Archives for December 2021

On January 6^th, 2021, a crowd of people, mostly supporting Donald Trump, congregated at the US Capitol after a political rally in front of the White House. Police officers were immediately overwhelmed as they were forced to converge on the Citadel of Democracy as protests broke the barriers surrounding the complex. Although most people peacefully exercised their right to protest an allegedly illegitimate election, a small group of so-called patriots forcefully entered the Capitol building to disrupt the certification of electoral votes that was presided by Vice President Pence. They smashed windows, attacked police officers with fire extinguishers and bear spray, forced congress members and staffers to barricade themselves, and recorded the first intrusion of the Capitol since the Civil War. Some of the intruders threatened the lives of senior government officials like Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence, while others appeared to have planned the intrusion, as indicated by their body armor, gas masks, and zip ties.

Fast-forward to hearings with FBI Director Christopher Wray, I was astonished that the United States did not have a domestic terrorism list or framework for punishing violent domestic extremism in the United States. The Capitol Intrusion was the largest and most consequential event for law enforcement officers but a slew of terrorist acts occurred throughout 2020 that should have prompted lawmakers to renovate domestic terror statutes. These events include targeted killings of police officers and arson on government buildings from the far-right and far-left. As the premier law enforcement agency that is apolitical, I agree with the FBI’s assessment that some of the January 6^th protests were domestic terrorists; I appreciated Director Wray’s nuance that divided those present at the Capitol into three groups, or a triangle; the vast majority of Americans who were peacefully protesting, some who became violent and entered the Capitol building as a result of becoming riled up in emotion, and those who planned and intended to violently challenge a cornerstone of our democracy, which by the way, was declared legitimate by multiple US courts. This minority of people who justified their actions for democracy prompted me to try and solve the problem of weak domestic terrorism laws while preserving constitutional liberties.

Before diving into my proposal, let me acknowledge the potential critiques. I understand there have been instances of government overreach from the Nixon Administration’s enemies list to the National Security Agency’s illegal wiretapping of US citizens after 9/11. I understand many libertarians’ concerns that if they give an inch, the government will take a mile. Civil liberties groups oppose any potential legislation that would potentially infringe on individual rights. These concerns are understandable and can be supported with historical examples. However much of these concerns attempt to idealistically preserve rights that might be gone if another January 6^th succeeds in overturning democratic principles in support of an ideology or candidate. And in an increasingly polarized nation where there is little compromise and where democracy is eroding across the world, giving up some rights preserves most other rights. Think about it, our rights have never been absolute. And keep in mind, many of the infringements people worry about occur sporadically and are not daily occurrences. As much as I’d love to propose punishments for those who choose to unlawfully use a domestic terrorism list, accountability just would not be possible. That’s where the American people come in; because the list and criteria are public, they can question the courts’ decisions and express their opinions non-violently. A public list will not compromise secret operations against violent domestic extremists while providing a level of accountability for the government. Now my proposal in three parts: 1) Create a domestic terrorist list that includes mostly individuals. This will prevent overextending the list in the government’s favor. 2) Criminalizing domestic terrorists. This will enable the country to use the stigma of terrorism to its advantage and deter people from making purely emotional decisions as we saw on January 6th. 3) Forming a government-wide framework to define domestic terrorism and empower law enforcement to prosecute domestic terrorists, like the minority in January 6^th, to the fullest extent of the law. This is so important to preserve our country’s democratic experiment and allow our children to enjoy the institutions we love…with a little compromise.

Lebanon is typically known as a middle-income country known for its well-educated and cosmopolitan population, but it’s now characterized as a rapidly failing state that necessitates emergency economic support and swift political reform. By supporting the petition of European allies to rebuild the Port of Beirut, which exploded in August 2020, economic activity in Lebanon can quickly resume while providing the West greater influence over the Eastern Mediterranean. 

 

The port is considered the gateway to the Middle East and ranks among the 10 most important ports in the Mediterranean. The country leading its reconstruction will control it and be the main beneficiary of its activities for the years to come. 

 

For nearly 18 months, Lebanon has been suffering from a harsh combination of an ongoing economic and financial crisis, failing to address the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and recovering from the human tragedy involved with the explosion. 

 

The lira has lost more than 90 percent of its value, more than 120,000 tons of food was lost to the Beirut explosion, and approximately 75 percent of Lebanese live in poverty. Daily life for the common Lebanese citizen, includes unstable access to life saving medicines, waiting in fuel lines that wrap around the city, and spending hours in darkness during frequent blackouts. The World Bank has called it one of the worst financial crises in centuries. 

 

The port has partially resumed its activities by receiving critical imports, however, rebuilding and modernizing the port would substantially stimulate much-needed trade and economic growth. French container shipping company group CMA-CGM is pursuing a plan to reconstruct damaged docks and warehouses while increasing the digitalization of port activities. Shortly after, German companies presented a separate plan to additionally focus on longer term real-estate development. The companies have expressed willingness to work collaboratively on the initiative, however, the plan can only move forward if Lebanon is able to resolve political deadlock hindering the government’s decisions. 

 

Both countries have stipulated that political reforms to the government cabinet and economic adjustments such as a central bank audit and an overhaul of the wasteful power sector must occur before the project begins. The project is projected to cost $5 billion to $15 billion, and said it could create as many as 50,000 jobs. 

 

During French President Emmanuel Macron’s second visit to Beirut, CMA-CGM’s head, the Lebanese-born Rodolphe Saade, was a part of his delegation. The company provided the Lebanese government a three-phase project to rebuild, expand and modernise the port. 

 

This public-private partnership will encourage sustainable, long term growth in the country by building infrastructure while minimizing potential for corruption that often taints aid programs. Since the explosion, rebuilding the port became a geopolitical competition with the Russians, the Chinese, the Turks, the French and the Germans expressing their interest in the project. Germany and France must stop internally competing for rights over the project and instead focus on their shared outcome of deterring Russian and Chinese influence in the region. 

 

Importantly, revitalizing the port is also a symbolically powerful project in a country that is in a crisis of hope. Witnessing physical progress in the city can potentially renew spirits and spur optimism in a dark and devastating period in the country’s history. 

Following World War II, the United States had an outsized role in the Pacific as the various islands served as way stations and air bases through the famous island-hopping strategy that capitulated the Japanese Empire. Many of these islands would continue to fall under US influence and direct control into the 20th century with some being granted a unique status in relation to the US. The Compacts of Free Association were crafted in the 1980s and 1990s with the countries of the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). These compacts provide economic assistance, military protection, and relaxed migration policy to these countries in return for military installations across the Western Pacific. With these compacts being up for renewal in 2023 and 2024, the US has an opportunity to capitalize on the compacts’ success.

 

Despite these compacts cementing US influence in the region for decades, a growing China seeks to undermine US dominance in the Pacific. In recent years, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been instrumental in spreading Chinese soft power across the world through costly infrastructure deals. These deals have led to many countries falling into unsustainable debt to China which is used by the communist government to exert influence on the affected countries. These projects, and various other diplomatic and economic threats, have put the squeeze on the tiny island nations also known as the Pacific Island Countries (PICs).

 

China has been increasingly involved in the region, becoming the largest financier in the Pacific. This has resulted in seven PICs owing a considerable debt to China, with Samoa having 40% of its debt owned by the Middle Kingdom. This financial influence exerted on the region has resulted in tangible strategic decisions made by the island leaders. Recently, the nations of the Solomon Islands and Kiribati shifted their diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing as China has sought to isolate Taiwan diplomatically from some of the last strongholds of Taiwanese recognition. Besides economic aid, China has invested heavily in local military forces via infrastructure, naval vessels, and military vehicles being donated across the region to Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Chinese economic and military influence has cemented so heavily in some of the PICs that Vanuatu was in talks with China back in 2018 to build a naval base in their territory, a clear sign that Chinese military expansion in the region is of utmost importance.

 

A rising China can threaten US military installations in the region and endanger the various trade routes that run through the Exclusive Economic Zones of the PICs. In order for the US to resolidify its influence in the region, it should pursue a multi-layered approach to the PICs. In order to achieve this, the US should administer increased economic investment via USAID, increased military aid to build up local forces from the Department of Defense, and, most importantly, the Compacts of Free Association should be both renewed with the existing member states of Palau, the FSM, and the Marshall Islands and expanded to include other PICs. The compacts have proven to be a bulwark against Chinese influence. For example, Palau rejected Chinese pressure to alter its diplomatic recognition from Taiwan and the FSM and Solomon Islands have remained firm US allies. Expanding the compacts to other Western Pacific countries would solidify US influence and bring lasting benefits.

 

The PICs not only present a major diplomatic block within the United Nations but also are key to protecting US interests in the Pacific militarily. Additionally, the PICs cover a large swath of the Pacific with their EEZs which encompass billions of dollars of natural resources and trade routes. With US foreign policy turning increasingly towards the Indo-Pacific, the focus on the PICs will increase in the coming years as the compacts come up for renewal. As evidenced by the multiple Chinese inroads in recent years, it is clear that the US has fallen behind in realizing the strategic and economic importance of the region. Taking the actions outlined above will ensure strong US-PIC relations that will serve as a block against further Chinese expansionism in the region.