The Week of April 16th, 2018
Care
1. Esprit de corps
Coalition airstrikes hit Syria, with predictable results
In coordination with Britain and France, the United States launched a joint air strike against Bashar al-Assad’s regime after he reportedly ordered a chemical attack against the rebel-held suburb of Douma. The strikes were targeted against facilities tied to Assad’s weapons program, although scores of chemicals remain scattered beyond the areas hit. Attempts to learn more about the attack site were disrupted when assailants fired upon a UN security team attempting to investigate.
Opponents of the strike used the dubious facts surrounding the chemical attack to delegitimize the United States’ response. While Donald Trump has under scrutiny from anti-interventionist voices on both the left and right, a majority of Americans supported the airstrikes. The decision follows precedent set last March, when Mr Trump ordered a strike against an airfield used by Assad forces after his regime carried out a separate chemical attack. The strike notably comes as the first major decision made since John Bolton was named Mr Trump’s national security advisor. Many expect the former Ambassador to the United Nations to push for a more active role for the United States on the international stage.
The response to the weapons attack further exacerbates the growing divide within the UN Security Council. That the United States, Britain and France, three of the five permanent members of the council, carried the attacks jointly sends a message to Russia, a fellow permanent member and strong ally of Assad’s. Some feel the United States and its allies have a duty to more actively fight the Assad regime, arguing it should not take chemical attacks to prompt a response.
2. Passing the baton
Castro hands the keys to his handpicked successor
Concluding a two-term, twelve-year presidency, Cuba’sRaùl Castro stepped down this week and has picked Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermùdez to take over. The country’s economic development has been largely stunted by America’s efforts to eliminate Soviet allies during the Cold War with Raùl and his more famous brother Fidel standing tall among America’s enemies. Yet since the collapse of the USSR, Cuba’s politics have become more pragmatic as Raùl has opened markets some to private sectors, initiated a détente of sorts with America, and has lifted many of its travel restrictions. Some of these efforts have been hampered by America’s current president, Donald Trump. Though he will step down as president, Raùl will remain as chairman of Cuba’s Communist Party and continue to oversee some party operations.
On the other hand, Mr Díaz-Canel is a lesser known figure but has been constantly seen at the side of the aging Castro in recent years. While his youth may reflect the potential for more progressive reforms, his ascendancy and reliance on the entrenched Communist Party may prove a more conservative approach is in order. Hal Klepak, a historian, has stated “I view him as a reformist with Raúlista credentials: He’s reformist while reform reinforces the achievements of the revolution. The moment that reformism threatens the achievements of the revolution, he flips.”
Regardless of his personal slant, he will soon face a tug-of-war between the economic reformists and socialist traditionalists as Cuba’s economy continues to be on life support. Without further economic development, the nation may slide into total collapse. Without maintaining socialist values, the island may become another pawn under America’s supremacy. Complicating these issues is the recent mysterious attack at the American Embassy in Cuba that left American diplomats with brain damage. Donald Trump has since expelled 15 Cuban diplomats and restricted emigration to the Communist bastion. Whether these allegations are true and if Mr Trump decides to further punish the state will become important elements as to how Mr Díaz-Canel responds to foreign pressure.
Looking for inspiration in the Vietnamese or Chinese brands of socialism, the Cuban elite have responded slowly to domestic needs. The moment has come for the country to fine-tune its experiment lest the decades of being America’s bulwark may soon end. With Mr Díaz-Canel taking the helm, America may see a new potential ally or a resurgence of Cold War enemy.
3. Banking, with ease
Spain’s largest bank is planning to harness blockchain
Banco Santander, Spain’s largest bank, has announced a novel international payments app which harnesses blockchain technology. The service, called One Pay FX, builds on the software of Ripple, a software and exchange fintech company, to expedite, simplify, and secure cross-country transfers. Some payments will be served the same day, and value of foreign exchange can be known on the spot, welcome news for traders who know must wait several business days for that information. Available to retail customers in the UK, Spain, Poland, and Brazil, Santander plans to expand the operation to new markets and upgrade to instantaneous transfers before the summer.
In a similar move, a consortium of 6 Japanese banks is preparing the launch of MoneyTap, a retail consumer payments service built with Ripple’s technology. The smartphone app will provide instant domestic transactions without the fees of traditional transfers. The Japan Bank Consortium, representing 80% of the country’s banking assets, will launch the app in autumn.
MoneyGram and Western Union have also announced partnerships with Ripple earlier this year, and will use the firm’s XRP platform. American Express, likewise, will channel its FX International Payments platform through the firm’s Ripplenet. Innoventures, Santander’s financial technology capital arm, provided Ripple with early capital during its first round of funding in 2015. These deals prove level-headed leadership, despite the dizzying rise of many cryptocurrencies, can still find real value in this burgeoning industry.
4. Protesting Israel
Tensions are high in Gaza
Beginning on March 30, over 10,000 Palestinians embarked on a series protests near the Israel’s border with Gaza. Alternating between pitched tents and slow treks towards the boundary, participants have approached security forces with smoking tires and burning Israeli flags. Border patrol has responded with a bevy of rubber bullets, tear gas, and live ammunition. As of April 18, the Palestinian Health Ministry reported that 33 Palestinians have been killed and over 4,200 have been injured. As of the same date, no Israeli soldiers or civilians have been reported to be injured as a result of the rallies.
The protests, spread across five points on the Israel-Gaza border, is projected to continue to May 15, or Nakba, the day marking the mass 1948 Palestinian exodus from Israel. Leadership has stated that the protest is an objection of recent border blockades implemented by Israel and a call to allow the return of Palestinians who were expelled from their homes, a plight that began in 1948 and has lasted until now.
Israel claims that protesters have thrown Molotov cocktails and sent kites with flaming tails over the border with hopes of setting aflame Israeli wheat fields. Such alleged attempts have compelled Israel to condemn the protest as a cover to stage a series of attacks, plotted by Hamas, against the border. As such, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have decided that if “violence” continues to climb, security will not stay confined to the Israel-Gaza border and further action may be pursued against Hamas and interior Gazans.
However, there is little evidence to support claims that the protests have turned violent. Early on, the Human Rights Watch declared Israel’s response unlawful because they were shooting at unarmed Palestinian protesters. In fact, in the days before the protests, organizers were advocating for purely peaceful demonstration because they believed Israel would use any escalation of violence as reason to crush the movement.
It is unfortunate that things have taken a turn for the worst. A former team of IDF soldiers have published a letter regretting their role in shooting Gazans. Even worse, the high death toll and cyclical brutality is but part of the seasonal violence that happens in Gaza periodically. And so,“Great March of Return” continues to remains in full swing—but its seems that its arc does not bend towards justice.
5. Don’t judge a book by its cover
America’s newest Supreme Court judge surprisingly sides with progressives
Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald J. Trump to fill the late Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, shocked the legal world by siding with the Court's liberal justices to strike down a section of the U.S. Criminal Code mandating the deportation of immigrants who have committed violent crimes. The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, concerned the expedited removal of James Garcia Dimaya, a Filipino immigrant convicted of residential burglary. Section 16b of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates the deportation of those convicted of "crimes of violence", which had long been interpreted by lower courts to apply to burglaries. Observers, skeptical of a Republican appointee ruling against an administration of his own party, might have expected Justice Gorsuch to uphold Mr Trump’s Justice Department's case for deporting Dimaya. However, the newest Justice emulated his distinguished predecessor’s renowned dedication to the Original meaning of the Constitution by declaring that the aforementioned Section 16b was unconstitutional according to an Originalist reading of the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause. Justice Gorsuch, transcending petty partisanship, decided the case for Dimaya by arguing that Section 16b was unconstitutionally vague when it decreed deportation for immigrants committing "crimes of violence". Mr Gorsuch rejected his conservative counterparts' distinction between criminal and immigration statutes, arguing that there is no textual basis for distinguishing between them. Mr Gorsuch relied on the "Vagueness Doctrine", which holds that laws unconstitutionally subvert the 5th Amendment's guarantee of Due Process if they fail to explicitly define what conduct is punishable. Declaring that "vague laws invite arbitrary power", Mr Gorsuch rejected the government’s case and ruled in favor of Dimaya.
Justice Gorsuch’s decision was greeted with surprise, even shock, from both sides of the political spectrum. Mr Gorsuch was celebrated as a “Crossover Sensation” by renowned Libertarian Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh, while the Wall Street Journal praised his decision as a “Good Opinion” that positioned him as a worthy successor to Justice Scalia’s undying dedication to enforcing the Constitution as originally understood without regard to political considerations. However, Mr Gorsuch’s opinion also drew criticism from both sides of the aisle, albeit for different considerations: Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) criticized it as “very disappointing” by making it harder to deport illegal immigrants, while the progressive outlet ThinkProgress warned its readers that Gorsuch’s opinion should “chill” them by serving as an indication of his ideological commitment to an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Although surprising to spectators, Justice Gorsuch’s agreement with his more liberal counterparts is “unlikely to be the last” time he concurs with them, demonstrating his deep-seated commitment to upholding the Constitution as originally understood above partisan ideology, taking to heart the late Justice Scalia’s declaration that “the judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge”.
Don’t Care
0. Comey’s "What Happened"
Accepting irrelevance is difficult
Rarely does an individual fall in public esteem as far or as quickly as has former FBI Director James Comey following the US 2016 Presidential Election. The former Director was formerly well-regarded for his non-partisan, competent, and experienced administration of one of America’s most important law enforcement administration, accolades he quickly lost in his management of the Trump-Russian Collusion and Clinton Email Scandal investigations. First, he publicly decided not to accuse Mrs. Clinton in a speech that strongly suggested she was liable.
Later, when given a vague tip-off that had a mere possibility of revealing evidence about Mrs. Clinton, he was so certain that Clinton would win that he announced he was re-investigating her hoping to be praised for transparency; some of the most respected pollsters in the country subsequently attributed President Trump’s victory to Mr Comey’s announcement. Once he took office, he took to a publicly non-committal position on the Russia investigation while promising the president at least three times that he was not under investigation. Ultimately, this annoyed his new boss to the point Mr Comey was fired without warning, which he rather comically learned in the middle of an unrelated routine interview.
In keeping with his rather prodigious talent of attempting to appease the right and left while somehow simultaneously enraging both, Mr Comey has decided to publish a book about the events that led to his disgraceful termination. Despite being cast as an attempt to reframe the conversation around him, Mr Comey’s book remarkably does little to challenge the public understanding of the events in question. Instead, the book has been the subject of consistent, bipartisan condemnation, as liberals fear he is further costing them the moral high-ground against Trump with his petty publication while conservatives ridicule his failure to accept where his mistakes have landed him.
Despite Mrs. Clinton being his downfall, Mr Comey nowadays has much in common with her. The American people would much rather be done with both of them, reacting with almost universal exasperation as both refuse to accept their new status and continue to disgrace themselves looking for attention. Hopefully the book drives home the message that the FBI director undone exclusively by his remarkable series of missteps should stop playing the game.
Philip Straus, Jay Yu, Sean Conway, Sophie Chen, Dominic Bayer, and Jose Trejos contributed to this report.