Digest

United Nations: Rethinking the War on Drugs

In October, a briefing paper that the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) HIV division head was to present at an international conference was released. The briefing paper garnered attention because it advocates decriminalization of drug use and possession for personal consumption. Other UN branches, such as the WHO and UNAIDS, have expressed support for decriminalization in the past. However, this paper came as a surprise because the UNDOC, which leads the fight against illicit drugs and international crime, has been known as the more conservative branch of the UN.

The briefing paper states that harsh drug penalties marginalize people who use drugs for personal consumption, perpetuating poverty and the HIV epidemic. It further points out that international drug control conventions allow “alternatives to conviction or punishment” for drug offenses of a “minor nature.”

In response to media coverage of the briefing paper, a spokesperson for the UNODC clarified that the paper does not reflect the office’s formal policy. However, the spokesperson added that the UNODC is “committed to the balanced approach that . . . promotes alternatives to incarceration in line with international human rights standards.” In June, the UN’s Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also commented, “We must consider alternatives to criminalization and incarceration of people who use drugs . . . [and] should increase the focus on public health, prevention, treatment and care.”

Several countries provide evidence that decriminalization of minor drug offenses and personal drug consumption can subdue the spread of HIV. Portugal, Iran, and Germany have seen significantly less drug use-related HIV infections after adopting lenient drug laws for minor offenses.

Although the current official policy of the UNODC is to support the strict war on drugs, the UN may be leaning towards a more lenient drug policy in light of its effectiveness in fighting the battle against HIV.

China warns United States to discontinue “Provocation” in South China Sea

Filed Under: Content, Digest

An October 26 patrol by a U.S. Navy warship into the Spratly archipelago — a part of the South China Sea that China considers its sovereign territory — has sparked tension between the United States and China.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS), a country has sovereignty over an area twelve nautical miles from its natural islands. China’s claim hinges on its control of two islands (the Subi and Mischief reefs) that the United States considers artificial as they were both submerged prior to a 2014 land reclamation project. As the Convention does not apply to artificial islands, the United States insists it was simply sailing through international waters when it came within twelve miles of the reefs. U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby stated, “[y]ou don’t need to consult with any nation when you are exercising the right of freedom of navigation in international waters.”

Some commentators think that the maneuver by the United States was partly intended to assuage fears of Chinese encroachment faced by U.S. allies in the region. Although China lays claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea, it faces rival claims from neighboring countries such as Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Additionally, some U.S. officials have said that the patrol was partly meant to test a Chinese pledge to not militarize the islands; satellite photos show that China has built three military-length airstrips in the Spratly archipelago thus far.

Syrian Refugees Face Legal and Administrative Obstacles to Employment

Filed Under: Content, Digest

As thousands of asylum-seekers continue to make the arduous journey to Europe, business leaders in Germany are cautioning against policies that will leave them unemployed and destitute.

The 1951 Refugee Convention affords refugees the right to seek gainful employment in their country of refuge, subject to certain restrictions. The freedom to work is also recognized in a number of other international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR).

Despite this, a majority of Syrian refugees face daunting legal and administrative roadblocks preventing them from accessing the economy. Jordanian law reserves employment only for citizens and foreigners with valid resident permits. Unsurprisingly, Syrian asylum seekers are rarely granted such permits. The Egyptian Ministry of Labor issues work permits to refugees only if employers prove that they are unable to hire a local, in effect barring Syrians from the labor market. In Lebanon, Syrians entering the country must pledge not to seek employment altogether.

These measures are not only contrary to international obligations, but also ineffective and counterproductive. As the crisis drags on, more Syrian refugees face no choice but to participate in the informal labor market. In one survey, 45.5% of Syrian families residing in Egypt reported that they were working informally. This often involves poor working conditions and little remuneration. In Jordan, as in other countries, this informal labor market has contributed to a depression in wages across sectors, effectively pushing out locals from low-skilled employment.

Host states welcoming vast numbers of refugees have every right to be anxious about the future of their labor markets. However, they must be careful to keep their responses in line with international law—and ensure that they do not backfire.

Russian Airstrikes in Syria Deepen Tensions with Western Governments

Filed Under: Content, Digest

Putin’s stance on the Syrian crisis has further strained Russia’s already tense relationship with its Western counterparts.

Earlier this month, Russia started launching airstrikes in Syria. A spokesperson from Russia’s embassy in Washington, D.C. has reiterated Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s assertion that “the airstrikes are targeted at ISIL [Islamic State], Nusra, and other terrorist groups.” Western officials, however, have claimed that the bombing campaign is in fact targeting pro-western rebels. Over the past two weeks, these strikes have hit CIA-sponsored rebels in Syria. According to U.S. officials, the targeting of these specific groups suggests that the true goal behind the attacks is the weakening of America’s allies.

NATO officials have also protested what they allege to be the deliberate violation of Turkey’s airspace by Russia’s air force. In response to this provocation against Turkey, which has been a NATO member since 1952, and with an eye towards emphasizing the alliance’s commitment to collective defense, NATO has announced its intent to bolster its forces in the Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine. Despite NATO’s relatively cautious stance, continued Russian operations may force the alliance to take additional steps aimed at ensuring the integrity of Turkey’s borders and sovereign airspace. If Russian incursions into Turkish airspace continue, NATO will have to decide how to respond to fulfill its collective defense obligations under Article 5.

Trans Pacific Partnership: Historic Final Deal Reached

Filed Under: Content, Digest

After more than five years of talks, representatives from 12 Pacific Rim countries finalized a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the deepest and most important multilateral trade deal in years. The trade pact aims to liberalize commerce and investment between the countries, which account for nearly 40 percent of the world’s economy. If the TPP realizes its ambition to “define the rules of the road,” it could prove to significantly reshape various industries globally.

Representatives settled the remaining tough issues over late-night discussions last weekend, in the final round of closed negotiations in Atlanta. One of the issues negotiated requires cars and trucks to contain 45 percent TPP member-origin content to benefit from tariff cuts under the deal. However, the agreement takes a more complex approach for auto parts and components, with required TPP member-origin content ranging from 35 to 45 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. secured a 25-year tariff phase-out for Japanese autos and a 30-year phase-out for trucks. However, hard as it is to dismantle tariffs and increase access to foreign markets, one of the treaty’s most touted features is the minimum standards it establishes for the protection of intellectual property, workers, and the environment. The complete text of the TPP will be available for public release after the technical work, including legal review, translation, drafting, and verification as expressed by the joint statement from the trade representatives.

Some of the negotiators’ leaders will be particularly pleased to see the deal completed against the backdrop of presidential campaigns in their countries. President Barack Obama views the TPP as a capstone both for his economic agenda of expanding exports and for his foreign policy “pivot” towards Asia. For Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, the TPP promises to not only help Japan’s economic revitalization, but also form a “coalition of the willing” to set the next generation of trade rules before China fully dominates the arena.

Nevertheless, the conclusion of the TPP is merely “an important first step,” as U.S. trade representative Michael B. Froman remarked, for the deal still needs to be approved by lawmakers in the 12 participating countries. And many lawmakers are likely to resist the changes included in the new agreement. For example, the TPP is expected to shake up Japan’s agricultural sector due to its agricultural liberalization provisions. Moreover, both Canadian auto manufacturers and dairy farmers may protest the jobs and revenue lost from diminished state protection. The TPP’s fate in the U.S. Congress is also highly uncertain given the threats it poses to manufacturing jobs, safe food, and affordable medicines and the narrow margin by which the Trade Promotion Authority passed.

U.N. Urges Sri Lanka to Create War Crimes Court

Filed Under: Content, Digest

Although the international media spotlight may be focused on Syria, the United Nations recently called for another nation, Sri Lanka, to confront its history of “grave patterns of violence” that resulted from the final stages of the twenty-six year civil war that plagued the nation. A previous U.N. report estimated that 40,000 civilians died in the final army offensive in the war. It was just recently, however, that a long-awaited report by the Human Rights Council accused the Sri Lankan government and Tamil rebel group of the atrocities.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, spoke out last week about the atrocities that occurred in Sri Lanka, including indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, harrowing accounts of torture and sexual violence, recruitment of children, and other crimes. The Human Rights Council has therefore urged Sri Lanka to create a hybrid war crimes court with international judges.

The result of this U.N. proposal within Sri Lanka’s government has been mixed. Most fervently in opposition to the suggestion is former Sri Lankan Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa. Although he won the civil war in 2009, his military has been credited with killing thousands of civilians. On the other side, however, is the Chief Minister of Sri Lanka’s Tamil-dominated Northern Province and former Supreme Court Judge, C. V. Wigneswaran. Wigneswaran has welcomed the findings of the U.N. report and has urged others in the government to think carefully about the international expectations resulting from the report’s documentation of the tragedy.