As the Trump administration continues to deliver its “America First” agenda regardless of collateral damage, it is perhaps unsurprising that the US president is now taking a wrecking ball to the country’s foreign policy. The latest development involves a call by Washington on the Organization of American States (OAS) to suspend Venezuela’s membership and implement a fresh wave of sanctions, following a controversial leadership election in May that saw President Nicolás Maduro returned to power for another term.

In its haste to find quick fixes for entrenched geopolitical challenges, however, Washington risks undertaking a dangerous course of action that could end up backfiring. By bolstering America’s sanctions regime — against Iran, in addition to Venezuela — Trump may well end up diluting US influence rather than strengthening it. There are three main reasons why the US government should hit the stop button on punitive sanctions.

The first is financial. Simply put, if Washington begins to wield sanctions as a way of waging economic warfare, it will only weaken the global case for retaining the dollar as the world’s de facto reserve currency. The perceived overuse of sanctions — especially without adequate justification — may encourage businesses to look for ways to avoid the US financial system, eventually eroding the dollar’s cachet.

After all, though more than half of all global cross-border debt is currently dollar-denominated, only as long as the dollar retains its pre-eminence in the global financial system will the US be in a position to continue throwing its weight around. As US sanctions bite, it becomes increasingly likely that other nations will choose to mitigate risk by bypassing the dollar altogether, switching instead to alternative currencies.

Indeed, this has already begun to happen. Russia is currently developing its own to circumvent the established SWIFT funds transfer. Both China and Russia are trading goods in local currencies, with others starting to follow suit. Earlier this year, for instance, announced that it will now include renminbi in its currency reserves.

The second problem is that sanctions are often misdirected, in that they harm the target nation’s ordinary citizens as opposed to its government. In Venezuela in particular, the ruling elite is far removed from the general population and highly unlikely to put the needs of ordinary people above government ambition — let alone above their own personal interests. And recent history demonstrates the fact that, under the threat of siege, leaders are often able to further consolidate their position by posturing as bravely resisting the tyranny of international interference.

As a case in point, 12 months after sanctions were first applied against Venezuela, Maduro appears than ever. The more America turns the screws, the more strident the president’s anti-imperialist position becomes and, thus, the more legitimized in the eyes of the nation.

Meanwhile, there’s little more America can do to attack Venezuela’s regime without causing even more hardship for its citizens. Imposing further sanctions may yield moderate results, but only at the expense of the Venezuelan people who are already living through a terrible , complicated by the (estimated at more than 13,000%) in what was once the richest country in Latin America.

The third problem is double-edged: America’s implementation of will serve to help, not hurt, its adversaries, all while putting its allies under economic pressure. For instance, simultaneous sanctions against Iran and Venezuela could well upset a delicately balanced oil market. Venezuelan oil exports to energy-hungry Asian consumers have plummeted in recent years due to the near-collapse of the state-run oil company, coupled with the constrictive effect of US sanctions. If Venezuelan oil becomes even more difficult to acquire, the pressure on big hitters — like China and India — to circumvent the sanctions in Iran will be considerable, possibly via illicit trades transacted in local or cryptocurrencies.

Likewise, the boycott is set to deliver an unwitting windfall to America’s economic and political rivals, just as its European allies are calculating the cost to business of Trump’s latest decision to reopen sanctions on Iran. Ironically, as secondary sanctions force European companies to pull out of negotiations to help Iran revive its oil fields, fresh opportunities will be created for Russian and Chinese companies already operating in the Middle East; China, for instance, has recently announced a new .

The Trump administration has already exacerbated global tensions through a series of ill-considered foreign policy decisions. The latest wave of unilateral actions could result in negative repercussions, not just for US rivals and allies, but for America itself. If Washington really wants to accomplish its goals, it must avoid implementing a knee-jerk sanctions strategy and put more emphasis on the powers of diplomacy. After all, sanctions are only one tool in what should be a far more carefully calibrated, wide-ranging set of policies against hostile regimes.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post US Government Should Hit the Stop Button on Punitive Sanctions appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Donald Trump keeps trying to tout the need for a travel ban on visitors from six Muslim-majority nations, despite the latest����to his crusade. A second federal appeals court slapped down his revised travel ban, following a similar����in May by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this month, seemingly increasingly����over his apparent inability to impose the ban, the president��:��“In any event we are EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S. in order to help keep our country safe. The courts are slow and political!”

Yet as Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),��, “The manner in which they have been pursuing the legal case undercuts the argument for the urgency of the executive order.” After the first ban was shut down and an appeals court declined to reinstate it, Trump’s attorneys requested more than a month to write the second version of the ban instead of fighting over the original one. When federal judges blocked the second version of the ban, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review the case — not in an expedited process, but as part of its normal proceedings next fall.

Such a meandering approach by Trump’s lawyers —��combined with the slow manner in which the administration has been reviewing existing measures —��raises the question of whether the rhetoric is nothing more than a ploy to appeal to the president’s base. After all, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department, the two main agencies that deal with border control and visa approvals, have always had a vast mandate to evaluate potential threats and to tightly scrutinize visa applicants. DHS alone has roughly 2,000 staff spread across 80 countries running programs targeting high-risk travelers, making Trump’s insistence on the need for more extreme-vetting measures all the more ludicrous. His disingenuous and myopic obsession with border control will only succeed in destroying the global reputation of the United States while doing little to protect its people.

Indeed, the scant new vetting measures the administration has imposed have all the flavor of the extreme vetting Trump has promised, without any of the punch. For instance, Trump’s promise in August 2016 to impose tests to discover hostile ideologies in potential immigrants and to select only those who “” are still unrealized. Expert groups, such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, have so far seen very few concrete changes to the screening process.

The only new vetting measure that has been publicly acknowledged will, it seems, add a new hurdle to the visa application process while doing little to actually tighten security. For example, in late May, the administration approved a����that asks US visa applicants to divulge all the social media handles and email addresses they have used in the previous five years. The new step is likely to produce a great deal more paperwork, but it is doubtful that it will do much to stop aspiring terrorists.

, for instance, a US permanent resident from Pakistan who committed the San Bernardino terrorist attack with her husband in 2015, had made her extremist sympathies clear on Facebook, but��mainly��in the form of private messages or posts, raising the question of just how useful the new questionnaire would be.

The policies Trump is pursuing stand in stark contrast to the European Union, which has a much more pragmatic approach to border control and visa processing. The EU’s 26-nation Schengen area already allows passport- and visa-free travel within its borders. And even though more terrorist activity has occurred in Europe recently, the EU continues to strategically lift visa restrictions for certain countries, part of a drive to boost trade, tourism, exchange and, therefore, economic growth. This policy is founded on the fact that most terrorist incidents in Europe —��as is also true in the US — are carried out by long-term legal residents, not recent immigrants or temporary visitors.

Most recently, for instance, the EU approved visa-free travel for����holding biometric passports, a fulfillment of a longstanding commitment, part of a drive to undercut Russian influence in the country following its annexation of Crimea. Several months earlier, in February, the EU approved a proposal on visa liberalization for��. Both sides view visa-free travel to Europe as part of a geopolitical dispute with Russia over Georgia’s Western inclinations, which Moscow opposes. In 2016, Brussels����a short-stay visa waiver agreement with Peru. Peruvians’ newfound access to Europe was bolstered by their new biometric passports, made by a consortium led by France’s Imprimerie Nationale. The measure is expected to boost travel from Peru by 15% in the first year.

Europe’s continued drive to streamline border entry systems, in contrast with US policies, are both supporting some of Brussels’ geopolitical goals and making the continent a far more welcoming destination for tourists, academic talent and businesspeople. Meanwhile, last month, more than 50 US academic and educational groups sent a letter to the State Department����that “unacceptably long delays in processing” could hurt the ability of American higher education institutions to recruit top international students.

There has also been a significant drop in US tourism, known as the “,” which is predicted to result in 4.3 million fewer visitors this year, adding up to a loss of $7.4 billion in revenue. If Trump really wants to “make America great again,” he should give up his “extreme vetting” charade and make the country more, not less, welcoming to travelers.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Trump’s Extreme Vetting Charade appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A new wave of is systematically putting an end to 12 years of isolationist, leftist populism under Peronist President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, with the latest development a to freeze the former leader’s assets. After an inward turn that saw Buenos Aires rely on “progressive” allies like Venezuela, an election in late 2015��.

Since the upset victory, Macri has made efforts to repair Argentina’s tainted image in global financial markets and , settling from the Peronist era and reviving trade talks with the European Union. In February, the nation agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement with creditors, ending years of refusals by the Peronist government.

Kirchner-era Argentina was reliant on high commodity prices for the country’s exports to fund the government’s populist policies and ignore market imperatives on free trade, but falling prices have forced the country out of this self-imposed exile. The reforms sought by Macri and other centrist leaders will face a number of challenges, particularly economic ones—his administration had to reduce a budget deficit equivalent to����last year. While this move back toward the international markets will no doubt benefit Argentina in the long run, this chain of events mirrors a pattern seen in many of the world’s resource-based economies as commodity prices plummet.

Rentier States

The precipitous drop in oil prices in particular has forced rentier states, which were able to count on massive energy profits to fund generous state largesse up until a few years ago, to diversify their economic relationships with Europe and the rest of the world. These profits allowed states like Saudi Arabia and Iran to get by with incredibly inefficient economies, which officials in both countries are now actively restructuring in order to stimulate real growth and attract international business.

In June, Saudi Arabia announced the details of a comprehensive, widely-reported and limit state handouts with a focus on building a non-oil revenue base. With government revenue , falling prices have deeply afflicted Saudi Arabia’s finances.

In March, King Salman’s government announced Vision 2030, a reform plan to wean the national economy off this all-consuming dependence on oil. , for their part, have responded with great interest to news that Saudi Arabia was looking into a public offering of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco. The global financial industry apparently sees major opportunity in backing and financing these privatization reforms, and even small firms like the United Kingdom’s Verus Partners have helping the Saudi government issue sovereign debt.

State-Heavy Economies

Iran’s challenges appear far more daunting, with the lingering effects of US banking sanctions giving pause to European firms that are otherwise rearing to go back into the coveted market. Nonetheless, President Hassan Rouhani is attempting to liberalize the nation’s state-heavy economy and reestablish economic ties with the rest of the world. Iran has thus far been able to since last year’s nuclear deal was sealed and sanctions were scaled back.

Iranian government sources (perhaps addressing concerns over Tehran’s role in the Syrian conflict) insist this money will be used for development projects and to stimulate the economy.

There have been other victories, notably with Airbus and Boeing to update Iran’s badly dated civilian airliner fleet. Outside experts and ��have echoed Rouhani’s insistence on , and Iran’s extraordinarily well-educated has already helped it develop domestic automotive, telecommunications and aerospace industries since the 1979 revolution.

Hard-liners in Iran and some conservatives in the United States, however, are doing their utmost to dampen enthusiasm. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps profited immensely from the sanctions regime to over the domestic economy (especially over the energy sector), while members of the US Congress are the Boeing deal.

While Saudi Arabia and Iran try to open themselves up, at least one of their fellow producers is fighting tooth and nail to protect an ill-fated “socialist revolution.” Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela is now against a backdrop of severe shortages and rampant hardship. Since the drop in oil prices, the economy has essentially fallen apart and Venezuela is on its way to becoming a failed state.

Many Venezuelans are now forced to get by on .��Beyond having the second highest murder rate in the world, Venezuela .

As much as falling oil prices, is at the root of the country’s struggles. Maduro’s obstinate stance toward the US has done little to help, and Hugo Chávez’s embattled successor now faces a movement intent on ousting him from power. The opposition has begun checking signatures on a petition to begin the process, which the 200,000 signatures it needed to move forward.

Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Iran can learn from the failure of the Venezuelan model. Opening themselves up as full, balanced participants in global trade offers improved long-term conditions and security against the worst excesses of oil dependency. As Venezuelans are learning the hard way, state policy that prioritizes insulation from the world economy and redistribution of natural resource rents is an easy road to instability and collapse.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post When Commodities Crash, Populists Suffer
 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

is home to 14 different regional international organizations, which often espouse overlapping goals and have similar members. Among these, probably the best developed is the Organization of American States (OAS), which concluded its44^th annual summit in Paraguay’s Asuncion. Unfortunately, like many things coming from Latin America, coverage of the event was close to nil in international media outlets. It comes as no surprise then that , The Economist’s Latin America column editor, once called it “the forgotten continent.”

Congress of American Republics

The OAS is one of the oldest international organizations in the world. Its origins can be traced back to Simon Bolivar’s in 1826 to create a congress of American republics on supranational terms. Even if his exact vision was unsuccessful, the grains of further Latin American integration were already planted. Today’s organization was founded in 1948 following the signing of the Charter of the Organization of American States under the guidance of the , officially signaling the shift from to hegemony in the hemisphere.

From the beginning,��the ��of the organization was three-fold: increase trade, encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes, and safeguard human rights. To this end, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was adopted in 1948, making it the world’s first human rights instrument, predating the United Nations Charter by more than half a year. In true post-war euphoria, the member countries rushed to expand the OAS’ institutions and reach. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was established, along with a comprehensive legal system and a tribunal with judicial powers, which was tasked with protecting human rights among the signing parties.

Over the years, hemispheric cooperation became increasingly elusive inside the organization, as its members drifted apart — caught up in the Cold War’s binary logic. After an initial few promising decades, the OAS slowly fell into disarray, primarily due to declining commitment from its members.

Human Rights Promotion

For example, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (also known as the Rio Treaty), which addressed questions of regional and collective security, was�� invoked��to support the American blockade during the Cuban missile crisis, sparking controversies of unjust bias and US meddling. A number of states have since left the Treaty, with the final blow coming in 2012 when the ALBA countries (Bolivia, , Nicaragua and ) denounced it and retreated from its framework.

The OAS is one of the oldest international organizations in the world. Its origins can be traced back to Simon Bolivar’s��proposal��in 1826 to create a congress of American republics on supranational terms.

More political integration was hampered by the divisive attitude of the US toward the left-leaning governments of Latin America. Even once-stalwart allies of Washington in the region, such as Venezuela and , have begun to see increasing levels of anti-American feeling, leaving the OAS powerless to act.

Instead, the organization has chosen to focus more on human rights promotion, through its most visible organism, the Tribunal of the IACHR. According to a published by Ezequiel Malarino, a visiting scholar at the University of Cambridge, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently overstepped the mandate it received from member states with the San Jose Declaration. Indeed, the case file shows numerous occasions when the Court even extended the meaning of some human rights (such as property), or broadened its competences to judge controversies founded on acts that occurred before the state concerned had ratified the Charter (retroactivity).

Moreover, the IACHR has ordered states to enact or revoke certain laws. In , the Court ordered the country to modify its constitution; in it annulled a referendum; and in it went so far as to order the building of public works, as its solution to addressing the Plan de Sanchez massacre of 1982. These repeated of both the letter and spirit of the Pact of San Jose — Articles 76 and 77 clearly limit the Court’s ability to unilaterally extend its mandate — have angered and alienated the signing states.

US Meddling

Unfortunately, these are not the sole issues that challenge the relevancy of the OAS. The organization has fallen out of grace with many members, who have denounced it as an American in the region that is preoccupied with promoting Washington’s own interests, and perceived as being out of touch with the needs of its still-developing ��members. Indeed, upon further scrutiny, such accusations seem to hold water. Many Latin American countries contend that the Office of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (SRFE), created at Washington’s behest inside the IACHR, has been used by the US tofuel political ��in the hemisphere.

Keeping true to the way the Court has expanded its mandate and sought to unilaterally define human rights, the SRFE has championed ideas that are seen as legal neocolonialism — the practice of using legal means to achieve control over the destiny of Latin America. The best-known example is the El Universo case, where Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa sued Emilio Palacio under the country’s defamation laws, after the journalist published an article arguing that the former had committed crimes against humanity by fabricating the failed coup d’état of 2010. Before suing, the president asked Palacio to run a correction on the article, which he refused. Correa went on to win the case, only to issue a presidential pardon.

Throughout the legal saga, the case received widespread criticism from the SRFE, with Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga, a former senior staff attorney of the IACHR, even that the “rapporteurship should not be allowed to essentially declare a violation of human rights before the Commission decides the case. This is a basic due process rule to guarantee the forum’s impartiality.”

The organization has fallen out of grace with many members, who have denounced it as an American��pawn��in the region that is preoccupied with promoting Washington’s own interests, and perceived as being out of touch with the needs of its still-developing ��members.

Furthermore, the fact that the SRFE receives virtually all of its from Washington, and has access to five times more money than any other rapporteur, raises some legitimate questions. For instance, why should the oversight of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights or socioeconomic human rights be awarded fewer resources, especially when Latin American countries are still trying to find a way to reconcile their own traditions with the challenges of a globalized world. Moreover, the Office of the SRFE negates the idea that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent and equal, since the IACHR has failed to explain why “freedom of expression needs special protection over other rights and, moreover, why this right has a rapporteurship with many more privileges than the other rapporteurships,” according to the same Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga.

As goes for the US, its reluctance to sign most international human rights documents, including the IACHR’s Pact of San Jose, has left the country outside the reach of any supranational oversight. In this case, why should the headquarters of the IACHR be based in Washington DC, when the host country itself does not recognize the body’s authority?

Rethinking Objectives

An����put forth by the ALBA countries in 2011, and championed by Ecuador, sought to make the system more accountable and efficient. The countries argued for the creation of a single, common fund, which would collect all donations for the IACHR and ensure an equitable distribution across all the different rapporteurs. Also, moving the headquarters out of Washington DC and into a signatory country of the Pact of San Jose would also increase the legitimacy and outreach of the OAS. Correa has correctly out that only seven Latin American countries have signed and agreed to be bound by all regional instruments of human rights — an untenable position if closer integration is sought.

Efforts to reform the organization thus far have been largely unsuccessful, as the recent Paraguay summit clearly illustrates. The ALBA proposal received the cold shoulder from other members and was replaced with a of support��for dialogue, as well as a “call for the IACHR to consider holding sessions outside its offices in Washington.” The sole positive development was the overwhelming support for inclusion in the OAS, which was blocked by the US for decades. Most Latin American countries vowed to withdraw from next year’s summit, if Havana is not allowed to participate.

The OAS and the IACHR, far from being the region’s guiding force — like the , for instance — have taken a nanny-state type approach in the issue of regional governance. In lack of deepening intra-continental cooperation, the notion of protecting human rights became the raison d’ȇtre for the OAS. Unfortunately, the brutal methods used to promote these objectives have severely shaken the members’ trust in the body.

Article 2 of the OAS Charter declares that the organization’s purposes should be achieved by “respecting the principle of nonintervention.” Some serious soul-searching is needed in Latin America, if these words are to ring true once again. The first step for policymakers should be to re-read what the organization was meant to stand for.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post The OAS: The Forgotten Continent’s Forgotten Organization appeared first on 51�Թ�.