Since 2012, Russia has become subject of ever more Western sanctions. Some have been unilateral U.S. sanctions, while Western allies have joined in others. Currently, the United States has about 15 different sanctions programs for Russia, and several others have been proposed. Sensibly, the Biden administration has called for a review of U.S. Russia sanctions. Sanctions should be effective. They should deter, punish and hopefully reverse bad behavior. Narrowly targeted and clearly defined sanctions are usually more effective than broad sanctions that, for example, aim at regime change. The more countries that participate, the more effective sanctions tend to be. Therefore, the Biden administration is right in its intent to return to far-reaching coordination with European allies in its Russia sanctions. The first American sanctions on Russia after the Cold War was the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. It targets violators of human rights and corruption in Russia. Over 50 Russian officials and private helpers and some entities have been sanctioned, according to this law. The acts of these culprits are illegal according to Russian law, but the Kremlin defends its criminal officials and is upset over the Magnitsky sanctions, which vouches for their efficacy ADVERTISEMENT The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act followed , applying the same principles globally, targeting corrupt and tyrannic top officials and tycoons. The two Magnitsky Acts seem ideal forms of sanctions. They have become popular with the NGO community, while being feared by big crooks. The United States should sanction the seven top officials and tycoons that Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has proposed. Another group of sanctions concerns other countries, notably Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela. Often, Russian companies, state-owned or private, are involved in these illicit operations, but these sanctions programs do not belong to a ...
United states cold storage dallas tx
Human rights are a worthy but tricky foundation for foreign policy
The Biden administration is reintroducing liberal principles – the promotion of democracy and human rights – as a major foundation of U.S. foreign policy. Rejecting the Trumpian transactional approach, which sought to deal with foreign governments on the basis of give and take (often more take than give) regardless of their regime types and moral commitments, the Biden administration seeks to re-center democratization and human rights proliferation in its foreign policy agenda. Clearly in line with core American values, this change will likely be praised by many progressives and conservatives alike. But it also opens a Pandora’s box of challenges. The most obvious challenge is that of legitimacy: How can the U.S. maintain the legitimacy of its liberal principles when its uneven application of these principles reveals rank hypocrisy? The U.S. has historically allied itself with, and actively promoted, authoritarian regimes, as long as they were in accordance with U.S. economic or military interests. The U.S. still turns a blind eye to major human rights violations by allies or nations it seeks to court, while simultaneously condemning those countries it considers its adversaries. Thus, we hear volumes about abuses by China, for very good reason, but next to nothing about human rights violations by Vietnam , which the U.S. considers a major anti-China ally. The U.S. is relatively quiet about massive extrajudicial killings by the Philippine government, nearly silent about India’s gross and growing abuse of its Muslim citizens and seemingly tongue-tied about the shredding of democracy by U.S. NATO ally Turkey. Condemning human rights abuses is the act of taking a moral stand in foreign policy. Moral stands don’t go over well when applied inconsistently — when foes' feet are held to the fire while transgressions by friends are ignored. ADVERTISEMENT The next challenge the U.S. faces with its renewed liberal foreign policy is one of implementation. ...
Modest Hero of “Forgotten War” Recalls Historic Rescue Mission
MIAMI (CBSMiami) – Burley Smith remembers Christmas Day 1950 at the height of the Korean war. The retired Miami realtor, now 92, was a 21-year-old sailor aboard the United States Merchant Marine vessel Meredith Victory. READ MORE: Flu Has Virtually Disappeared In US During COVID Pandemic He and a few other shipmates had recently graduated from the Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point, New York. The ship was in Korean waters to carry military equipment to U.S. troops. He vividly recalls the ship. “The ship was the Meredith Victory ship, hundreds were built during World War II, the top speed was 17 knots, about 20 miles an hour. It had 15 cargo holds and carried a crew of 47 people and could only carry 12 passengers,” said Smith. But the ship’s assignment changed as thousands of desperate North Koreans fled from the Chinese army. In the bitter cold, Smith and his fellow crew members loaded 14,000 refugees on board for a three-day rescue mission. “We happened to be the ship that took the most because our skipper Captain Leonard LaRue said ‘pack them aboard as tightly as you can’,” said Smith. “We had 14,000 people stuffed on a small ship. No toilets, no food, no water. They were locked down in the hold afraid mostly of disease.” The refugees made it safely to South Korea. The Meredith Victory became known as the “ship of miracles” completing the largest humanitarian rescue mission by a single ship in history. “The miracle part of it was the Koreans behaved so well- there was no riot,” said Smith. READ MORE: Baker Tells Oversight Panel Examining Bumpy Vaccine Rollout Supply Is Biggest Issue “None of them spoke English and none of us spoke Korean, my respect for them is immense,” he added. Burley Smith (CBS4) The rescue is part of South Korean history. There’s a memorial in the city of Geoje, which Smith has visited. He’s also been presented with medals and commendations from the South Korean government. “The Koreans celebrate it ...
Six ways to visualize a divided America
It’s not your imagination and it’s not hyperbole: The nation is as politically divided today as at any point in the last century. President Biden Joe Biden Klain on Manchin's objection to Neera Tanden: He 'doesn't answer to us at the White House' Senators given no timeline on removal of National Guard, Capitol fence Overnight Defense: New Senate Armed Services chairman talks Pentagon policy nominee, Afghanistan, more | Biden reads report on Khashoggi killing | Austin stresses vaccine safety in new video MORE captured 224 congressional districts in the 2020 elections, compared to 211 won by former President Trump Donald Trump Senators given no timeline on removal of National Guard, Capitol fence Democratic fury with GOP explodes in House Georgia secretary of state withholds support for 'reactionary' GOP voting bills MORE . Only 16 districts — nine held by Republicans, seven by Democrats — split their vote between the presidential contest and congressional races. That’s a little under 4 percent of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. To put that in historical context, as recently as 1988, a third of congressional districts split their vote between presidential and House elections. The percentage of split-ticket districts hasn’t been this low since 1920, according to research from Brookings . ADVERTISEMENT The lines along which the United States is divided are shifting, and the two party coalitions are evolving to define the future of politics for the next decade or more. If the last decade was replete with reminders that demographics were destiny, the coming years will show that density is determinative. Here are six charts that illustrate where we are, and where we’re headed — and a note of thanks to the team at Daily Kos Elections , who crunched the numbers to show presidential election results by congressional district for each of the last three national elections: Democrats dominate ...
It’s time to confront the dark postscript to America’s role in defeating the Nazis
Lev Golinkin writes on refugee and immigrant identity, as well as Ukraine, Russia and the far right. He is the author of the memoir " A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka ." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN. (CNN) Last weekend, the United States deported Friedrich Karl Berger, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard. The deportation was seen as a triumph of justice. When commenting on the case, Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson lauded the efforts of law enforcement involved in the process, while affirming America isn't "a safe haven for those who participated in Nazi crimes." Except that it has been. Lev Golinkin The US, of course, played a crucial role in defeating Nazi Germany. Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in the war against Adolf Hitler. But there's also a dark postscript to this story, one that began when World War II ended and one that we need to address now. America's been a haven for thousands of Nazis and Nazi collaborators who served in concentration camps and death squads and SS units. Several were even leaders of Nazi-allied governments. And we didn't merely take them in -- in some cases, we welcomed and protected them; we kept them safe from justice. It's far past time we acknowledged it. Besides the obvious ethical reasons for historical honesty, there are also social ones. We're in the middle of a heated national conversation fueled by a hunger for racial justice. But how can we hope to acknowledge the impact of centuries-old institutions like slavery and Jim Crow when we can't be honest about coddling perpetrators of the Holocaust, which still has living eyewitnesses, victims and veterans? We can't get to 1619 if we can't get past 1945. Read More The rare occasion when the American government does acknowledge working with Nazis is Operation Paperclip , which brought over some 120 Third Reich rocket scientists, such as ...
