Page 1


he C onsul A Publication of the International Affairs Association of the University of Pennsylvania

Spring 2015

Letter from the Editors The Consul Staff Editors-In-Chief Chloe Porter C ‘16 Jing Ran C ‘15

Content Editors Christine Du C ‘16 Taylor Evensen C ‘16

Head Layout Editor Karen Chen W ‘17

Senior Columnists Maxwell Hummel C ‘15 Julia Rossi C ‘15

Layout Editor Iana Feliciano C ‘15

Junior Columnists Rolando Bonachea C ‘17 Jacob Cohen C ‘18 Zachary Gross C ‘18 Dominic Kwok C ‘18 Abbie Zislis C ‘18

Assistant Layout Editors Irina Bit-Babik C‘18 Yen -Yen Gao W ‘18 Ricardo Martinez C ‘18

Dear Readers of The Consul, We are very excited to bring you our newest edition of The Consul. This edition is centered around one of the most important issues of our time: globalization. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected economically, politically, and culturally, we are facing unprecedented challenges, the solutions to which will shape our future in important ways. To that end, we present two articles exploring the difficulties and benefits of increased integration by examining European Union enlargement. We also delve into the future of economic globalization in looking at two significant trade agreements currently being negotiated: the TTIP and the TPP. With two more pieces respectively on human rights issue in the process of globalization and ISIS’s global propaganda approach, we hope to show you the implication of globalization from a variety of perspectives. Always dedicated to providing not only a platform for writers to express their opinions on international affairs, The Consul hopes to serve as an opportunity for our readers to develop their interests in international relations and to participate in the larger discussion of global affairs. We hope you enjoy reading this issue. As always, please browse to read more of daily updated blog posts, feature articles and other digital contents! Best, Jing Ran and Chloe Porter Editors-in-Chief

Table of Contents Semester in Review 4

ISIS How Twitter has Shaped Terrorism Maxwell Hummel 6

Viktor Orbรกn A Challenge to the European Union Julia Rossi 8

EU Enlargement Is It as Effective as We Hoped? Chloe Porter 10

The History of Globalization 14

Trade for Security Using a Transatlantic Agreement to Improve US-EU Security Cooperation Rolando Bonachea 16

Globalization and Human Rights Refugees in the 21st Century Taylor Evensen 18

The Trans-Pacific Partnership The Controversial Compromise Zachary Gross 20

Special thanks to the International Affairs Association for their neverending support.


courtesy of New York Post


Jan. 7, 2015 Paris, France 12 people are killed in a terrorist attack targeted at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper.


March 6, 2015 Mao, Chad The West-Africa based terrorist group voices an oath of allegiance to the Islamic State, indicating that ISIS may expanding much more rapidly than people thought.


Jan. 20, 2015 Sana, Yemen Houthi rebels take over the presidential palace complex and the capital of Yemen after escalated fighting between the rebels and government troops, leading to fear of a coup.

courtesy of New York Times


February 27, 2015 Moscow Russia The Russian opposition leader and outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine is assassinated on a bridge in Moscow.

PRIME MINISTER BEN “[It’s] a Bad Deal” NETANYAHU VISITS THE US CONGRESS March 3, 2015 Washington D.C., USA House Speaker John Boehner invites Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to the United States Congress in an attempt to sway talks with Iran on its nuclear program. courtesy of Time


courtesy of The New Yorker


March 18, 2015 Tunis, Tunisia Two gunmen open fire in the National Bardo Museum killing 20 people and sparking protests in Tunis.

NJAMIN NETANYAHU 30/120 SEATS NETANYAHU & LIKUD PARTY WIN ELECTION March 17, 2015 Jerusalem, Israel Benjamin Netanyahu wins re-election for Prime Minister and his party, the Likud Party, takes 30 of the 120 seats. The Zionist Alliance, the party’s main rival, wins 24 seats.

March 9, 2015 Washington D.C., USA Members of the United States Senate, led by Tom Cotton of Arkansas, write a letter to Iranian officials urging them again signing a 10-year agreement that detailed the exchange of Iran scaling back its nuclear program in exchange for less US sanctions.

“The next president could revoke [it] with the stroke of a pen” April 2, 2015 Lausanne, Switzerland Despite the letter from the U.S. Senate, representatives from Iran, the United States, and other world powers announce that they will be reaching a finalized agreement on the nuclear deal in June.


German Muslims held a day of protest against ISIS jihadists in Berlin last September. Courtesy of Montecruz Foto/Creative Commons

I S I S How Twitter has Shaped Terrorism BY: MAXWELL HUMMEL


ropaganda is a lost art. Gone are the days of posters depicting racial stereotypes menacing some blatant metaphor for America, though Michael Moore may argue that they’ve been replaced with Clint Eastwood films. Phrases such as “Keep On and Carry On” are now trite slogans displayed strictly on T-shirts and freshman dormitories. This is not to say that propaganda no longer exists; it certainly does, simply as a much different beast. “You may not publish or post direct,


specific threats of violence against others.” This rule, found within Twitter’s list of policy, has become a key clause as of late. It has been cited by commentators as the likely justification for deleting the Twitter accounts belonging to terrorist organizations. It needn’t be said that ISIS members account for the current bulk of such illicit accounts; a study recently published by the respected Brookings Institution stated that around 46,000 Twitter accounts had been operated by the group between September and December of 2014. The same study also stated that Twitter

had suspended 3.4% percent of ISIS accounts, a number that seems at first glance to be astoundingly low. The organization’s social strategy appears to be one of overwhelming the opposition through sheer numbers and to create accounts faster than they can appear. If this is in fact the case, a question that will be returned to briefly, in would be a marked break from previous terrorist usage of social media. Somali terrorist outfit Al-Shabaab unveiled an official account, @HSMPress, in late 2011. The content was far from what was

expected. In place of generic statistics about battles and boiler-plate call-toarms the tweets consisted of narrative descriptions of battles filled with PSAT words like “quagmire” and “desultory.” It became increasingly clear over time that this account belonged to someone who knew how to use Twitter rather than simply post on it, responding to messages and commenting on trending topics. The account lasted for several months before being deleted by Twitter, along with the successor accounts ostensibly operated by the same person. The account was a paean to the propagandists of yore, when individuals would exercise their perverse craft with eloquence and artistry. It was also a trick that only worked once, as if Triumph of the Will could only have been shown in American theaters; once the administrator of your medium figures out what your message us they won’t be eager to further broadcast it. With that lesson in mind it isn’t surprising that the next user of social media warfare would be interested in taking a different approach. But how different is ISIS’s approach? Yes, forty-six thousand accounts is a daunting number, certainly more impressive than one admittedly verbose account, but not all of those accounts were equally active. Once more, the Brookings Institute’s report proves to be an invaluable source of data. Per Berger and Morgan’s research forty percent of the identified ISIS accounts tweeted less than once per day and a little over two percent sent more than fifty tweets a day. One must remember that two percent of 46,000 is almost 1,000, so it isn’t as if this amount of highly active accounts is negligible. These accounts to not belong to terrorists who simply enjoy the act of tweeting; the report names them as mujahidin and pins the success of ISIS’s social media campaign squarely on their shoulders. Their method of tweeting only in condensed bursts can cause the hashtags they used to suddenly trend, allowing for higher visibility. It also runs directly against a recent blogpost by Twitter itself, which claimed

that brand names which were always tweeting gain the most publicity. The content of these messages is infamously grim. Decapitations, dead soldiers, and videos of children locked in cages are amongst the more macabre images distributed via their network. The more mundane messages tend to be details of conflicts, calls to arm, and selfaggrandizing propaganda. Responses to these tweets are obviously mixed. Certainly a sizable amount of people have joined ISIS because of the savvy usage of social media, but their messages have brought them some blows to their pride. Earlier this year, after ISIS took two Japanese security consultants hostage and released a photo of the pair kneeling beside their hostage-taker, Japanese citizens began hastily photoshopping the ensemble into ludicrous situations. The prime example of this is one photo in which the sand behind them has been flooded with cartoon llamas and a pair of anime-styled girls wields light sabers in front of the hostages. Mockery is an interesting approach to responding to ISIS’s Twitter presence. In a way it harkens back to Dr. Seuss’ racist caricatures of Tojo in his World War 2 propaganda; though the message may not include any persuasive argument,

the sheer outlandishness of it may serve to rally morale. But is this at all effective? Berger and Morgan adhere to the philosophy that continued deletion of ISIS accounts is an effective method of disrupting ISIS communications and efficacy. By deleting key accounts, they say, Twitter not only forces ISIS members to dedicate time to rebuilding the network but also cuts off geographically separated groups from one another. Morgan and Berger even cite official ISIS strategy documents as describing the suspension efforts as devastating to the mission. The Twitter war is a unique one. Citizenry and corporations can fight without ever risking life or limb. That doesn’t necessarily make them fully willing, however. Many Silicon Valley types are famously libertarian and are slow to compromise on their principles of free speech. Twitter does have an enforced terms of service, but “belonging to a terrorist organization” is not strictly grounds for removal. There is nothing preventing Twitter from liberally banning accounts as they pop up. It’s an issue of morality endemic to the information age, one that will hopefully be resolved soon.

Territory under ISIS control as of March 2015 Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons


Viktor Orbán A Challenge to the European Union


he Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities,” reads Article Two of the Maastricht Treaty (formerly known as the Treaty of the European Union). “These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, nondiscrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail.” The Maastricht Treaty is integral to the functioning of the EU. First ratified in 1992, it established the European Union and guided the creation of the euro. As the Treaty clearly explains, membership in the EU necessitates compliance with certain political, economic, and moral standards; nations are only eligible for participation in the international organization if they possess a functioning market economy, maintain democratic processes, operate under the rule of law, and vigilantly prosecute the oppression of minority groups. In practice, however, the EU’s commitment to these values is less


BY: JULIA ROSSI strict than the Maastricht Treaty would suggest. The current social and political conditions in Hungary reveal this situation quite starkly. Ever since Viktor Orbán’s return as Prime Minister of Hungary in 2010, the country has been plagued by an almost authoritarian regime—a striking throwback to the recent history of Communist rule in Eastern Europe. Take, for example, the declining status of rule of law in Hungary. In recent years, Orbán and his parliament have passed a flood of legislative acts and constitutional amendments that reduce checks on government and centralize power, thereby weakening the country’s commitment to the rule of law. These amendments did not go unnoticed by the rest of the EU. In fact, many EU leaders voiced their disapproval and warned Orbán to reconsider; but the Hungarian Prime Minister refused to take heed of these warnings. “The countries of central and eastern Europe should make their own policies without looking to the EU,” Orbán declared. “We do not have to listen to everything the bureaucrats in Brussels say.” Such a statement exposes the strained relationship between the Hungarian government

and the larger European Union. The violations of EU values in Hungary are manifold. Social and political pressures against LGBT people have tightened (and gay marriage has been banned); churches are required to “collaborate with the state for the public interest” in exchange for government funding; and free speech is tolerated only so long as it does not challenge “the dignity of the Hungarian nation.” Orbán has consistently filled the state with political appointees, ensuring that his own supporters wield the bulk of the country’s power. Such practices have resulted in widespread inefficiency and corruption; in fact, Transparency International, an international watchdog, has found that corruption among Hungarian officials has reached a worrisome level. Orbán has also placed limitations on the freedom of the press, revised Hungary’s electoral laws, and planted political loyalists in institutions that are intended to remain politically neutral. But matters get worse when it comes to human rights in Hungary. For centuries, the Roma minority

The Consul Spring 2015

this step has yet to be taken.

population—often pejoratively referred to as “Gypsies”—have been subjected to unequal treatment throughout Europe. In Hungary, the persecution of the Roma people has intensified profoundly under Orbán’s government. Anti-Roma sentiments have been brewing in the Hungarian people ever since the economic downturn of 2008. Many Hungarians were quick to blame the country’s economic troubles on the minority group, and Orbán’s rhetoric in recent years has fueled this scapegoating mentality. Moreover, Orbán’s close friend Zsolt Bayer, a prominent commentator for the conservative newspaper Magyar Hírlap, essentially advocated for the genocide of the Roma population in a 2013 column. “A significant part of the Roma are unfit for coexistence,” Bayer wrote. “These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved -- immediately and regardless of the method.” Though many called for a denunciation of Bayer’s genocidal notions, Viktor Orbán remained pointedly silent. The implications of this silence speak volumes to the antiRoma sentiment that characterizes Orbán’s government. In July of 2014, Orbán took his blatant disregard of EU policies even further. Orbán delivered a speech in which he decried the validity of liberal

democracy. Citing Russia, Turkey, and China as examples, he argued that Hungary could make itself competitive in the global economy without adhering to the tenets of liberalism or to democracy itself. “I don’t think that our European Union membership precludes us from building an illiberal new state based on national foundations,” Orbán explained. This self-professed desire for “an illiberal state” is, of course, a glaring strike against one of the EU’s most fundamental values. The rest of the speech contains assorted gibes at Western systems and practices. Orbán suggests that Western Europe has ignored its duties to whites in favor of immigrants, and that any Hungarian NGO that receives foreign funding must be heavily monitored in order to protect national interests. The list of Hungary’s transgressions against the Maastricht Treaty is long and severe. These are not trifling matters; they strike at the very heart of the purpose of the EU and the meaning of EU membership. The concepts of a liberal state, of human rights, of democracy and rule of law have all been cast into deep uncertainty. Why, then, has the European Union tolerated such glaring offences in one of its members? Many have floated the idea of suspending Hungary’s voting rights within the EU, but as of today,

Perhaps the EU’s hesitance to take action can be traced to a fear of the consequences. There is a chance that, when faced with an ultimatum from the European Union, the Hungarian people will simply choose to abandon the union altogether; if this were the case, the already-fragile conditions of democracy, rule of law, and human rights in Hungary could be pushed to an even more precarious position. And, unfortunately, this is not an unthinkable scenario. Despite the current Prime Minister’s worrisome polities, Viktor Orbán and his associates in the Fidesz party are actually far from the most radical right-wing political entities in Hungary. That title would go to the increasingly popular Jobbik party. Jobbik is infamous for its opposition to the integration of Roma peoples and its radically conservative nationalism; in fact, Jobbik defines itself as “a principled, conservative and radically patriotic Christian party.” In the October 2014 elections, Jobbik made significant advancements in power, establishing itself as the third-largest party in Hungary’s parliament. Many fear that, if the European Union takes a stand against Orbán, the Jobbik party could prey upon public dissatisfaction and gain even more political control. Such concerns are, of course, understandable. The Jobbik party has proven itself to be a true threat, and it should not be treated lightly. Nonetheless, the time for inaction has long since passed. The European Union can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to Orbán and his increasingly radical policies out of fear of a possible worst-case scenario. To do so would be to admit that the values of the European Union are only nominal and that the international organization is fundamentally powerless as an enforcer. If the EU wishes to function effectively, it cannot soften its standards. Victor Orbán has taken clear steps to distance himself and his country from the shared values of the European Union, and it is time for the EU to reassert its presence and to uphold its own Treaty.


E.U. Enlar Is it as Effective “E

nlargement will not make us poorer, but richer in the future.” These words were pronounced by Genrard Shröder, the former German chancellor, after the ratification of the European Union Treaty of Accession of 2004, which makes the largest European enlargement in history. Enlargement, which began in 1973 with the accession of Denmark, the United Kingom, and Ireland, and which continues, is considered to be the largest success of the European Union. The objective of this program is to assure a more integrated and peaceful Europe, which was the vision of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman in the 1950s. Enlargement continued throughout the 1980s, and underwent a revision in 1993 with the introduction of the Copenhagen criteria. This agreement guarantees


that the candidate countries meet certain economic and political conditions that permit them to assume the obligations dictated by the acquis communitaire, which the Maastricht Treaty introduced the year before. Enlargement has continued until the most recent accession of Croatia in 2013. However, despite the perception of the success of the policy of enlargement, it remains a subject of discord, especially as several countries have expressed their desire to join the EU. That said, the question at the heart of the discord is whether enlargement is a viable option for deepening integration in the EU.

Enlargement as a Motor of Development? The Promise of Adhesion

In examining the process of enlargement, it is not unreasonable to claim that the promise of becoming an EU member can encourage a country to become more democratic. This phenomenon is clear in the cases of accession of Spain, Portugal, and Greece in 1986. The citizens of these countries faced a choice: to continue with an authoritarian regime or to turn to democracy and become candidates for EU membership. They chose the latter, leading to the downfalls of dictators in each of those countries. Moreover, the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU further demonstrated the success of potential EU membership in diffusing democracy. The downfall of the USSR and by consequence, communism, created an opportunity for former Soviet states to become more democratic with the objective of

The Consul Spring 2015

rgement: as We Hoped? instituting European ideals as well as affirming their engagement with the EU and encouraging the propagation of democratic values. Furthermore, the promise of membership has forced numerous prospective member states to reform their legal systems. The principle community law in the EU guarantees the integration of countries’ judicial systems and, as such, has led to fairer judicial systems in Eastern and central European countries. Indeed, prospective countries are expected to provide their citizens with the same rights afforded citizens of Western European countries in order to be eligible for membership. Whether this initiative has been completely successful is debatable; nevertheless, significant strides have been made in previously illiberal countries with questionable human rights records as a result of these policies.

Economic Growth

Perhaps one of the most important benefits of enlargement is the economic growth new member states, and, to a lesser extent, already existing member states experience. A 2006 report revealed that the enlargement of 2004 rendered both new and existing member states “better able to face the challenges of globalization,� by extension of a common market, which gives countries access to more consumers. The enlargements of 2004 and 2007 added 104 million consumers to the market, which permitted existing member states to further develop their industries. For example, the

United Kingdom nearly tripled its exports to central and Eastern Europe between 2001 and 2011. In short, enlargement has developed a unique market of nearly 500 million consumers with a combined GDP of almost 11 thousand billion pounds. Furthermore, enlargement has economically benefitted new member states even more profoundly. A 2008 European Commission report found that there is an evident convergence between the 10 new central and Eastern member countries of Europe (CEE-10) toward the level of development of the existing member countries (EU15). Bulgaria offers a good example of


this growth. The competitive pressure of the forces of the EU market has bettered their business climate and the harmonization with the legislation of protection of consumers and the unique opportunities of access to the market has benefitted the Bulgarian consumers. Moreover, the direct foreign investments in the country have augmented, and reached 9 billion euros in 2007. Although it is true that almost 20 per cent of the Bulgarian population still lives beneath the poverty line, this diminished success can perhaps be attributed to the global economic recession in the EU rather than a problem with enlargement itself. Furthermore, if

some are skeptical that the western Balkans will be able to reproduce the economic success of the central and Eastern Europe, closer ties with the EU will likely lead to in influx of investments and a better environment for businesses and consumers in that region.

Have We Reach The Limit? The Compromise between Enlargement and “Deep” Integration

Inevitably, there is a tradeoff between enlarging Europe and deepening its integration. There is a limit to the number of countries the EU can absorb while maintaining “deep” integration; eventually, it will reach a point where it will be nearly impossible to assure


that kind of integration among the member states due to their sheer number and the differences among them. Indeed, as increasingly varying countries join the EU, more and more compromises and reforms will have to be made in order to maintain some form of common identity and structure. Although enlargement may continue, in all likelihood there is a limit to integration.

Logistical and Economic Problems

The continuation of enlargement has caused a number of institutional blockages, particularly with regards to decision-making, which is especially slow due to the number of member states. Numerous reforms have been made in an attempt to speed up the decision making process, but the success of these initiatives is debatable,

as blockage remains a problem. Furthermore, the economic costs of enlargement also pose an issue. The 2008 economic crisis further contributed to institutional blockage, as states were unable to agree over budget constraints on the European economy and the austerity measures proposed by Germany. Indeed, enlargement is less of a priority for EU states in light of economic downturn. Last July, Jean-Claude Juncker announced in front of the EU Parliament that the EU would not absorb any new members during the next five years. Moreover, the augmentation of the number of member countries and the crisis put considerable pressure on the European budget and consequently, on structural funds that are often allotted to states’ agriculture, for example. Poorer countries like Spain and Romania must compete for these

The Consul Spring 2015

workers from Bulgarian and Romania after their accession in 2007.

now limited funds, which has created tension and resentment, hindering integration.

Is There Really a Sentiment of European Citizenship? It is debatable whether Europeans truly feel an allegiance to Europe, which supersedes or even comes close to their allegiance to their country. There is a fairly widespread fear in Western Europe that immigrants from poorer Eastern European countries are taking too many jobs. Though this fear is unsubstantiated, as these immigrants tend to occupy positions unwanted by Western Europeans, it nevertheless demonstrates a lack of common identity. There exists a fear of “the other” in Western Europe and moreover, the peoples of central and Eastern European countries have yet to be culturally assimilated

into the EU. Indeed, there is still a mentality of “us versus them” rather than one of a unified European people. In fact, this skepticism is part of a larger phenomenon: enlargement fatigue. After the “big bang” enlargement of 2004, Western Europeans demonstrated a fairly negative opinion of enlargement. This phenomenon is not surprising in the frame of the economic crisis, which increased tensions in the EU. Unsurprisingly, public support for enlargement reached its peak in 2001, when the EU was still experiencing strong economic growth. However, after 2004, Western Europeans began to express concerns of an influx of a cheap foreign workforce into their countries. In the UK, for example, a fear emerged that foreigners were taking over local jobs, and as a result, the country introduced restrictions on

Indeed, the economic crisis was a significant factor in the rise of nationalist sentiments in Europe, which further impede integration. Notably in France, the Front Nationale of the extreme right, won 25 per cent of the vote in the European Parliament elections of 2014, winning 22 of the 75 French seats. Even in the Netherlands, which has a reputation of tolerance, the extreme right party, the Party for Freedom, won more than 15 per cent of the vote in the same election. It is clear that in the last decade, Europe has witnessed rising xenophobia, which puts into question the possibility of a common European identity. Evidently, EU enlargement potential is not unlimited. But the question that many Europeans are asking themselves is when to stop. In 2005, Nicolas Sarkozy, the then-French president, declared that Europe must have borders. In the same vein, there is considerable resistance against the possibility of assimilation of countries with different cultures, most notably against Turkey, a country divided between Europe and Asia, but most importantly, a Muslim country. Although enlargement has benefited both prospective and existing member states in numerous ways, there are apparent and important limitations of integration which compromise the feasibility of future enlargements. Enlargement can indeed advance the integration of the EU, but it is no longer possible to advance at the speed of the last decade. With regards to future enlargements, the member states in the EU would be wise to employ longterm integration with a clearly defined process through which candidate states that are not currently ready to accede to the EU can progress, in order to avoid the problems associated with hasty accession. Moreover, a longer road to accession could alleviate some of the reluctance surrounding expansion in Western Europe.


1929: The crash of the NY Stock Exchange signaled the beginning of a Great Depression that impacted markets around the world.

The History of Globalization 1939-1945: World War II spans Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Asia, consuming most of the world.

rriv ma a n a G sio De and n expan s u b a olum Europe C : s g 1400 , startin d l r Wo

1650: Expansion increased produc World, greatly co world economy.

the ve in t wes

1914-1918: World War I spreads across Europe, which weakens old world powers and brings forth new ones at the end of the war

1885: Treaties of Berlin mark the beginning of “high imperialism� and legalizes the partition of Africa

1989: The Berlin Wall collapses, bringing East and West Germany together for the first time since the end of WWII.


2010: The Arab Spring first starts in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, leading to a wave of demonstrations and revolutions across MENA.

1300s: The Ottoman Empire is established, causing European trade to flourish.

of the slave trade ction in the New ontributing to the

1950: Europe decolonizes from Africa and Asia, introducing many new sovereign nations to the world.

1st Century: Buddhism spreads across Asia. Creates foundations for the Silk Road.


n a world where economic power is increasingly shifting towards East Asia, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is necessary for the United States and the European Union to remain competitive. The TTIP has long been framed in solely economic terms. This is important, for if completed the agreement is poised to boost employment and the GDP of both the US and the EU. However, it also has an important security dimension as the United States attempts to maneuver an increasingly complicated world with new economic and geopolitical rivals. Stronger US-EU economic ties, could bring EU members into better

alignment with US foreign policy priorities. Enabling the export of crude oil and liquid natural gas to reduce its dependency on Russian fossil fuels would give the EU additional flexibility to take a firmer stance against Russian aggression. Furthermore, for the United States to retain its position in East Asia, it must have a united front with its Western allies. Solidifying economic ties is perhaps the best way to ensure that the American alliance system remains intact amidst growing threats to the United States’ global interests. It should be the United States’ policy

to deter Russian aggression in East European states in order to ensure the security of its NATO allies. While it may be in the interest of the EU governments to take actions, such as sanctions and military aid, to deter Russian aggression against nations like Ukraine, the EU is dramatically hindered due to its reliance on Russian natural gas and oil. The EU’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels have dramatically hampered their ability to proportionally respond to attacks on its interests. Liberalizing trade relations between the US and the EU could result in

Trade for Security Using a Transatlantic Trade Agreement to Improve US-EU Security Cooperation BY: ROLANDO BONACHEA additional energy security for the EU. The United States’ hydraulic fracking revolution could result in North American energy independence by the end of the decade, leaving substantial quantities of oil and natural gas available for export. If part of the agreements includes the lifting of the existing ban on American crude oil exports and the expansion of permits for liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminals, these could be exported to EU members. This would give the EU diversification in their energy supply and enable them to conduct

their foreign policy without thinking of guaranteeing that Russian oil and gas flows West. By linking the US and EU economies even more together, the EU would be able to conduct an independent foreign policy and defend its interests due to the diversification of their energy resources. In Asia, potential Chinese actions to change the status quo can be averted if there is a clear sign that the US and the EU have a united front on the issue. The Chinese have succeeded in pushing their increasingly strong

“It should be the United States’ policy to deter Russian aggression in East European states in order to ensure the security of its NATO allies.” 16

military might in Southeast Asia largely because of the growth of their economy (and increasingly military strength) relative to their neighbors and the US. To counter this growing Chinese presence, the US needs ensure that its economy is strong and that its allies are in lockstep with its actions. Much like the Russian case, if the two economies are further interlinked, a harmonious foreign policy is more likely to ensue between the US and EU. If in sync, the EU would be more likely to support the US diplomatically in the United Nations and through other diplomatic channels to deter challenges to the status quo. Furthermore, US-led sanctions on China for offensive actions against its neighbors would be more likely to be joined by the EU. The EU, much like the US, desires stability in all corners of the world. Therefore, it would be more able to take measures to promote

The Consul Spring 2015

stability with an economic pact with the US. These are the mutual benefits that the EU and the US would have from completing the TTIP. From a more cynical perspective, the US would have additional leverage over the EU to encourage the EU to be in line with its foreign policy. The main obstacle preventing the EU from more actively supporting the US’ foreign policy agenda is their perception that economic retaliation by other states could imperil its already fragile economy. By strengthening its ties to the US, the EU would rely more on the US relative to other nations, such as Russia, China, and Middle East nations. Therefore, the US would have additional leverage to extract certain concessions or to get the EU aboard with its foreign policy agenda. Globalization is not a panacea for every

“TTIP will overall be a win-win for the US and EU both economically and for each other’s security and foreign policy concerns.” global issue. However, globalization is a force that will likely make the world a richer, safer place. The US should continue to promote globalization and liberalize trade. No better place should that emphasis be made than with its traditional allies in Europe, as for the US to remain as the dominant force in international relations, it must have the backing of its old allies. This support will be instrumental in an age where the global balance of power is shifting. By aligning with the US, the EU will further strengthen security ties with a nation that shares its liberal

democratic values, and will succeed in bolstering its economy. The US will also strengthen its economy, and have stronger support from traditional allies who also seek stability in the world. TTIP will overall be a win-win for the US and EU both economically and for each other’s security and foreign policy concerns. It is an agreement that will further tie the two together, and will help create two stronger economic powers that can use their strength for stability in the world.


Globalization and Human Rights:


n January of this year, Lebanon enacted new entry restrictions for Syrian refugees. The announcement came after more than 1.1 million Syrians fled to Lebanon in the past three years. Ron Redmond, a senior spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner, recently stated: “Across the region, there are various measures being taken by host governments that are restrictive on refugees. We understand the reasons they cite for doing this, but at the same time our job is to ensure the refugees aren’t pushed back to someplace where they may be in danger.” Today, the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced people has exceeded 50 million people for the first time since World War II. While millions suffer from global forced displacement, many people do not benefit from legal refugee status. The primary standard of refugee status today is that derived from the 1951/1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. A refugee is a person, who, owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for


reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself to the protection of that country. A refugee can also be a person who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable, or, owing to such feat, is unwilling to return to it. At the international legal level, “refugee” means something very specific. Although the definition of refugee status has expanded greatly since the establishment of the 1951 convention and its subsequent reform in 1967, non-governmental actors have increasingly pressured governments to increase conditions for refugee status. The establishment of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees grew out of the Holocaust and the refugee crisis following World War II. In the late 1930s, Hitler pursued many aggressive anti-Semitic national policies. For example, he stripped away German citizenship

status of Jews and confiscated their property. Many Jews tried to escape, but they were met with harsh quota laws in other countries. The most jarring example of this reality was the MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner that carried 937 German Jewish refugees trying to escape widespread persecution in Germany in 1939. The refugees were denied entry to Cuba, the United States, and Canada and subsequently forced to return to Europe. Approximately a quarter of the ship’s passengers died in concentration camps. Following WWII, hundreds of thousands of refugees wandered across Europe or squatted in makeshift camps. In order to deal with this international crisis, the Refugee Convention was enacted to protect European refugees prior to 1952. The convention defined who were refugees, the rights of individuals who were granted asylum, and the responsibilities of nations that granted asylum. It established the principle of non-refoulement, in which refugees cannot be returned or expelled to places where their lives and freedoms

The Consul Spring 2015

CENTURY can be threatened. While the Refugee Convention marked a huge step forward, it was limited in time and geographic location. The international community began to see that the refugee crisis was an increasing problem, particularly as a result of decolonization in Africa and challenges to Soviet Control in Eastern Europe during the mid-20th century. 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees following the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. In the 1967 Protocol, the United Nations removed the time and geographic limitations on the Refugee Convention.


intense fourteen-year legal battle. Sexual identity has also been included in grounds for asylum; in 1994 the United States ruled that LGBT status could be grounds of asylum if there was active discrimination by state or non-state actors, although this can be difficult to establish. In reality, however, the dimensions of the refugee crisis are much greater than prescribed by these legal definitions. Refugee status is restricted to “targeted persecution.”

in caring for IDPs. For instance, issues of sovereignty call into question which country is responsible for caring for IDPs. In addition, there is a nuanced distinction between a “migrant” and a “refugee.” In a legal context, a migrant chooses to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families, while a refugee is forced to move to preserve their own life or freedom. A refugee receives no protection from the state and can be condemned to death. In reality, many migrants do not have a choice and are forced to leave their home countries to escape rampant unemployment. Huge problems also remain with the conditions within refugee camps that must also be addressed. Refugees live in refugee camps for years after a crisis. These camps often lack sufficient health care and education and many operate with facilities in extremely poor condition.

“With more than 50 million refugees worldwide, it is clear that the current humanitarian crisis dire.”

The legal definition of refugee status has expanded even further since the 1951 treaty and the subsequent 1967 protocol to include non-state actors as perpetrators. In 1996, a young woman named Fauziya Kasinga arrived in New Jersey from Togo. Kasinga received asylum on the grounds of escaping the tribal practice of female genital mutilation. The Kasinga case set the precedent that refugees seeking asylum in the United States from gender-based persecution, whereas previously asylum was granted mostly on religious or political grounds. In 2009, a woman from Guatemala, Rody Alvarado, claimed asylum on the basis of spousal abuse. Alvarado made the case that the Guatemalan authorities failed to protect and ensure her safety. The Department of Homeland Security granted her asylum after an

Victims of crisis migration are not eligible for refugee status. These people are forced to leave their home because of widespread threat to life, physical safety, health or substance that is beyond the coping capacity of individuals and communities in which they reside. Victims may suffer from floods, famine, and civil conflict. In 2011, a drought uprooted one quarter of Somalia’s 7.5 million people. These people are not considered refugees, as this type of harm is not targeted and many times is not coming from other people. Many refugees are within their home countries; there are currently approximately 20 million internally displaced persons. While the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expanded its mandate to include internally displaced persons in 2005, there are still huge obstacles

With more than 50 million refugees worldwide, it is clear that the current humanitarian crisis is dire. Many fear the dangers of an expanding definition of the term refugee; however, the scope of the problem is much larger than current international law allows. The international community must supply appropriate aid in existing refugee camps as well as work together towards legal and institutional reform to help all refugees.


The Trans-Pacific Partnership A Controversial Compromise


housands of nurses in New Zealand turned out to voice their displeasure against it. Japanese farmers crowded a subway station in Tokyo to protest. Even a Canadian satirical-singing group opposes it. What could possibly generate so much common anger over such a large geographic area and amongst such diverse groups? The TransPacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed trade and regulatory agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam, countries that together represent one third of global trade and 40% of global GDP, that is nearing completion after ten years of negotiations.

What is it?

The TPP is essentially a free-trade agreement amongst Pacific nations. The Office United States Trade Representative, the organization representing the US at the multiparty talks, cites market access, supply chain integration, regulatory coherence, and labor and environmental protections as targets for common standards in the final agreement. President Obama has supported the negotiations, citing the potential


BY: ZACHARY GROSS benefits of reduced tariffs on export growth. In an op-ed, Secret of State John Kerry said, “The benefits [of TPP] are enormous. Estimates are that the TPP could provide $77 billion a year in real income and support 650,000 new jobs in the US alone.”

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

The administration, however, faces a broad coalition of opposition – including even lawmakers in Obama’s own Democratic Party. Senator Elizabeth Warren (DMA) has slammed a portion of the proposed deal called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). ISDS is an arbitration procedure that allows foreign investors and corporations to mediate disputes with the governments they are investing in. In theory, ISDS should increase foreign investment because it gives foreign companies a path to compensation should the rule of law in the country they are operating be violated. However, many ISDS critics believe the process can undermine a country’s environmental and labor standards. For instance, a controversial case currently in arbitration concerns the German nuclear power industry. After the German government decided to

place a moratorium on nuclear power due to safety concerns, Vattenfall, a Swedish nuclear energy company with plants in Germany, sued the government for $4.7 billion. Critics of ISDS believe this case exemplifies all that is wrong with ISDS: the government of Germany acted in the best interest of its citizens, yet it now may be on the hook for a hefty sum to a foreign corporation. Proponents of ISDS point out that such cases are few and far between. Jeffrey Zients, the Director of the National Economic Council, noted that of the 13 ISDS that have been brought against the United States over the past 30 years, the government won all 13. As for the Vattenfall case, he added, “This case is instructive because the Swedish company is pursuing claims both in German domestic courts and through neutral arbitration. Our reforms [in the TPP] would prevent this kind of forum shopping.”

Privacy Concerns

ISDS is not the only contention about the TPP. Critics in the United States and throughout the 12-country TPP bloc are concerned about the effect the agreement could have on Intellectual Property enforcement. The administration’s goal in negotiations

The Consul Spring 2015

is to increase the protection of patents and copyrights in the Asia-Pacific region. It sees cracking down on the piracy and counterfeiting of American products overseas as crucial to the future innovation and growth of the US economy.

could in a comparable free market. Once the patent on the medication expires (or in countries that don’t acknowledge or enforce US property rights), other companies can enter the market, driving down prices to more reasonable levels.

However, after a draft of the Intellectual Property section of the treaty was leaked in May 2014, many raised concerns that the provisions would be too restrictive. According to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, a digital rights activist group, the terms in the leaked draft go beyond current US law and would jeopardize the online privacy of Internet users in the trading bloc. At the very least, by the foundation’s estimation, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile would have to rewrite their copyright laws in a way that would leave the privacy of their citizen’s vulnerable.

Leaked drafts of the TPP reportedly lower the standards a patent would need to clear in order to be approved. According to the Guardian, this could open up the door to “evergreening,” – a practice where pharmaceutical companies extend their patent monopoly by applying for additional patents. A February 2015 report from the Medical Journal of Australia argues that the TPP deal as it stood in the leaked draft would cost Australian taxpayers significantly, as the Australian government currently subsidizes the cost of drugs for its citizens. As an example, the authors cited a single drug by Pfizer – Efexor – that, because of a patent dispute that kept the drug from becoming generic for an additional two and a half years, cost Australian taxpayers $209 million.

Pharmaceutical Innovation

Stronger patent protections may also mean more expensive medicine for some members of the trading bloc. Patients in many countries rely on cheaper, “generic” versions of drugs produced and developed in the United States. Often, these medications are cheap to produce but expensive to research. Pharmaceutical companies recoup their investment costs by applying for patents, which give them a monopoly on production of the drug, allowing them to charge higher prices to patients than they

Doctors Without Borders, an international medical charity, has also spoken out against the pharmaceutical provisions leaked from TPP negotiations. In a statement in 2013, the charity said, “[Doctors Without Borders] urges the US government to withdraw – and all other TPP negotiating countries to reject – provisions that will harm access to medicines.”

The China Factor

One of the biggest stories to emerge over the TPP negotiations is the Asian trade powerhouse that isn’t at the table: China. According to Barry Bosworth, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, “[The United States and its trading partners] would like to lock up rules on IT and investment before China becomes a bigger economic force.” In other words, through the TPP, the United States is trying to direct the future of Asian trade to itself and under its rules and procedures, instead of on China’s terms. China is not acquiescing to this status quo. Bolstered by a decade of stellar growth, it is actively courting its neighbors to join a pact called the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), which it is spearheading as a rival to the TPP. The FTAAP is still in its early stages of development, but it may end up being a future diplomatic flashpoint as Asian countries get caught between two competing trade blocs.


Ten years in the making, the TPP promises to be an exhaustive compromise that will qualitatively impact the lives of hundreds of millions across the Asia-Pacific region. Though leaked drafts have had controversial aspects that have drawn condemnation from diverse sources, it is important to keep in mind that the deal simply isn’t done yet.


Sources ISIS, pg. 6

Alex Hern, “ISIS threatens Twitter employees over blocked accounts,” The Guardian, March 2, http:// “The Twitter Rules,” Twitter, https://support.twitter. com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules# Will Oremus, “Twitter of Terror,” Slate, December 23, 2011, technocracy/2011/12/al_shabaab_twitter_a_somali_ militant_group_unveils_a_new_social_media_strategy_for_terrorists_.html J.M. berger and Jonathan Morgan, “The ISIS Twitter Census, The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, No. 20, March 2015

Viktor Orban, pg. 8

“European Union: Consolidated Treaties, Charter of Fundamental Rights.” March 1, 2010. Accessed April 7, 2015. Faris, Stephan. “Power Hungary: How Viktor Orban Became Europe’s New Strongman.” Bloomberg Business, January 20, 2015. “Hungary’s Far-right Jobbik Makes Local Election Gains.” BBC News. October 13, 2014. Accessed April 7, 2015. “Hungary: Black Sheep in the Crimson Dome.” The Economist. June 8, 2013. Accessed April 5, 2015. “Jobbik Confident of Winning EP Seat, Party Leader Says.” Politicshu. May 13, 2009. Accessed April 7, 2015. “Orban the Unstoppable.” The Economist, September 7, 2014. Accessed April 7, 2015. Simon, Zoltan. “Orban Says He Seeks to End Liberal Democracy in Hungary.” Bloomberg Business, January 28, 2014. Traynor, Ian. “Hungarian Prime Minister Warned over Attempts to Increase His Power.” The Guardian, March 8, 2013. Accessed April 7, 2015. http:// Verseck, Keno. “Hungary’s Racism Problem: Orbán Friend Says Roma ‘Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Exist’ - SPIEGEL ONLINE.” Spiegel Online. January 10, 2013. Accessed April 7, 2015. “Viktor Orban’s Hungarian Power Grab.” The Washington Post, March 13, 2013. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/viktor-orbans-hungarian-powergrab/2013/03/13/63ead954-8b41-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2f-


EU Enlargement, pg. 10

“Enlargement, two years after-an economic success.” (2007). e50026_en.htm. “Keeping up with the Croats: After Croatia’s accession, Europe should be ready to admit new members.” The Economist (2013). Poznatov, Maja. “L’UE met sur pause le processus d’élargissement.” (2014). Próchniak, Mariusz et Ryszard Rapacki. “The EU Enlargement and Economic Growth In the CEE New Member Countries.” Economic Papers (2009). 1-19. Tatham, Allan F. Enlargement of the European Union. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International (2009). 3-40. “The EU Enlargement and Turkey.” Euronws U talk. (2012). “The Future of EU Enlargement.” European Union Committee, UK Parliament (2013). Chapitres 1-7.

The History of GLobalization pg. 14

“A Quick Guide to the World History of Globalization.” A Quick Guide to the World History of Globalization, global1.htm. Accessed April 8, 2015.

Trading for Security pg. 16

European Union. “In Focus: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).” Last modified March 30, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015. trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/. United States Trade Representative. “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).” Accessed April 7, 2015.

GLobalization and Human Rights, pg. 18

“The 1951 Refugee Convention.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015. Barnard, Anne. “As Refugee Tide Swells, Lebanon Plans a Visa Requirement for Syrians.” The New York Times. January 02, 2015. Accessed April 07, 2015. as-refugee-tide-swells-lebanon-plans-a-visa-requirement-for-syrians.html. “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015. “Crisis in Horn of Africa.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015. “Gays And Lesbians Seeking Asylum In U.S. May Find A Hard Road.” NPR. Accessed April 07, 2015. “Internally Displaced People.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015. “The Matter of Kasinga.” U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed April 7, 2015. eoir/vll/intdec/vol21/3278.pdf. Preston, Julia. “U.S. May Be Open to Asylum for Spouse Abuse.” The New York Times. October 29, 2009. Accessed April 07, 2015. http://www.nytimes. com/2009/10/30/us/30asylum.html. “Refugees Magazine Issue 144 (“Where Are They Now? The Hungarian Refugees, 50 Years On”) Editorial: The 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015. “Voyage of the St. Louis.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Accessed April 2, 2015. “What’s the Difference between Immigrant and Refugee? -” CNN. Accessed April 07, 2015. “World Refugee Day: Global Forced Displacement Tops 50 Million for First Time in Post-World War II Era.” UNHCR News. Accessed April 07, 2015.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, pg. 20

Davey, Melissa. “Medicines Forecast to Cost Taxpayers Millions More in Secret TPP Trade Deal.” The Guardian - Australia News. February 22, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015. “Farmers and Consumers Protest TPP Free Trade Agreement.” Tokyo Times - Business. July 24, 2013. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.tokyotimes. com/farmers-and-consumers-protest-tpp-free-tradeagreement/. “Intellectual Property | United States Trade Representative.” United States Trade Representative. Accessed April 7, 2015. intellectual-property. Kerry, John. “Alliances for Peace.” Project Syndicate - The World’s Opinion Page. January 14, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015.

bYemSPg1fzI.99. Kidson, Sally. “TPPA Protest Rally Undaunted.” NelsonMail. March 9, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015. TPPA-protest-rally-undaunted. Kurtzleben, Danielle. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is One of the Only Topics on Which Obama and the GOP Agreed Last Night.” Vox. January 21, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www.vox. com/2014/11/14/7166849/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership. Levin, Sharon, and Paula Stephan. “Research Productivity Over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists.” The American Economic Review 81, no. 1 (1991): 114-32. Nakamura, David. “Obama Says He Willing to Defy Democrats on His Support of Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Washington Post - Politics. December 3, 2014. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www. “Outlines of TPP | United States Trade Representative.” Resources. Accessed April 7, 2015. https:// Shuman, Michael. “Do You Know Your FTAAP From Your TPP?” Time Business. November 12, 2014. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://time. com/3580251/apec-ftaap-tpp-china-trade-asia/. “The Arbitration Game.” The Economist. October 11, 2014. Accessed April 7, 2015. http:// “Trading Away Health: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” Doctors Without Borders USA. March 3, 2013. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://www. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” Electronic Frontier Foundation - Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Accessed April 7, 2015. Zients, Jeffrey. “Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Questions and Answers.” The White House Blog. February 26, 2015. Accessed April 7, 2015.

The Consul 2015 Spring  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you