In the aftermath of Trump’s missile strike, congressional Democrats urged precaution while Republican leaders promptly urged President Trump to push for Assad’s ousting. The Democrats have apparently been proved correct in emphasizing precaution; President Bashar al-Assad’s allies have since threatened reprisals against any further assaults on the regime. This development doesn’t bode well for future success in handling the Syrian crisis. A miscalculated American intervention in Syria might worsen the country’s humanitarian crisis, drag America into another war in the Middle East, and leave a leadership void for myriad extremist groups.
The humanitarian situation in Syria is already appalling, with over 400,000 people killed since 2011. The Assad regime has showed little concern for innocent civilians when securing power. If the US toughens their assaults on the regime, a Russia-led retaliation could be imminent, leading to a possible confrontation between the US and Russia. Indeed, Russia and Iran have already committed to “respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.” In this scenario, civilian casualties and internal displacement would certainly deteriorate further.
Read more at the Daily Caller
Last week, a New York court charged white supremacist and army veteran, James Jackson, with second-degree murder for fatally stabbing a black man, Timothy Caughman, to death. Jackson later revealed that his frequent usage of neo-Nazi website, The Daily Stormer, informed his hate views confirming the violent rise in far-right activities.
Like other hate-fueled crimes committed in the last few months across Europe and the U.S., an unrestrained progression in far-right attitudes, especially those ignorantly propagated by political leaders, might trigger more racial intolerance, negatively affect economies and serve a victory for religious extremism and communist states.
Most of these violent opinions have reversed racial and religious tolerance, triggering attacks on minority groups, and, if unchecked, might brook more violence with threat on social diversity. It could also re-institutionalize racism, leaving a negative backdrop on the prolific tourist industry in Europe and the U.S. since one in ten enterprises in the non-financial business economy of European states are linked to tourism.
These over 2.2 million enterprises employ 12 million persons. In fact, Germany and France are top beneficiaries, with an average of over €38 billion in revenue between them. Likewise in the U.S., tourism supports over 7 million jobs and produces an economic output of over $1.6 million.
Continue reading at Outset Magazine
The Trump administration recently pressured the G20 to drop its long-standing commitment to free trade as part of its resolve to “protect America’s economic interests.” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin rejected multiple phrases emphasizing the importance of resisting protectionism in drafts of the summit’s joint language statement, signaling a major change in trade priorities from the U.S. government. Just like the Trans-Pacific Trade (TPP) withdrawal, the Trump administration’s isolationist position could be detrimental to its diplomatic influence, affect employment, and hinder international efforts against poverty.
Through protectionism and a distorted foreign policy, the Trump administration is toying with the already strained diplomatic relations with long-time allies, especially Germany and the United Kingdom. And if it continues to disagree on crucial economic issues like the G20 Free Trade Agreement (FTA), it might lead to strained relations on other fronts, like the efforts against terrorism or the nuclear disarmament of Iran and North Korea. With the latest developments to both issues, a disparity with allies is the last thing the US needs.
Instead, Washington should look at ways to strengthen economic ties instituted under the previous regime, particularly at a time when China is heavily expanding its trade network in a bid to displace the US.
Continue reading at The Daily Caller.
The Nigerian government recently launched the Social Investment Programme (SIP), a welfare scheme aimed at alleviating poverty. Through SIP, the government plans to feed 3.5 million schoolchildren, create jobs and offer loans to 1.6 million Nigerians. The program’s framework might seem noble and appealing, but its dependence on borrowing makes poverty eradication doubtful while increasing the country’s debt profile and general interest rate.
First, current levels of poverty in Nigeria are linked to debt incurred in the 1980s and 1990s. This debt has hindered each successive administration’s ability to spend on development projects to reduce poverty. Thus, borrowing to fund SIP will inflate the country’s already high debt profile, and negatively influence individual financial security as average income decreases while tax increases. These changes in financial strength will consequently affect savings and investment, which are prerequisites for poverty reduction.
While the government hopes the scheme will help drive entrepreneurship, SIP will do the opposite. If Nigeria’s creditors doubt the government’s inability to repay borrowed funds (likely considering the dwindling oil revenue), there will be higher demands on interest rates to counteract the risk, thereby upsetting general interest rates. This means potential entrepreneurs might get discouraged and existing businesses might not risk high interest loans to expand. This decrease in business growth and economic strength can possibly lead to more poverty.
Continue reading at AfricanLiberty.