[fblike]
An incident that many commentators had been fearing in Syria took place last week when Turkish forces shot down a Russian aircraft that allegedly violated Turkish airspace. The Russian plane was reportedly flying a mission to bomb rebel positions near the Turkish border, something that Russia has made a common occurrence since deciding several months ago to bolster its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Turkish government claimed that it warned the Russian aircraft before shooting it down, but Russia denies these claims. Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded an apology and has taken economic countermeasures against Turkey in response to the incident. Considering the fact that France is trying to get both nations to take part in an international coalition to fight the Islamic State, the Russian-Turkish incident illustrates how assembling such a coalition will prove difficult. After all, both nations support opposite sides in the Syrian Civil War. Also, the incident sparks questions about what the Western world should do if a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) finds itself in a military spat with Russia.
This topic brief will describe the origins of the tensions between Russia and Turkey; explain what measures Russia has taken against Turkey in response to the incident; and then elaborate on what Russian-Turkish tensions may mean for a future coalition against the Islamic State, the Syrian conflict, future ties between the countries, and NATO-Russian relations.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Starting next Monday, more than one hundred heads of state, climate activists, international officials, and scientists will convene in Paris for negotiations on a new global climate accord that can replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference, also referred to as COP21, will aim to install oversight of carbon emission reductions by the developed (and possibly developing world) and create a framework to aid developing nations in climate mitigation efforts. Those following environmental policy are hopeful that this conference, which has been promoted for two years, will not collapse like the Copenhagen talks did in 2009. However, limitations facing U.S. President Barack Obama, who once dreamed of a farther reaching and legally binding climate accord, may constrain the talks since the Republican Party is likely to reject any agreement that obligates the United States to reduce its carbon emissions. According to climate activists, the failure of the Paris talks would set the world on a dangerous path since the world is set to have its hottest year on record this year. According to these activists the time to act on climate change has finally arrived.
Since 1962, Myanmar has been dominated by a military junta. This junta isolated Myanmar from the rest of the world and abused the rights of its citizens, notably those of ethnic and religious minorities. In 1990, the junta flirted with holding national elections, but after the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) won it the junta annulled the result and went about governing as if there was no election at all. In 2011, Myanmar’s generals finally began the process of modernizing their country, making strides toward opening the nation’s economy to foreign investment, trying to reach a ceasefire with ethnic militias, and transitioning to a quasi-democratic system that allows Myanmar’s citizens to elect 75% of the national legislature, which in turn elects the nation’s president. Last week’s elections were the first in more than five decades and once again, the NLD achieved a significant victory behind its Nobel Prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Unlike 1990, the military and its political allies publicly announced that it would respect the result, thereby paving the way for Myanmar to return to civilian rule. However, winning an election and governing a country are separate tasks, and there are concerns that Suu Kyi may find it difficult to maintain her popularity and keep her diverse coalition of supporters together.
Last Monday, Canadian voters delivered a stunning victory to the Liberal Party, a result deemed unthinkable several weeks ago. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party lost its governing majority, losing sixty seats. Meanwhile, the Liberals gained an amazing 148 seats due to the impressive campaigning of its young leader Justin Trudeau, the oldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Observers noted that the Liberal victory was due to Canada’s faltering economy as well as perceptions that Harper’s government was inconsiderate toward the plight of Syrian refugees and neglectful of Canada’s proper place in global affairs. A Trudeau-led government has promised to change Canada’s fiscal policy and reform the nation’s drug laws. The Liberals are also poised to alter Canada’s foreign policy, especially with respect to environmental and security issues. What is certain is that the Liberals will have to contend with a new Conservative Party, as Harper announced his resignation as party leader following the announcement of the election results.
October has been a bloody month in East Jerusalem. Palestinian youth, responding to rumors that Israel is planning to take over the Temple Mount, revered as a holy site for Jews and Muslims, are clashing with Israeli security personnel and launching random, “lone wolf” attacks on Israeli civilians. In response, the Israeli government has imposed movement controls and other preventative measures, but critics contend that this will serve to exacerbate tensions rather than produce a lasting solution. Some experts contend that Palestinians are engaging in a third intifada, or uprising, and this would be the second time in two years that Palestinians are reacting violently against the Israeli government. Frustrated at their political leadership, Israeli settlement expansion, and the lack of progress toward a two-state solution, it is believed that some Palestinians are responding through violence to bring greater international attention to their plight. /cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47259524/GettyImages-489129346.0.0.jpg)
Last week, Russian aircraft dropped bombs on Syrian rebel positions, inaugurating an escalation of Russia’s participation in Syria’s four-year civil war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has calculated that it is in Russia’s geopolitical interest to preserve the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Russia’s bombing runs mark a potential turning point of the conflict. Russia’s intervention could improve Assad’s position and force Western nations backing the Syrian rebels to temper their opposition to Assad’s role in a political transition. In addition, Russia’s intervention is cloaked within the bounds of an ongoing war against the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), reflecting how the Syrian Civil War has transformed from an attempt to overthrow Assad to a multi-faceted war where neither side looks good. Although the West insists that Russia will fail in its intervention, extempers should be prepared to discuss this change in the Syrian Civil War at tournaments throughout the fall as it could have implications for the ongoing fight against ISIS, the ability of Syrian rebels to displace Assad, and Russia’s position in the Middle East vis-à-vis the United States.
Ever since 2006, Nepal’s political parties have attempted to reach an agreement on a new national constitution. Divided over the role of religion in government, whether the nation’s 239-year-old monarchy should be restored, political boundaries, and the rights of ethnic minorities, the nation saw little movement on a lasting constitutional draft. However, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in April literally shook the country’s major parties out of their prolonged gridlock. On Sunday, supporters of a new constitution gathered in the capital of Kathmandu to celebrate, but reception across the country was mixed. Ethnic minorities in Nepal allege that the constitution denies them adequate representation and women’s rights activists allege that the document rolls back some of the protections women enjoyed in previous governments. Analysts agree that Nepal’s new constitution may give its federal authorities the ability to finally govern the country and fix the problems that ail one of the world’s poorest nations. Nevertheless, if federal officials are not able to acquire adequate buy-in from the nation’s various ethnic groups, the chances of achieving lasting change are minimal.
While concerns about border security have acquired significant attention in the United States and Europe, another border crisis has created upheaval in the Western Hemisphere. Several weeks ago Venezuelan officials closed border crossings with Colombia, citing security concerns and a need to clamp down on smugglers in the area. In addition to closing the border, Venezuela deported 1,000 economic migrants from Colombia and demolished some of their homes. While Colombia argues that Venezuela’s behavior constitutes a gross human rights violation, Venezuelan authorities insist that they have the right to police their own border and that the inability of the Colombian government to share border responsibilities is what has forced it to act.
Last Thursday, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras announced that he was resigning. Tsipras’s Syriza Party, which won the Greek parliamentary elections in January, was coming apart at the seams after Tsipras agreed with Greece’s creditors to enact more austerity reforms. When the Greek Parliament had to approve of this deal last week, Tsipras was forced to rely on opposition parties as forty-three of Syriza’s 149 members either voted against the deal or abstained. Following the vote, twenty-five Syriza members of Parliament (MPs) bolted from the party and this left it without a governing majority. Unable to survive a censure motion and likely fearing that anti-bailout leftists would soon rally against his government, Tsipras resigned and paved the way for new elections next month. The news of new elections was hesitantly received in some European capitals, with Paris and Berlin reminding Athens that it would be held to the terms of the new bailout deal regardless of who won power. Nevertheless, financial markets have been roiled by another Greek election – the nation’s fifth in six years – out of fears that Syriza could lose or that the elections will slow down much needed economic reforms.
If extempers followed global economic news over the past week, they probably remember that China’s currency devaluation was a significant topic. On Tuesday, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announced more market-friendly reforms that will allow the nation’s currency, called the renminbi (RMB) or the yuan, to be managed less arbitrarily. The effect of this market-based move was a sudden decline in the value of the RMB, a currency that some market analysts argue has been overvalued for some time. The 1.9% decline versus the American dollar last Tuesday was welcomed by some economists, who say that it will provide a valuable market correction, but China also came under fire from American politicians and Western economists, who allege that China’s devaluation is designed to help boost the nation’s ailing exports. The move has provided ample fodder for Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who has made anti-China sentiment a large part of his campaign. In addition, China’s devaluation may contribute to more deflationary pressures in Western economies and complicate the Federal Reserve’s decision about whether to raise interest rates by the end of the year.
Although environmental and animal rights activists have advocated for stronger anti-poaching efforts for the last several decades, their efforts never attracted sustained media attention outside of a few notable campaigns during the late 1980s and various periods throughout the 1990s. This all changed with reports about the death of Cecil the Lion, a significant tourist attraction at Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park. Cecil was killed several weeks ago by American dentist Walter J. Palmer of Minnesota, who is said to have paid $50,000 for the ability to hunt and kill an African lion. The incident created a firestorm of international outrage, with people blasting Palmer on Twitter and many donating funds to wildlife and anti-poaching groups. However, the question remains over whether the outrage over Cecil’s killing will be a turning point in terms of attention paid and resources diverted to strengthening global anti-poaching efforts and protecting threatened species. Over the last fifteen years, African nations have struggled to maintain their existing wildlife and international controls on the ivory trade have weakened. Fixing both problems will be necessary if poaching efforts can be curtailed and threatened species such as lions, elephants, rhinos, and tigers can be protected more effectively.
On May 27, Swiss authorities arrested seven high ranking officials of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the world’s governing body for soccer. The arrests were due to a United States investigation into bribery and corruption within the organization that federal prosecutors allege played a role in the awarding of television, licensing, and hosting rights to soccer competitions, notably the World Cup. In addition to the United States investigation, Swiss officials are also examining how corruption may have influenced FIFA’s decision in 2010 to grant future World Cup competitions to Russia and Qatar. Longtime FIFA President Sepp Blatter has already been forced to resign over the investigations and observers are likening the scandal to what the International Olympic Committee (IOC) dealt with in the late 1990s. The ongoing investigation into FIFA should produce some momentum to reform the organization, while potentially producing geopolitical fallout if the organization revokes Russia and Qatar’s World Cup hosting rights. The investigation will also be a test of how far the U.S. Justice Department can apply American law abroad.
On April 25, Nepal was hit by a 7.8-magnitude earthquake that killed more than 8,000 people and injured tens of thousands of others. The earthquake leveled thousands of buildings around the Kathmandu Valley, including several UNESCO World Heritage sites. It also triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest that left eighteen people dead. Nepal is one of the world’s poorest nations and the international community has pledged to assist it in reconstructing buildings and providing humanitarian assistance to its population. However, the nation’s political difficulties may inhibit future relief efforts as a notoriously corrupt bureaucracy has thus far failed to remedy the problems that Nepali citizens are facing.
British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party shocked political observers last Thursday when they captured a governing majority in the House of Commons. Pre-election polls predicted that the Conservatives and Labour parties would end up deadlocked, resulting in a hung parliament for the second consecutive election. This could have triggered a constitutional crisis as the party that won the most votes could have ended up as the opposition. However, when the votes were tallied the Conservatives gained twenty-four seats, enabling them the govern without their prior coalition partner, the centrist Liberal Democratic Party, and this made Cameron the first Conservative prime minister to win a governing majority since John Major did so in 1992. Cameron’s second term may give him more room to impose austerity on Britain’s public finances, but he will also face resurgent nationalism in Scotland and growing suspicion of the European Union. Handling these political and economic crises will come to define Cameron’s legacy as he has pledged not to seek a third term in 2020.
Free trade deals are one of the hallmarks of globalization. They allow countries to reduce trade barriers, allow for a freer flow of goods and services, and are tool of “soft” diplomacy. The 1990s and 2000s was an era for American free trade accords as the United States worked with Canada and Mexico to create the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then signed additional agreements with another eighteen countries. While proponents argue that these deals will allow consumers to acquire cheaper goods and that the deals serve America’s geopolitical interests, opponents allege that they strengthen the power of corporations at the expense of the middle class and that they produce sizable job losses. Growing trade skepticism could impair the implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade accord between the United States and eleven other nations in the Pacific Rim. President Barack Obama is a supporter of the TPP and is pushing Congress to grant him trade promotion authority (TPA) to conclude the deal. Ironically, Republicans who have been an obstruction to much of the President’s agenda for the last six years are his biggest allies in the TPP fight, but Obama will likely have to win over some moderate Democrats to overcome opposition from unions and progressives to make the TPP a reality.