Paris Agreement

To: President Donald Trump

CC: Vice President Michael Pence

From: Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Brady Gambone

Date: April 24, 2018

Subject: Paris Agreement

Context

For the first time in history, every single country has signed an agreement to reduce carbon emissions, deforestation, and anything else that contributes to climate change in their respective countries; except for the United States. Until the past year, the United States was a member of the Paris agreement. Although there is no legal enforcement of this agreement, it is designed to reduce the speed of climate change, and create a better world. It is imperative that we stay in the Paris agreement to better our country, and set an example for to the rest of the world, that the United States takes climate change as a serious threat.

Task

The United States’ goal should be not only to stay in the Paris Agreement, but to improve the agreement, and help improve developing nations production of renewable energy sources, reduce deforestation, and provide financial and industrial support. As the last super-power on the planet, we hold a responsibility to improve the lives of future generations of not only the United States, but the world. Climate change is a threat, and ignoring it will inevitably weaken the United States, and eventually threaten the lives of our own citizens.

Solution

The United States must stay in the Paris agreement. By leaving we put the safety and security of our own nation at risk. Although we have announced withdrawal, it will not take effect until 2020. There is still ample time to re-join the agreement, joining ever other nation on Earth. (Including North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Nicaragua.) Mr. President; myself, the nation, and the world, implore you to reconsider your decision.

Evidence

Every single country in the world, other than the United States has signed the Paris agreement. By staying out, other countries will perceive the United States as weak on the issue of climate change. The rhetoric coming out of the White House may cause citizens of the United States and the world to begin doubting climate change entirely. However, climate change is real, and is a direct threat to our nation. The reality is that the people of the United States have, and continue to support the Paris Accords. By leaving, we risk losing the trust the people have in our government. 

By staying in the agreement, new renewable energy businesses will be established in the United States, creating jobs. Former coal miners and factory workers will have new businesses in need of a multitude of employees.

Failed Solutions

By not re-joining, we put the lives of our own citizens, Republican or Democrat, in danger. Events like Hurricane Katrina, Sandy, or Harvey are likely to increase. Our sea levels are rising, reducing habitable land, destroying wildlife, and the property of good Americans. Without joining the agreement, we leave it to businesses to decide their own energy practices. In a world were profits are prioritized, it is unlikely businesses will simply adopt renewable energy.

Summary

The United States must re-join the Paris agreement. By leaving, we sent a message to the world, the wrong message, that the United States government does not believe in climate change, and is unwilling to join the rest of the world in the only habitable planet we know of. This is not the approach the United States must take to protect our citizens from the threat of climate change. Re-joining the Paris agreement should be a top priority of this administration, to ensure the public’s safety, and re-affirm our commitment to bettering the planet.

Bibliography

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov, 2018

Dan Lavigne Memorandum on Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran post Nuclear Deal

Memorandum on Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran post Nuclear Deal

To: President Donald J. Trump

CC: Michael R. Pence

From: Daniel J. Lavigne, Secretary of State

Date: April 22, 2018

Subject: The Situation in Iran

Context:

                       

            The relations between the United States and Iran have not always been on equal footing. As part of the Cold War’s greater geopolitical strategies, the United States overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh in a 1953 military coup through Operation Ajax. Mossadegh attempted to nationalize British Petroleum to reduce Western influence in the country. The American and British agents replaced Mossadegh with the Persian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was crowned Shah or king of Iran in the aftermath of this coup. The monarchy ruled until the 1979 Revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini gained influence creating a theocratic regime under Shia Islam. 

In July 2015 Iran and the P+1 of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reached a deal to limit Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities. Components of the deal state that the, “...Iranians are not allowed any enrichment or enrichment research and development, or any nuclear stockpile of more than 300 kg of low-enriched uranium for 15 years. (At the time of the signing of the agreement, Iran’s stockpile was nearly 15,000 kg. Furthermore, Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium by more than a level of 3%–7% per annum for 10 years…” (Tarock, 2016, 1412). These measures are designed to reduce the amount of potentially harmful material in the country that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The passage of the deal lifted some sanctions on Iran, easing some economic struggles within the country.

Task:

It is advisable that the United States maintain the current nuclear deal reached in 2015 with Iran, the four countries of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany, as all parties involved have something to gain in the long term. In the short term, allies of the United States express concerns about the consideration of leaving the deal. French President Emmanuel Macron questions an alternative option. British Prime Minister Theresa May views this agreement as “vitally important”. German Chancellor Angela Merkel questioned the reliability of the United States and warned that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands” (Tobey, 2017). Additionally, for this deal to be successful in the long run the United States must attempt to normalize its affairs through active engagement with Iran as a priority of regional security and economic interest. 

Solution:

            The solution to better relationships with Iran must be understood through peaceful engagement between the two countries. A solution is to extend the olive branch first, through soft power initiatives while still maintaining pressure on the obligations of the deal. Offering more student visas to Iranian students is step in a positive direction. The goal is that students will share their experiences upon their return to Iran to change the way their community views the United States. In return, Iran may decide to reduce its travel restrictions to Americans. Under the current system Americans may travel to Iran on a U.S. passport. Detail of the visit must be pre-arranged by reputable guides before arriving in the country (Johnston, 2015). Visitors are not allowed to travel freely as everything is managed by the state.

            Regarding the nuclear deal ongoing dialogue with Iran and periodically using the mechanisms designed within the framework of the agreement is necessary.  One such mechanism is invoking the power of nuclear inspections under the IAEA “...within 24 days, as long as a majority of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agree” (Tarock, 2016, 1412). This will help demonstrate that the United States can use international frameworks, despite its dominating behavior in the middle east for nearly two decades. Additionally, it signals to Iran that the United States will not tolerate the development of nuclear weapons capabilities. This also may help stabilize the relationships of regional actors.

Evidence:

            Iran has a young population. According to the United States Institute for Peace, 60% of the country’s 80 inhabitants are under the age of 30 years of age and many are highly educated (Omid Memarian and Tara Nesvaderani). Looking specifically at women, “...64 percent [are] university graduates and the female literacy rate exceed 80 percent” (Monshipouri, Mahmood; assareh Ali., 2009, 35). Iran is also very tech savvy countries in this part of the world. There is estimated 30 million internet users in addition to hosting 60,000 100,000 active blogs (Omid Memarian and Tara Nesvaderani). This was seen in the Green Revolution of 2009 when the people took the streets with their smartphones and used several applications to organize against the Government. The rich human capital of Iranian young people offers the United States a unique opportunity. People in the United States get the opportunity to interact with Iranian students thus understanding their culture, while the people of Iran get a better opportunity to learn about American culture and values upon the return of these students. This will help reduce the “Death to America” rhetoric, propagated since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Failed Solutions:

            Hard power compliance is not an option for the Iran nuclear deal. Using Afghanistan and Iraq as examples, the United States cannot afford another war in the Middle East, especially now given the escalation in Syria. Citing data from Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, Tarock noted the figure of $6 trillion spent on the first two conflicts mentioned. (Tarock, 2016, 1416-1417). This is not financially responsible or sustainable. Additionally, Iran has certain geographic features that make conflict difficult, much like Afghanistan. Three mountain ranges defend the country from invaders, most recently Iraq during the decade of the 1980’s. Iran also controls the transit of the world’s major oil channel, the Strait of Hormuz.

Summary:

            The United States for its long-term security interest must not withdraw from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal with the named party, the members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany. Soft power engagement using young students will help shift the cultural paradigm of the past forty year, each side not having trust for the other. The U.S. can engage with the youth, who understands the value of technology and calling for reforms against their government as demonstrated by the 2009 Green Revolution. Military action is not advisable as demonstrated through the entrenched warfare in Afghanistan in terms of financial cost. Iran’s geographic also wards off even the thought of invasion to force compliance of this agreement.

Works Cited:

Tarock, Adam. “The Iran nuclear deal: winning a little, losing a lot” Third World Quarterly, 2016 VOL. 37, NO. 8, 1408–1424. 1 March 2016.

Tobey, William. “What Would U.S. Withdrawal From the Iran Nuclear Deal Look Like? The United States must build an international consensus on Iran”. Foreign Policy. AUGUST 31, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/31/what-would-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal-look-like/

Johnson, Clint. “HOW TO TRAVEL TO IRAN AS AN AMERICAN” Trip Hacker. 2015. http://triphackr.com/how-to-travel-to-iran-as-an-american/

Monshipouri, Mahmood; assareh Ali. “The Islamic Republic and the “Green Movement”: Coming Full Circle”. Middle East Policy, Vol XVI, No.4. Winter 2009.

Omid Memarian; Tara Nesvaderani “The Youth”. The Iran Primer. United Institute for Peace.

Iran Nuclear Deal

To: President of The United States, Donald Trump                                        Classified

CC: Secretary of Defense, James Mattis

From: Secretary of State, Brady Gambone

Date: 04/21/2018

Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal

Context

The Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Department of State, along with France, Great Brittan, Germany, China and Russia is in jeopardy. The deal effectively regulates the use and quantity of nuclear materials, the facilities that manufacture and enrich radioactive elements, and the implementation of these items. Currently, with the help of United Nations inspectors, the deal is preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. If this deal is abolished, or renegotiated, we will risk giving Iran their nuclear manufacturing capabilities back leading to potential chaos in the Middle East. It is imperative we remain in this deal, and discontinue rhetoric regarding our potential exiting of the deal.

Task

The goal of the State Department, the United States, and the United Nations, is to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons. If Iran is able to produce these arms, there is potential for their use on Israel, other Middle Eastern nations, or even the United States. Iran has also been classified as a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. The fear that weapons of mass destruction might be traded to terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, is also of grave concern, and the more likely of the ‘worst case’ scenarios. Iran’s nuclear weapons implementation as a negotiating tactic, something the Department of State does not want to go up against, is also of extreme concern. This will reduce the power we have at the negotiating table.

Solution

The United States government should do absolutely nothing to interfere with this meticulously brokered deal. Backing out of the deal could be catastrophic, and there is little chance that renegotiating will be in our favor. Backing out of the deal ensures Iran’s ability to create nuclear arms. Without any regulation, they are free to do whatever they choose without consequence. Iran has ceased its manufacturing of nuclear weapons material, and the United States has lifted assorted sanctions on Iran. By renegotiating, we risk Iran only accepting a deal with higher enrichment caps, or a larger number of centrifuges and reactors.

Evidence

Iran, is a powerful nation. Having nuclear weapons will only make them stronger, both militarily, and at the negotiating table. They have already accepted this deal, and so far, have complied with it in its entirety. The United Nations inspections take place regularly, and Iran has been more then accepting of these inspections. To back out, or renegotiate the deal, will diminish Iran’s trust of the United States, and the United Nations.

Failed Solutions

The issue arises when debating how to respond if Iran fails the United Nations inspection, under the current deal. Libya for example was on a path to produce nuclear arms, but eventually ceased to do so. However, years later, the United States intervened in the nation during the revolution, conducting airstrikes against government and extremist targets. If Libya had nuclear weapons, it is unlikely the United States would have acted as we did during the revolution, if one were ever to take place. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they know we are very likely to avoid any kind of intervention in their nation. It is imperative the United States, and the United Nations, ensures the government of Iran that although we are limiting their production of nuclear materials, we will respect the sovereignty of their nation, as long as they continue to comply with the deal.

Implementation

The deal should remain as is, with a renewal in approximately ten years. By limiting weapons grade uranium production, Iran cannot possibly produce nuclear arms. More importantly to United States interests however, they cannot sell enriched uranium to terrorist organizations. Your administration Mr. President, should cease the discussion of backing out or renegotiating the nuclear deal. This will decay what little trust Iran has in the United States, and the United Nations today, and lead to worse deals, or no cooperation at all between our nations in the future.

Summary

Iran is a sovereign nation, and the United States must respect its sovereignty, while diminishing the chance for the creation, use, or distribution of nuclear arms. By staying in the current Iran nuclear deal, we can assure that Iran will not construct nuclear weapons in the near future. Backing out of the deal, or attempting to renegotiate will cause chaos, distrust, and potential catastrophe to the region. Mr. President, it is imperative you remain in the deal, and maintain the honor of the United States.

Bibliography

American Foreign Policy, Class Presentation, April 2018

Greg Bruno, Council on Foreign Relations, State Sponsors: Iran, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-sponsors-iran, October 13, 2011

Amy Myers Jaffe, Council on Foreign Relations, Pompeo, the Iran Deal, and the Asymmetric Proxy War,https://www.cfr.org/blog/pompeo-iran-deal-and-asymmetric-proxy-war, April 13, 2018

U.S. Trade interests

04/10/2018

Brady Gambone

Shirk

U.S. Trade Interests

Lately, the United States policy on trade, and the overall strategy regarding trade has been blurred by the actions of President Trump. The current trade war between the United States and China has skewed our economic mission throughout the world. The United States interests in trade is not to 'win' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a U.S. lead world order. The sole propose of trade between two countries is to decrease the price of goods or services that country, by receiving them from overseas, and to distribute new goods or services to a country for a profit.

Trade between two countries, even if one country is considerably smaller and/or poorer than the other, benefits both countries. The concept of absolute and comparative advantage explains this quite simply. Simply enough it is surprising even today, countries still impose tariffs.

Absolute and comparative advantage can be explained with just two goods and two countries. Say the United States trades apples, and China trades pears. If the U.S. has 12 apples and 4 pears, and China has 6 apples and 3 pears, the United State has an absolute advantage in both goods. They can produce more of each good than China if they maximize production for that specific good. However, China has the comparative advantage in producing pears, while the U.S. has comparative advantage in producing apples. When the United States produces apples, and China produces pears, both countries will receive more product. Therefore, the United States will trade apples to China, for pears. It is never the case where a country can have comparative advantage in both goods. Regardless of the country’s overall GDP. This should be the United States strategy and policy on trade. To trade any goods, it has comparative advantage in between any country, to maximize the amount of the product produced in the world, effectively raising the supply, and ultimately lowering the cost.

However, this is not the case in the world today. Recently, there has been debate about who will 'win' a trade war between the United States and China. More appropriately, the question should be who will 'lose less'. When the United States imposes tariffs on China, it hurts both economies. If the United States charges a tariff of 1 dollar on each pear produced by China, the cost of that tariff is not paid 100% by China. The price of production just went up 1 dollar. This results in a decrease in demand in the United States for pears, causing China to lower the price, but not as low as the original price without a tariff. Instead, it is likely 50% of the tariff (50 cents) will be added to the price of each pear, and cuts in pay, (50 cents), for employees in China, in order to be as well off as they were before, will be instituted. Now, both countries must pay a proportion of the tariff, resulting in losses for everyone.

United States trade policy is currently flawed. The solution is simple, free and open markets, that allow for substantial trade of comparatively advantageous goods. Over time, tariffs will only hurt the economies of both the receiver and the imposer of the tariffs.

US Trade Interests

United States Trade Interests

            The United States of America is a global empire of prosperity and diversity; its qualities and interests have shaped the world. America has had an everlasting goal of influencing other nations to adopt the same ideas and values that it holds so dear. The U.S. does this in many ways and one of those ways is to encourage a free market. America has weakened its domestic production in return for a stronger international trade system. This has hurt American employees but it has benefited the nation and the global system.

            After the Cold War, free market enterprises peaked. The American market was open for international trade. By opening the American market, other nations did the same by freely trading with the U.S. and other nations. This offered a lot of prosperity internationally and it also exposed the faults in a possible Soviet atmosphere (Eckes). The Soviet Union discouraged a free market because it wanted to monopolize all economic affairs (Rieger). When the United States capitalized on the free market to show other nations the benefits, support for the Soviet Union dwindled rapidly. The encouragement of a free market came at a price; “the U.S. government sacrificed thousands of domestic jobs to create employment and prosperity elsewhere in the noncommunist world” (Eckes). The idea of promoting American ideals significantly outweighed the importance of maintaining domestic jobs; this further proves that the goal of free trade was to promote American values.

            The promotion of American values such as the free market was not necessarily for the United States to dominate the world but to make a world similar to American society. Robert Baldwin explains this in his article: “U.S. Trade Policy: Recent Changes and Future U.S. Interests”. He writes that “by the late 1960s that the American economic position of the early postwar years had eroded to the point where the United States became one of a small group of countries whose individual actions significantly influenced, but did not dominate, the international economic order” (Baldwin).

            One could argue that the U.S. wanted to appear as the dominate force internationally through specific domestic export groups. America adopted trade policies to create a system where they would lose in the short term by demolishing domestic jobs but would benefit in the long run by spreading democracy across the world. Baldwin explains the motivations of the United States and the implications:

The expansionist efforts of the Soviet Union in Western Europe...led U.S. political leaders to accept fully the role and responsibilities of the hegemon in the free world. U.S. international economic policies became instruments of U.S. foreign policy as trade liberalization and foreign aid were used to strengthen noncommunist countries in the hope of increasing their resistance to Soviet expansionary efforts. (Baldwin)

Eventually, domestic enterprises would benefit through these policies: “The U.S. share of industrial country exports rose from 25.6 percent in 1938 to 35.2 percent in 1952, while the combined export share of Germany and Japan fell from 24.0 to 11.4 percent between these years” (Baldwin). The United States has created an empire full of enterprises that it can capitalize on at any time while also spreading its views democratic and economic values. America’s desires to eradicate the Soviet Union became a platform for free trade and a democratic globe.

Works Cited

Baldwin, Robert. “U.S. Trade Policy: Recent Changes and Future U.S. Interests.” The American

Economic View Vol. 79 No. 2 (1989): 128-132. JSTOR. Web. April 11, 2018.

Eckes, Alfred. “Trading American Interests.” Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Fall

1992. Web. April 11, 2018

Rieger, Michael. Foundation for Economic Education. Web. April 11, 2018.

United States and Trade

Allison Cannon

AMPF

4/11/18

Professor Shirk

Write Up

What are the US interests in trade?  Is it to create a freer, more prosperous world, to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a US-led world order?  Or is it some combination of the above?

            The United States often touts trade as a symbol of all that is great about America. American ideals are built around the idea trade since the industrial revolution trade has been what has made the United States the global hegemon that it is. We teach that these ideals are essential as well, the first thing one learns in an economics course is that "trade can make everyone better off." This has been the basis of America's foreign policy regarding trade, or at least that is the guise under which the real reasons lie.

            Does America genuinely care if another country benefits from our trade partnerships? The simple answer is probably not; maybe if trade strengthens alliances but otherwise, helping another nation to gain power only diminishes your own. Besides that, America often acts in a realist sense and acts "rationally" meaning it acts in self-interest. The United States would never stop trading with a country because the deal wasn't beneficial to the other party. The purpose of trade is to make oneself better off.

            When the United States attempts to interfere in another country's politics, especially that of a developing country, the motives behind the behavior are not as apparent as one would believe. America boasts that its policies of democracy and free trade are what helps to make countries stable, fair and free. This policy does seem to be effective in stabilizing a nation and allowing its economy to grow and begin trading. Could it be that the motive for the United States to assist these countries could be to take advantage of them once they begin to trade?

            The global south is far less developed than the global north making it particularly vulnerable to influence by powerful nations. These more powerful nations of the global south have discovered that an easy way to control these developing countries is by dictating the success of their economy. As the United States is in a never-ending battle for world power over the Russians and Chinese, it is essential that United States foreign policy sweep up as many countries as possible into the Western sphere of influence.

            These actions could certainly be seen as malicious, but they are completely rational as The United States is acting in self-interest. The actions taken by the United States regarding trade have, first and foremost, been implemented in order to benefit the American people. Every nation acts in self-interest and America is no exception. It is not wrong for the United States to act in this way. There are some issues with morality when it comes to taking advantage of the global south, but as long as we are helping those nations become free and prosperous, I feel it is okay that we may have helped them to benefit ourselves. Otherwise, would we have taken those actions and helped the people of the global south? Probably not. While the world is not a perfect place and while it may never be, this is an instance of all countries involved acting in self-interest and a positive outcome arising from the situation. Until we reach a time where countries can benefit from each other by not being self-interested, this is the best way to do something positive for every nation involved.

            In conclusion, trade is used by the United States in order to advance American ideals, push western values and economically benefit the United States. The positive externalities are that the other nations involved benefit as well by stabilizing their economy and creating an environment where democracy can grow. Democracy growth is unarguably a good thing, especially from an American standpoint as democracy has tended to create peace, reduce human suffering and decrease corruption. The reasons the United States chooses to promote trade may or may not be to promote democracy, but it inevitably does so.

US Action in Zimbabwe

To: President George W. Bush

CC: Vice President Al Gore

From: Rachel Sousa, Secretary of State

Date: June 27, 2008

Subject: Protecting Democracy in Zimbabwe

Context

Zimbabwe has tried to commit to democracy since the election of President Mugabe in 1980, however, the nation has hit a road block. As of 2008, President Mugabe has been president for 28 years. We have witnessed government violence against Zimbabwean people protesting for a new government in 2006 and yet the world has strong inclinations of election tampering in the most recent elections. As punishment for protests, protests were banned for three months and finally the opposition Morgan Tsvangirai was hospitalized after being arrested during a rally. Democracy and its future is crumbling in Zimbabwe and it is imperative that the United States makes a commitment to repair it.

Task

The United States should commit to overseeing democracy in Zimbabwe because our country’s purpose of being is to spread, protect, and preserve democracy across the globe. What is needed from us is to send non-governmental organizations to supervise yet another year of “presidential” dominance. It is evident that social injustices have occurred since President Mugabe’s reign and these social injustices cannot continue.

Solution

Implementing a new democratic system for Zimbabwe seems to be the best solution to fixing Zimbabwe’s situation. The social climate in this country is tense and oppressive and our nation needs to support Zimbabweans in their fight for governmental leaders that they want and deserve. Inflation and food shortages have plagued the nation. Since 2001, warnings of serious food shortages are released and food funding to Zimbabwe are no longer. Although economic sanctions can be effective, Zimbabweans are starving and are desperate for aid. Food should be sent to the country to occupy the shelves in the markets. Inflation is sky-rocketing and prices are higher than ever for food, therefor, food donations would be advantageous.

Evidence

Protecting the rights of the people and ensuring that they have their basic human rights like water and food is a fundamental responsibility of successful nations such as our own. Implementing new policies may not be the answer quite yet, but observing democracy in this nation has the potential to be beneficial for not only Zimbabweans but also Africa and The United States. Spreading democracy is beneficial to our great nation because it shows the power of our influence.

Implementation

Non-governmental organizations like Food Tank should be sent to Zimbabwe to feed the people. Other NGO’s that specialize in improving the political atmosphere of the country should be sent over to work within government walls and try to keep an eye on government processes.

Summary

In conclusion, the United States has a responsibility to promote democracy and ensure that every human has the right to all of its benefits. Zimbabwe has been under strict control by the same president for 28 years and we must finally end it now. Starvation, violence, and inflation has consumed the nation and it is now time to do something about it. The more influence we have in this world, the better. We must seek this opportunity to intervene in Zimbabwe so we can preserve life and liberty and promote democracy.