Memorandum on the Keystone Pipeline

Memorandum on U.S. Environmental Policy

26 April 2017

To: Jared Kushner

CC: Professor Shirk

From: Chandler Skolnick

Memorandum on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Issue Overview:

            The United States’ environmental policy has been a hot button part of public debate within the recent decade. U.S. Presidential Administrations have been dealing with this issue for quite some time, from Nixon’s establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, to the Obama Administration’s extensive attempts to establish new regulations on emissions. There has been much concern over how the environmental friendly Obama Administration will be succeeded by President Donald Trump. One specific controversy that has been at the forefront of the environmental debate is the Keystone Pipeline System. This project, originally commissioned in 2010, is an oil pipeline that stretches from refineries in Texas to Alberta, Canada. The Pipeline was built in phases, the first three of which have been approved and constructed. It is the fourth phase, known as Keystone XL that has been the primary basis for a new rallying cry by environmentalists regarding the climate change and the use of fossil fuels by the United States.

Presidential Actions on the Pipeline:

            Obama Administration

Throughout the Obama Administration and thus far into the Trump Administration, the Keystone Pipeline has been a constant argument at the forefront of political dealings. The decision to expand the pipeline is one that has deeply divided political parties. Numerous times during his presidency, Obama defended his decision to reject the pipeline extension despite the possibility of its creation of thousands of jobs (Bloomberg). Obama’s reasoning for this decision, ultimately culminating with a presidential veto, was due to the significant economic and environmental impact that the pipeline could possibly have.

            Trump Administration

            Shortly after President Trump’s Inauguration, an Executive Order was put in place to resubmit an application and expedite the approval for the Keystone Pipeline. Clearly, these two Administrations hold wildly differing opinions regarding Keystone and the best decision to make regarding it, while keeping in mind the country’s best interest.

Problem:

            President Trump’s decision to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline has resulted in extensive backlash and protests from environmentalists throughout the country. Many have urged the President to withdraw the Executive Order, which has expedited the program’s approval.

Solution:

            Despite the serious backlash that the President has felt regarding his Executive Order, it is a decision that should be upheld. While one popular reason for this pipeline extension has been its guarantee to create about 10,000 jobs, the large majority of these would be temporary construction jobs (Bloomberg). Regardless of how long these jobs are to last for, they are still jobs. American citizens are desperate for work. With the addition of the pipeline extension, even short-term jobs could not only help the families of those currently out of work, but also potentially help boost the U.S. economy back to a position of power following years of disappointing performance.

Additionally, the pipeline extension would exponentially heighten the U.S. path towards energy security. The American reliance on foreign resources, specifically oil, has carried with it countless controversies and conflicts. With a secure pipeline within the United States, it becomes much easier to extract and distribute oil domestically. Such ability can ultimately be one step towards energy independence, which in turn would undoubtedly prevent further conflict in a troubled region of the globe.

Many environmentalists strongly oppose the creation of this pipeline extension as they claim that an oil pipeline is wildly unsafe and any accident could lead to a devastating spill. To the contrary of their claims, the pipeline extension would actually not pose as much of a danger as believed. As part of the project’s agreement, the pipeline would be constructed using the most updated standards and safety procedures to ensure that it is secure, which would ultimately make it a more secure way to transport crude oil than most of the existing pipelines in the U.S. (Bloomberg). If anything, the Keystone XL Pipeline will drastically improve the safety of the environment, rather than hurt it.

In conclusion, President Trump’s decision to expedite the approval of the Keystone XL extension is one that should not be questioned by the Administration. It will not only help create jobs in some capacity, but also push the U.S. towards becoming energy independent. Its environmental risks are minimal, and those that oppose this project should not deter the President from this decision.

Works Cited

"In Defense of Trump's Keystone Decision." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 26 Jan.             2017. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.

Latin America

Memo on Coca in Colombia

To: Michele Leonhart, DEA

From: Kayla Proctor

Subject: Coca in Colombia

Date: April 21, 2017

Cc: Mark Shirk

Colombia's main export is coca, a crop that is used exclusively to make cocaine. Cocaine is a highly addictive drug that many people worldwide have access to. Colombia's drug cartel has been profiting on this crop for years, and has been smuggling it into America. This causes an epidemic for the American citizens, creating a large amount of people overdosing, and affecting those around them. The United States have an obligation to stop coca from crossing the borders, protecting its citizens. It also has an obligation to help the farmers that grow the coca, because without this crop they will be unable to survive. The United States needs to find them another way to make money, and to protect them from the drug cartels that will be affected by the farmers that stop growing the coca.

The United States has done a few things, though not effectively. The United States has used the strategies of banning the use of drugs altogether, which does not help help anything for a few reasons. First, people are not going to stop using drugs, and by banning them it just makes people look for them harder. American citizens have an increasingly high demand for drugs, and we are the number one customer for the drug cartels, so banning drugs does not solve anything. Secondly, it does not help the farmers growing this crop because without it, they would not be able to live. Eradicating the crops, without replacing it with a new crop, has also been a strategy that is not effective because again, the farmers are left with nothing.

I propose that the United States use a few solutions to solve these problems, different from what we have done in the past. One thing to do is to provide the farmers in Colombia with a different job, or a different product to grow that will allow them to still make money and survive. It has to be a crop that will survive in that type of environment, which would be different crops than ones that work here. We would also want it to be something that we do not currently produce in America because we want to be able to trade with them, allowing for their economy to still be in good standings. The other thing I think we should do is get involved with drug education courses and programs. both in and out of schools. The more people are educated about the dangers of certain drugs, the less likely they are to try it. We would need to be honest with people, and classify cocaine as a harder drug than marijuana, and explain why marijuana might be legal, but cocaine definitely should not be. Drug use has an effect on themselves, their friends, their family, and their community, and showing that would deter people from using cocaine, because drugs like marijuana do not usually affect others as much as it affects themselves, and some people would not do harder drugs knowing they could potentially harm others. If the demand for cocaine in the United States goes down, the growth of coca in Colombia will go down as well, because America is their best customer.

Colombia's largest export is the crop coca, which is only used to make cocaine. Drug cartels in Latin America, and Columbia specifically, consistently exploit farmers in the area, and force them to grow this crop out of fear. The United States is contributing to the growth of coca by maintaining a high demand for the drug, which increases the price of the crop, as well as the amount being grown on farms in Colombia and elsewhere. Through drug education and helping the farmers grow something else or get new jobs, the U.S. will be able to reduce the consumption and demand of the drug, and reduce the presence of corrupt cartels in Colombia.

Economy & Environment Memo - Bobby Orokos

Memorandum on NAFTA and its Effect on US Jobs

To: President of the United States, Donald Trump

Cc. Mark Shirk

April 20, 2017

Mr. President,

Issue Overview:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is an established treaty between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, in which free trade was established between these three states.  NAFTA has been beneficial for trade between these states, and served as a North American model of the European Union, where the economic ties lead to mutual support politically and militarily.  Although there are many temporary issues with NAFTA, the best option for the future of the United States is to remain in the NAFTA treaty, as it solidifies the nations of North America, and creates the availability of cheap goods.

NAFTA Specifications:

NAFTA is a treaty regarding free trade between the three states of North America.  Under NAFTA, the states of Canada, United States, and Mexico hold open border trades, resulting in low tariffs, and access to cheap goods produced and traded between these states.  Despite these gains, the United States loses its production jobs, as it is cheaper to produce goods in a country with less regulation when it comes to labor laws.  Although with the loss of these jobs, goods are made cheaper in the United States, along with the strengthening of relations between the states of North America, creating a strongly unified continent.

Current Policy:

Under your presidency, discussions of leaving NAFTA are in the works.  NAFTA, although sharing and distributing the labor throughout the continent, has caused the price of goods to go down, while also taking jobs away from American workers, and giving them to Mexican workers in Mexico for cheaper labor.  However, the loss of these jobs has resulted in cheaper goods being sold in the United States.  Under your proposed solution of leaving NAFTA, workers would be able to work again, but because of the high labor standards of labor in the United States, the prices of domestically-produced goods would skyrocket.  However, these jobs would eventually be replaced by automation, therefore resulting in an eventual loss of jobs, and making America an industrial producing economy, as opposed to a service economy.

Proposed Solution:

By remaining in NAFTA, the United States does temporarily lose out in holding the production jobs, but advances in the sense of modernizing our economy.  By taking jobs back to the United States, we are only taking our economy back in time and forcing us to gain temporary wealth, whereas in the long run, these jobs will be replaced by machines.  By remaining in NAFTA, we will continue to modernize our economy and transition to the service economic sector, while maintaining the access to cheap goods.  Under this treaty, America does not “lose out”, but wins in the long run by taking a temporary setback.

Conclusion:

Remaining in NAFTA is the best option for the United States when it comes to modernizing our economy, and achieving our political agenda of cheap goods and the formation of jobs.  Although not necessarily beneficial in the present, the advancement of the economy and workforce in the future will prove truly supportive of the interests of the people of the United States.  Although the older generation of workers will lose their possibilities of working with their trade skill, these skills will eventually be overridden by automation, therefore making it better to replace these jobs now than resort back to them, only to lose them in the future.  The support of the NAFTA treaty is crucial to the overall advancement of the American people and economy.

Memo: Latin America

Memorandum on Coca in Colombia

To: Rex Tillerson

From: Grace Picariello

Subject: Coca in Colombia

Date: April 20, 2017

Cc: Mark Shirk

Coca is a crop that is used exclusively to make cocaine, a highly addictive stimulant drug that is a huge problem worldwide. The Coca plant is Colombia’s most profitable crop; it has been for decades. PBS explains that, “what started as a small cocaine smuggling business has, in the last thirty years, blossomed into an enormous multi-national cocaine empire” (PBS). The National Colombian Police believe there to be approximately three hundred active drug smuggling organizations in Colombia today. The industry has fragmented, so different groups have different jobs when it comes to growing and transporting the coca. For example, one group smuggles the drugs from Colombia to Mexico. One group is in control of the jungle labs. Another group deals with the transportation of coca from fields to labs. The list goes on. The task of the United States is to stop coca from entering our borders and lessen the presence of corrupt cartels in Latin America, specifically Colombia.

Currently, the United States is doing very little to stop cocaine from illegally entering the country from Latin America. The United States has used traditional strategies in the past, such as banning the use of drugs altogether, eradicating the crops, and using the military to battle the growers of the drugs. Latin American people and governments are resisting these efforts and initiatives. The New York Times claims, “the resistance reflects the declining influence of the United States in Latin America and a sweeping sense that its methods to fight drugs in the region have failed” (New York Times). The United States population is aiding in this growing industry as the citizens have an increasingly high demand for the drug. As a result of this, the prices are increasing and the appeal to become involved in the industry is rising.

I propose that the United States make every effort to stop the flow of cocaine from Latin America to U.S. borders. One way is to increase border security and conduct more drug searches and tests. Next, schools in the United States, unanimously, should tighten up and expand their drug education courses and programs. If the younger generation was more knowledgeable about the effects that drug use has on themselves, their friends, their family, and their community, the education department might deter more children and teenagers from ever beginning to use drugs. If the demand for cocaine in the United States goes down, so will the growth of coca in Colombia. More importantly, drug cartels and corruption in the industry will lessen when they are making less money from the crop. Although we cannot control the rate at which Colombians grow and transport coca, we can drive the need for the crop and the price the consumer is willing to pay for it, down.

Colombia is one of the largest producers and exporters of the crop coca, which is used to make the illegal, highly addictive drug, cocaine. Cartels in Latin America are highly corrupt and consistently exploit farmers in the area. The United States is contributing to this by maintaining a high demand for the drug, which is increasing the price of the crop, as well as the amount being grown on farms in Colombia and elsewhere. Through drug education and the increase of drug searches at our borders, the U.S. will be able to reduce the consumption and demand of the drug, and reduce the presence of corrupt cartels in Colombia.

Combating Boko Haram Memo - Bobby Orokos

Memorandum on Indirectly Combating Boko Haram

To: President of the United States, Donald Trump

Cc. Mark Shirk

April 13, 2017

Mr. President,

Problem:

Boko Haram is a jihadist terrorist organization that plagues northern Africa, specifically in Nigeria.  Boko Haram is dedicated to the avoidance of Western influence, as the name itself translates to “Western education is forbidden”.  The goals of the organization shifted from withdrawing from Western influence to forcing out Western ideas in the hopes of establishing a caliphate.  Boko Haram is a threat that needs to be handled before it becomes too out of control, but the United States also needs to not be directly involved in the dismemberment of the organization, as US involvement could lead to a stronger presence in Boko Haram recruitment.

First we need to understand the roots of the organization of Boko Haram.  Originally a peaceful group, their methods were altered after oppressing Muslims in Northern Nigeria as a result of a motorbike helmet law, which targeted Muslims.  During protests, a fatal shootout that killed their leader, Mohammed Yousuf, led to the radicalization of the group.  Leadership was granted to Abubakar Shekau, who declared the organization's new goals of overthrowing the NIgerian government, and establishing a Caliphate.  As a result of their similar goals, Boko Haram has declared alliance with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Evidence:

Boko Haram targets any person’s associated with Western culture, or the West itself.  As seen in the 2014 social media campaign #BringOurGirlsBack, Boko Haram was responsible for the abduction of nearly 300 Nigerian school girls.  Today, many of the girls were found married off to Boko Haram fighters, in addition to a total of 6 declared dead.  In addition to these girls, Boko Haram is responsible for about 2,000 child abductions, 20,000 deaths, and a refugee crisis leaving 200,000 people fleeing from Boko Haram displaced in the countries of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger.  Boko Haram has been a massive issue for the people of this area, and needs to be dealt with before the threat reaches a crisis level.

US Policy on Boko Haram Today:

Now, the United States is dedicated to the development of Nigeria.  However, while growing the plant, the US has refused to combat the flies that slowly cause the destruction of the nation.  Whereas the United States has declared war on all forms of terror, it has not done much to combat the actions of Boko Haram.  

Proposed Solution:

The best way to approach the issue of Boko Haram is to spread awareness about the group.  Although the #BringOurGirlsBack campaign did spread the message about Boko Haram, it was a short lived campaign where the instance was slowly lost to time, and knowledge of the group to a common person in the United States is almost non-existent.  Should people be informed about the group, they would want to take action against the organization for the sake of human rights.  However, more focus is being pressed on ISIS, as a result of the United States interests in the Middle East.  Although Nigeria is an ally to the US and holds much potential for Africa as a whole, the United States has not sent resources to combat this target.

The best way for the United States to assist in the elimination of the Boko Haram organization is to indirectly sent weapons and training to Nigerian fighters.  Should the United States directly get involved in the conflict, Boko Haram could use this Western intervention as a way to rally support to resist the Westernization of Africa and other areas around the world, and unify other people in developing countries to unify to oppose the West as a whole.  By indirectly helping Nigeria eradicate the Boko Haram organization, the United States will not be victim to the claims of Boko Haram, and another organization dedicated to the threatening of peace will be eliminated from international politics, along with the loss of an ally of ISIS.

Memo- Africa/Nigeria/Boko Haram

Memorandum on Intervention in Nigeria

To: Donald Trump

Cc: Mark Shirk
From: Grace Picariello

Date: April 11, 2017
Subject: American Foreign Policy

Problem:
Northern Africa is often a region of the world that is overlooked by the United States and other major powers. The countries get little media attention, if any, and therefore most of the public does not understand the extent of the atrocities and hardships that are experienced there. Nigeria has specifically detrimental issues going on. Boko Haram, an islamic extremist group, dominates areas of the country. Boko Haram is usually present in the areas that are prone to extreme rates of poverty and illiteracy. Boko Haram adopts a literal interpretation of the Quran and seeks to apply Sharia Law in the state. Furthermore, they reject market-based economies. The group's main goal is to withdraw from Nigeria and establish a caliphate in Africa. To accomplish this, they plan on overthrowing the government of Nigeria in the foreseeable future.

Evidence:

Since 2009, Boko Haram has been responsible for the deaths of approximately 20,000 people. Almost 2.2 million citizens of Nigeria have been forced to flee their homes due to the threat that Boko Haram poses. Worse, nearly 2,000 children have been kidnapped and have been forced to be sex slaves, fighters, or suicide bombers. Many scholars deem Boko Haram to be even deadlier than the Islamic State in Syria. 

Current Policy:
While the United States has been active in trying to solidify Nigeria's democratic institutions and strengthen their economy to lessen poverty levels, we have done little to combat Boko Haram specifically. However; we do provide relief programs like emergency food and nutrition services for victims, people living in poverty, and displaced persons of Nigeria.

Proposed Solution:
The United States of America must come together as a nation to educate our people to bring more attention to the atrocities that Boko Haram has carried out. Furthermore, our military must play an active role in eliminating this terrorist group. We shall not use ground forces but drones and air strikes to wreak havoc on the areas that Boko Haram controls. Our main goal should be to take out the leaders of Boko Haram to destabilize the group as a whole. Furthermore, America should work to provide more relief programs and fund those that are already in place more heavily.

Boko Haram is a terrorist group that is destroying the lives of tens of thousands of Nigerian women, men, and children. They commit heinous crimes daily and the United States has taken no direct measures to combat them. If the United States takes a more active role in using air strikes and drones then we will be able to lessen the impact that the group has on the livelihoods of innocent civilians in Nigeria.

###

Memo on Nuclear Negotiations with Russia

Memorandum on U.S.-Russia Nuclear Relations

From: Chandler Skolnick

CC: Professor Shirk

To: Secretary of State Tillerson

22 March 2017

 Recent U.S.-Russia Nuclear Plans

            In the decades following World War II, the United States and USSR/Russia have attempted to decrease the threat of nuclear warfare between each other through constant negotiations of establishing non-proliferation agreements. Despite such talks, the two opposing superpowers have been unable to find an agreement that will successfully remain in tact as well as equally deal with the threat of nuclear weapons by Russia, which is specifically displayed since the fall of the Soviet Union with the negotiations of the START agreements.

START Programs

            First announced in 1982, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) enacted limitations and reductions on both nations’ strategic nuclear weapons. This agreement limited the amount of delivery vehicles (ICBMs and MIRVs) to 1,600, while also limiting nuclear weapons to 6,000 on an incremental scale (Andreason). This plan was delayed due to several minor non-negotiable terms by the USSR and was officially signed in 1988.

In 1993, START II was signed, which was another bilateral treaty between the U.S. and Russia on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (Andreason). The aim was to limit MIRVs and ICBMs on both sides in a two-phase scale back. The ultimate goal was to reduce nuclear warheads to 3,000 with no more than 650 on ICBMs (Viakov). The treaty was never truly put into effect as it was stalled by Russia in protest of U.S. involvement in Kosovo, and then only ceremoniously ratified due to American strong-arming.

START III was a failed agreement in 1997. It aimed to gradually reduce the amount of nuclear warheads on either side to no more than 2,500 by 2007. The discussion of commencing the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads and other tactical weapons was also a major agreement made in this deal (Viakov). Despite this, it was never signed and was quickly overshadowed by the SORT negotiations.

SORT

            The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) was an agreement that was enacted between 2003 and 2011, limiting both nations’ deployment of strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 2,200 (Andreason). This Treaty failed to discuss the destruction of nuclear warheads, or even the limits to tactical weapons, nor were the implementations technically permanent; as well as the fact that it held no punishments for failing to adhere to the aforementioned terms. New START swiftly replaced SORT after several years.

New START

            Since the START II Treaty was technically still enacted, President Obama chose to build negotiations based on that rather than continue the SORT Agreement (Cox 255). In what is called the New START, both nations are limited to no more than ICBM launchers as well as other delivery systems (Diakov). It also limits the amount of nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550. This Treaty was put into effect in 2011, and will be up for renewal in 2021.

Problems Regarding These Agreements

            Time and time again, Russia has proven to be stubborn in their promises to reduce and/or limit their nuclear arsenal. Just recently, President Trump has issued statements claiming that Russia has been expanding their nuclear weapons cache (Lockie). Clearly, they are not adhering to the various agreements that both U.S. and Russian leaders have agreed to over the past few decades. In recent 2016 statistics, Russia currently has more warheads than when the New START agreement was signed in 2011 (Kristensen). The U.S. must take a new tactic towards dealing with Russia’s nuclear lust.

Solution

            In order to appropriately deal with the Russian Government, a firm stance must be taken. It must first be acknowledged that a world with no nuclear weapons is a realistically dangerous world. This is due to the fact that if no country in the world contains nuclear weapons, then the first country or organization to gain control of such a weapon is at the greatest chance of using it, since there is no possibility of facing retaliation from another nuclear weapon. With that being said, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the world’s best defense at preventing a nuclear strike. It is clear that it is futile for the U.S. Government to place trust in Russia to abide by the restrictions and guidelines that are set in place; nor is it possible to establish an agreement that places more supervision on Russia’s disarmament. History has proven that Russia can be stubborn, specifically by blocking such an agreement from being ratified, if more supervision or restrictions are added to such a treaty.

Therefore, the best course of action would be to disregard the New START, as Russia is clearly not taking it seriously. Instead, the United States Government needs to revamp its production and advancement of nuclear technology. It must be highlighted that this is not done in an aggressive manor toward Russia, but more of a healthy competition to increase the U.S. arsenal compared to Russia. The United States has proven in the past that it can unequivocally outspend Russia and build superior weapons, which causes the inevitability that Russia will be unable to keep up, and thus be forced to concede to a scale back of weapons, one that will be much more in line with what the U.S. originally wanted. Without a display of economic and technological advancement by the United States, he Russian Government will never willingly level the playing fields. They must first be broken; only then will they willingly sit at the table to negotiate fairly.

Works Cited

Andreason, Steve. "A Strong Start." Foreign Affairs. N.p., 04 Jan. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

Cox, Michael, and Doug Stokes. US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

Diakov, Anatoli. "TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS." Instant Research on Peace and Violence 5.1, The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1975): 55-58. Web.

Kristensen, Hans M. "New START Data Shows Russian Warhead Increase Before Expected Decrease." Federation Of American Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

Lockie, Alex. "How the US's Nuclear Weapons Compare to Russia's." Business Insider. Business Insider, 28 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.