07/pegasus-project-spyware-digital-surveillance-nso/
Relevant Reporting on NSO Group and Pegasus Software
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/06/1041231
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/18/world/middleeast/israel-nso-pegasus-spyware.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/nso-spyware-pegasus-cellphones/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/17/world/middleeast/israel-saudi-khashoggi-hacking-nso.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/technology/nso-group-spyware-india.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/world/middleeast/hacking-united-arab-emirates-nso-group.html
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/18/what-is-pegasus-spyware-and-how-does-it-hack-phones
NYT’s Kenneth Vogel on NSO Group ties to Washington
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1416835845496180744
Private Digital Mercenary Industry
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/us/politics/government-hackers-nso-darkmatter.html
UN Report on Need for Spyware Moratorium
Global Perspectives: Nigeria: A Case Study In The Slow Creep of Digital Authoritarianism
Global Perspectives:
Nigeria: A Case Study In The Slow Creep of Digital Authoritarianism
Technology Policy Brief # 57 | By: Scout Burchill | July 29, 2021
Header photo taken from: Foreign Policy
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Media 24
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On June 4th, the Nigerian government announced an “indefinite suspension” of Twitter after the social media company deleted a controversial tweet by Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. The Nigerian government’s Twitter ban and its recent history of attempts to more stringently regulate online speech present a cautionary tale about the rise of digital authoritarianism.
Over the past year, Twitter has increasingly drawn the ire of the Buhari government. The social media platform proved to be instrumental in organizing and sustaining protests against police brutality during the #EndSARS movement that erupted throughout the country in October of 2020. Young Nigerians used Twitter to share information, organize demonstrations, and attract worldwide attention to their cause, which picked up steam in the wake of new revelations and videos revealing gross misconduct and extrajudicial executions by Nigeria’s Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). Hostilities between the Buhari government and Twitter became distinctly personal as the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, tweeted messages in support of government protesters.
The official ban comes two days after Twitter deleted a tweet by President Buhari in which he threatened separatist rebel groups believed to be behind recent attacks in Southeastern Nigeria by vowing to “treat them in the language they understand.” The issue of succession still stings like an open wound in Nigeria, a country which fought a civil war not too long ago and is still deeply divided along North/South lines. The Buhari government has often complained that Twitter is complicit in allowing separatist leaders living outside the country to freely campaign and drum up support for succession movements within Nigeria. According to the government, the censorship of President Buhari’s tweet, which was a direct quote from a speech he delivered earlier, provides proof that Twitter has a clear agenda that threatens the sovereignty of Nigeria.
Policy Analysis
Let’s put aside for now the thorny question of whether or not Twitter, an American company, should be deleting or moderating the tweets of democratically elected leaders, and particularly those from other countries. Whether or not the deletion of President Buhari’s tweet is warranted, Twitter and other social media companies’ notoriously arbitrary and ad-hoc content moderation decisions make it hard to argue that such an action is consistent with company standards.
One quick takeaway worth noting about Twitter in particular though is that Jack Dorsey has a real knack for making enemies out of heads of state. From Modi, to Buhari, to Trump, the level of animosity for Dorsey seems personally tinged by the egos of those involved. Case in point, Facebook also deleted Buhari’s post, but has yet to receive any consternation from the government and the company remains operational in the country. Now on to the bigger picture.
Photo taken from: Human Rights Watch
Nigeria’s descent into digital authoritarianism is not a new or unforeseeable development, but it does present a worrying example of the future of online freedoms particularly in the developing world. As the former leader of a short-lived military junta in the 80’s, Buhari’s repressive inclinations were well-known before he was elected president in 2015. In 1984, Buhari passed the notorious Protection Against False Accusations Decree. Known as Decree 4, this decree remains the most restrictive press law ever enacted in Nigeria.
Since Buhari’s return to leadership, he has attempted to pass a number of laws reminiscent of Decree 4 that would allow Nigeria’s government to cut off internet access or block specific social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter. In 2019, the Buhari government introduced new legislation called the Protection from Internet Falsehood and Manipulation Bill, which would have granted the government sweeping authority to gag online speech and stifle dissent. Presented as a way of curbing misinformation and protecting the digital sovereignty of the nation, the bill failed to muster enough support in the face of widespread public opposition. Since the Twitter ban, however, a version of this bill is once again being circulated.
While parallels to Decree 4 seem to suggest that Nigeria is being haunted by ghosts of the past, the reality is that social media bans and repressive internet laws are becoming increasingly common in nations undergoing considerable democratic backsliding around the world. This worldwide wave of legal assaults on free speech and expression online is an example of how authoritarian-bent regimes can learn from one another, exporting both the technology and domestic policy strategies that help them tighten their grip on power and erode civil liberties.
Photo taken from: Telegraph India
Nigeria is clearly bolstered by and learning from other regimes keen on exerting more control over the digital sphere. Not long after Twitter was banned, government officials began promoting Koo, an India-based government-friendly alternative to Twitter, which has deep connections with Modi’s Hindu-nationalist movement. Koo is currently looking to expand its operations in Nigeria and replace Twitter’s massive footprint.
Zooming out a bit further, China’s growing investments in Africa, and especially in Nigeria, are heavily influencing digital practices both in Nigeria and across the continent. As the most sophisticated and experienced steward of digital censorship, the Chinese government is posturing itself as a potential partner to developing countries, with the ability to provide both financing for domestic projects and infrastructure as well as surveillance and monitoring technology. China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative is intended to further pull developing nations into the country’s orbit and for many would-be authoritarian regimes the opportunity to replicate China’s state control over the internet makes for an enticing bundle.
In more ways than than one, the question of whether or not authoritarian regimes can succeed economically in the digital age is a crucial one. China has proven that it is more possible than previously imagined and its success is guiding the way for others. To ensure that the world wide web stays the world wide web, and not a balkanized, fractured sphere where governments surveil and police their citizens, the United States needs to take seriously the example it sets both through domestic policy and international engagement.
It is clearer than ever now that digital rights constitute an essential aspect of human rights. The slow chipping away at digital rights and freedoms across the globe is in lockstep with the gradual deterioration of democracy. Accordingly, humane internet governance is built not on the professed need to protect society from danger, terrorism, or security threats, but rather on the preservation and protection of civil liberties and individual rights.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
PEN America Digital Sovereignty Report
https://pen.org/report/splintered-speech-digital-sovereignty-and-the-future-of-the-internet/
Article 19
https://www.article19.org/resources/nigeria-authorities-must-stop-clamping-down-on-digital-rights/
Art
NGOs Fighting for Freedom of Expression Globally
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/non-governmental-organizations/
Sources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Reporting on Nigeria’s Twitter Ban and Social Media Laws:
https://restofworld.org/2021/inside-nigerias-decision-to-ban-twitter/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nelsoncharityjohn/nigerian-government-twitter-ban-buhari
https://www.dw.com/en/nigerias-twitter-ban-exposes-deep-rift/a-57854660
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/18/nigerians-raise-alarm-over-controversial-social-media-bill
Bamidele Ademola Olateju on Developments in Nigeria
New America’s Review of Digital Authoritarianism
https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/long-view-digital-authoritarianism/
Koo As Twitter Alternative:
https://restofworld.org/2021/koo-is-selling-itself-as-a-twitter-substitute-in-nigeria/
China’s Internet Ambitions:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/zte-huawei-china-trump-trade-cyber/563033/
Brief History of SARS Unit:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/10/22/sars-a-brief-history-of-a-rogue-unit
Moving Forward After U.S. Withdrawal in Afghanistan
Moving Forward After U.S. Withdrawal in Afghanistan
Foreign Policy Policy Brief # 125 | By: Avery Roe | August 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: USA Today
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Daily Advent
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Despite widespread criticism, The Biden Administration has restated its commitment that the United States military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31st. This comes after the Trump Administration made an agreement with the Taliban to remove all American forces by May 1, 2021, a large part of the stated rationale for President Biden’s decision. In that agreement, the Taliban agreed to prevent other groups from using Afghan soil to support activities that threaten the United States or its allies, something that American leadership contends that they have not fulfilled.
During the same briefing, President Biden said that the United States has accomplished what it set out to do in Afghanistan, deliver justice to the terrorists responsible for 9/11, including Osama Bin Laden, and diminish the terrorist threat to keep Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist base. He specified that the United States did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build and that doing so is the responsibility of the Afghan people.
In the months since the initial announcement in April, the Taliban has more than tripled the number of districts in their control and is threatening to take more, in what top security officials have acknowledged is a “deteriorating security situation.” A recent United Nations report found that civilian casualties during the first half of 2021 are up approximately 47% compared to 2020.
The ways in which the United States will continue to be involved in Afghanistan are not yet clear, largely due to the uncertainty of the withdrawal’s aftermath. Currently, the United States has increased airstrikes in support of Afghan forces but has not made any comment if those will continue after August 31st. Military officials have said options will include remote training and training Afghan personnel in third countries. Diplomatically, President Biden has said that they will renew efforts to achieve an Inter-Afghan peace agreement. The exact ramifications of the Taliban taking Afghanistan are largely unknown but would likely require many changes to the current plan.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: The Times
While campaigning Biden said that he supported maintaining a force of no more than 2,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Now it is unclear why he would be so stuck on following this continuation of Trump’s policy in honoring the withdrawal deal with the Taliban. Doing so now could give him some political cover with Democrats if things were to go poorly while allowing him to maintain the image of the President that pulled America out of the forever war. However, with Afghanistan especially unstable right now it appears to be an incredibly risky decision.
Moving forward, the Biden Administration needs to work with both Afghanistan and neighboring countries to re-shape America’s influence in a way that better aligns with the administration’s goals of rebuilding relationships and fostering international cooperation.
Of course, that is only in the case that the Afghan government is able to maintain its power and doesn’t fall to the Taliban. In that instance, it is very likely that the United States will have to intervene militarily to support its ally in Afghanistan and protect itself from the terrorist threat that the Taliban would create.
While the immediate fall-out of this scenario would not inherently lead to a forever war, that is a possibility.
It is difficult to criticize a decision to get out of an endless war that had been criticized for nearly 20 years. It is also likely that there will never be an ideal, or even good, time to withdraw.
The Biden Administration is protecting itself with the use of the agreement between the Trump Administration and the Taliban, potentially minimizing the political blowback if the worst-case scenario occurs, but also receiving the credit if things go well. While the results and legacy of this decision are still unclear, this will be a defining moment for the Biden Presidency.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://womenforafghanwomen.org/afghanistan/ – Women for Afghan Women works to empower women, children, and families to change the norms of violence and oppression.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/search/?country=38342 – Amnesty International has up-to-date reports on the human rights issues occurring in Afghanistan.