Information and news about politics.

 Stateless People
Statelessness is a phenomenon that affects an estimated 10 million people globally. Those affected have been denied citizenship and are refused self-identification and other government documentation necessary for acquiring rights granted by the state.

Photojournalist Greg Constantine stumbled upon the issue of statelessness in 2002. In response, he created the project Nowhere People and for 10 years traveled to the impoverished communities where statelessness is most common. Utilizing his photojournalism skills, Constantine has been able to put a face to the issue of statelessness and share the stories of those affected by it. His mission, he explains, “aims to show the human toll the denial of citizenship has claimed on people and ethnic groups,” and to “provide tangible documentation of proof that millions of people hidden and forgotten all over the world actually exist.” The Nowhere People project has aroused awareness and drawn in advocacy from various organizations that share the same mission.

One of the many organizations fighting statelessness is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In 2014, the UNHCR launched the Campaign to End Statelessness — #IBelong — within 10 years. Through establishing coalitions with governments, organizations and stateless groups, the UNHCR has been able to erect a global alliance that offers supportive assistance for stateless people.

The UNHCR emphasizes that political support and involvement must occur in order for statelessness to end. Suggested political involvement of the states includes law and policy reform, the protection of children from statelessness, ending any discrimination that prohibits nationality, providing protection for migrants and appropriately providing identification documents.

Due to early efforts of the UNHCR, four million stateless people have been granted nationality since 2003. Following the launch of the Campaign to End Statelessness, the UNHCR has succeeded in expanding its budget and in 2015, held a budget of $68 million. Additionally, they have been able to send out specialists to foster relations and work collectively with other organizations and national governments.

Stateless people face insecurities every day surrounding their livelihood. Basic human rights are jeopardized, safety is uncertain, poverty is a reality and opportunity is hindered. Projects such as Nowhere People, along with the efforts of UNHCR and other allied organizations, not only offer hope that those experiencing statelessness will one day obtain nationality but also provides a nearer future for efficiently managing the progress of moving out of poverty.

Amy Williams

Photo: Flickr

Trump's Policy on Domestic Poverty
With so little time left until the U.S. presidential election, the tension between candidates, ideologies and policies has nearly peaked. Donald Trump’s policies hold the promise of “making America great again” by reinvigorating the economy through protectionist trade policies, ridding the country of those who take advantage of the system as well as tax cuts to the rich and corporations. Further study shows that a different outcome would result from Trump’s policy on domestic poverty.

According to many economic experts, Trump’s policy on domestic poverty would lead the nation into recession, most harshly affecting the poorest households. Trump’s policies would “significantly” weaken the country and drive the U.S. into a “lengthy recession,” according to a Moody’s Analytics report. An estimated 3.5 million jobs could be lost and the unemployment rate could increase from 5% to 7%. The average household would face a regressive consumption tax of $11,100 over five years.

Citing trade deficits with Mexico, China and Japan, Trump has continuously claimed that the U.S. has lost its dominance through weak trade agreements and outsourcing manufacturing jobs. To change this and promote domestic production, Trump plans to impose a 35% tariff on goods from Mexico and a 45% tariff on goods from China and Japan. While producers and the government would gain $43 billion and $65 billion, the total loss to the U.S. economy would be $170 billion, according to the National Foundation for American Policy. The average household would lose 4% of its income and for households making “the lowest 10[%] of income up to 18% of their (mean) after-tax income” would be lost.

According to the study, tariffs on imports from the three countries would not even protect U.S. workers from foreign competition, meaning the, “only logical alternative would be to impose a similar set of tariffs on all other countries that export to the United States.” This approach could cost households with the lowest 10% of income to lose a massive 53% of their income.

Trump also promised to deport the more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Although he recently softened his immigration stance, many still idealize a future without illegal immigrants. The massive deportation, however, would shrink the economy by about 2%, from a $400-$600 billion GDP collapse, decrease the workforce by about seven million and cost millions of dollars to implement, not to mention the construction of a nearly 2,000-mile-long border wall. The economic slump would inevitably magnify the struggles of the poor as it caused consumer product prices to increase.

Last but not least, and perhaps most unclear to the public, are Trump’s tax plans. Although dubbed the “blue-collar billionaire,” Trump’s economic plan will give reduced tax rates to the wealthiest individuals, from 39.6% to 33% and corporations, from the proposed 25% to 15%. The new tax policy would increase government deficit by an estimated $10 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center, slashing the funds for social security, medicare, Medicaid and interest payments that already make up more than two-thirds of the annual budget. Yet Trump has offered few expenditure reduction proposals that would make up for the revenue loss, meaning that the millions of Americans who rely on these government benefits would likely suffer. Otherwise, spending on all other programs would need to be cut by 53% to meet the revenue loss, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In response to his tax plan critics, Trump has cited his belief in trickle-down economics, a theory that states that if the rich receive tax cuts, the money they save will be invested and eventually trickle down to the poor, invigorating the entire economy. The theory, however, has been repeatedly disproven. In 2012, the Tax Justice Network conducted a study that suggested between $21 and $32 trillion has been siphoned from the world economy by the rich and put into private, off-shore accounts. In 2015, the International Monetary Fund also filed a report showing that the trickle-down effect does not exist, as the rich continue to get richer.

As Election Day nears, it is important to consider the impact of both candidates’ policies on the economy and the poor in particular.

Henry Gao

Photo: Flickr

SUN Movement
Malnutrition accounts for nearly half of all deaths among children under five. While the majority of these deaths occur in Africa and Asia, the loss of human life due to hunger and malnutrition is a global burden. Malnourished children are more likely to get sick, suffer from abnormally severe symptoms of common illnesses and die from otherwise preventable illnesses. Thankfully, organizations such as the SUN Movement work to reduce this hunger-related child mortality rate.

Malnutrition and Infection

The link between malnutrition and infection can create a cycle wherein poorly nourished children have a weaker immune system, which in turn deteriorates their nutritional status. Malnutrition can also stunt a child’s growth, predisposing them to cognitive disabilities.

Hunger and malnutrition take a particularly severe toll on the developing world, where one out of six children (about 100 million) are underweight, one in three children are stunted and 66 million children go to school hungry.

The SUN Movement

Scaling Up Nutrition, or SUN Movement, is a worldwide campaign to alleviate hunger and malnutrition. SUN aims to unite governments, the United Nations, civil society, researchers, donors and business into a cohesive movement to improve global nutrition.

Focusing on the goals established at the 2012 World Health Assembly, SUN movement identifies four strategic processes as the major institutional changes needed for scaling up nutrition worldwide:

  1. Endorsement of National Nutrition Policies that Incorporate Best Practices. Newly enacted laws and policies should reflect proven interventions while paying special attention to women and their role in society.
  2. Sustained Political Commitment and Establishment of Functioning Multi-stakeholder Platforms. Improving nutrition requires a political environment grounded in multi-stakeholder platforms. The dialogue around hunger and nutrition should be open, for different groups to share the responsibility of scaling up nutrition throughout the entire world.
  3. Alignment of Actions Across Sectors and among Stakeholders. The country plans to improve nutrition should reflect frameworks of mutual responsibility and accountability among stakeholders.
  4. Increased Resources for Nutrition and Demonstration of Results. Multiple sectors and stakeholders should increase financial resources for the implementation of plans to improve nutrition.

Each participating country is required to meet state-specific goals and objectives for scaling up nutrition before they can partake in SUN Movement events, like the Annual Global Gathering. This event is where government leaders and multi-stakeholder groups meet to collaborate, share progress, learn from each other and offer new practices for improving nutrition.

SUN Movement has several mechanisms for maintaining oversight and staying on track to achieve its goals. The SUN Networks align resources and foster collaboration, the lead group provides strategic oversight and enforces accountability and the executive committee represents SUN Movement at the international political level. There is also a secretariat and multi-partnered trust fund.

SUN Movement acts like the United Nations for Hunger and Nutrition, with clear guiding principles to achieve goals through cooperation and collaboration. The multifaceted structure of SUN Movement accurately confronts the varied nature of hunger and malnutrition, making the organization an important player in the fight to improve nutrition worldwide.

Jessica Levitan

Photo: Flickr

How to Become a Senator
How do you become a Senator? For many people in the United States, the steps to becoming a senator may seem mysterious and inaccessible for the common citizen. In reality, there are few requirements insisted on by the Constitution. Being a senator can be challenging and rewarding, especially for one advocating for the world’s poor. During the six-year term after the election, a senator reviews specific bills and votes on whether or not they should become laws. One could even propose global poverty focused bills! Sound fascinating? Here are the requirements and recommendations on how to become a senator, for all of our budding politicians out there who want to help the world.

 

3 Eligibility Requirements in the Constitution:

  1. One must be at least 30 years old before being sworn into office.
  2. One must inhabit the state they want to represent.
  3. One must have U.S. citizenship for 9 years prior to running for Senate.

 

How to Become a Senator

 

  • Get Established in the Community: Many senators recommend participating in local politics first, called “coming up through the chairs,” before going for the big leagues. Run for smaller offices such as a local government committee member or as town mayor. See how the U.S. government processes work on a community level where you can gain a positive reputation and good credentials. Build up to running for higher positions such as your state’s governor. If you are then ready for the challenge, try and get elected as a senator.
  • Educational Background: Though it’s certainly not a requirement, a Bachelor’s degree or higher in law, political science, and/or business has proven to be important for senators. In our current congress, almost 40% of senators are lawyers, and 20% are bankers or businessmen. It’s possible to be elected without a background in these subjects, but the numbers don’t lie.
  • Make Sure to Have Party Backing: Gaining support from a political party is a gigantic help. People from the “party machine” will endorse you and help you to get elected into office in ways that would be challenging to do alone. Consider who will align with your goals of wanting to increase poverty-focused aid, and partner up with them!
  • Don’t Forget the Details: Did you remember to file candidacy with the state’s Secretary of State? In addition, signatures from people in one’s political party will be necessary to get on the ballot. Contact the state government to find out the minimum number needed.
  • Round Up a Campaign Committee and then Campaign: A good campaign can’t run without people working to support it. Campaigning is an expensive and time consuming process. A manager, fundraising person, and public relations professional will all be needed to get your ideas out there and to keep the campaign running smoothly. Advertise, participate in interviews, and give speeches. Inform your possible constituents about the importance of foreign aid, and get them all riled up and wanting to create change with you. All that’s left to do is campaign with all one’s heart!
  • Be Ready to Answer Foreign Aid FAQ’s: Military leaders, business leaders and humanitarian groups all recognize the importance of reducing global poverty. While it’s tempting to speak out against foreign aid while campaigning, many leaders quickly change their stance once confronted by military leaders on the role helping reduce human suffering plays in national security.

Finally, what is the one thing of importance that veterans of the Senate can all agree upon? “What matters… is a willingness to work and learn, to stand up for values, and most important, to earn trust.”

– Caylee Pugh

Sources: NY Times, How Stuff Works, US Senate
Photo: Maid in DC

African democratic transition
In 1991, political scientist Samuel Huntington hypothesized three historical waves of democratization across Europe and the Americas. Now, it is the African continent’s turn to create a fourth wave of democratic elections.

It started on Dec. 17, 2010, when Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian produce seller, set himself on fire in front of a municipal building.

Bouazizi’s act ignited protests against the oppressive authoritarian regime all over Tunisia. In 2011, the dictator, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stepped down from power and fled the country.

In the following three years, Tunisia held its first democratic elections, rewrote its Constitution and saw peaceful transitions of power.

In 2011, similar transitions occurred in the North African countries of Egypt, Libya and Morocco. Along with uprisings in the Middle East, this movement is collectively called the Arab Spring.

The changes in government in these countries have yet to resemble the democracies in North America and Western Europe. But while transitioning from long-standing authoritarian rule to full-fledged democracy does not happen overnight, the Arab Spring undoubtedly sent a message rippling all over the African continent.

The message? The voices of the impoverished and oppressed can be heard.

Last May, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Nigeria and witnessed an incredible hand-off of power after President Goodluck Jonathan lost the general election.

Surprising critics who believed that Jonathan would not resign, Jonathan willfully stepped down and even congratulated his successor. This marked the first peaceful transition of power in Nigeria’s history.

This year, Kerry traveled back to Nigeria to emphasize Nigeria’s increasingly important position to help with security and development in Africa. He also reminded the new government of the precedent and example they set, as this year is becoming a crucial year for democracy in Africa.

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Libya, Mauritius, Niger, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia are all set to have elections this year.

These elections could turn out to be a critical turning point for countries like Chad, where the same leader has been in power for 24 years.

Some staples of democratic transition include a move to transparent elections, term limits, freedom to publicly support any candidate and voter enfranchisement.

Transparency and term limits are important in the election process because, without both, an authoritarian regime can stay in power for decades. Fraudulent elections are often the main reason why people refrain from voting in the first place.

When authoritarian regimes remain in power for decades, repeated policy mistakes stifle the economic development and empowerment of a country. Change can only come when those in power are committed to the needs of their constituencies.

Freedom to publicly support any candidate and voter enfranchisement are also very important steps for an African democratic transition.

When media is censored or run by the government, speaking out against the incumbent is often illegal and can even lead to dangerous consequences.
This is also a problem because, in many African countries, less than half of eligible voters are registered to vote, and many minority groups do not have the right to vote at all.

When it comes to poverty, these four aspects of democracy are key. When marginalized groups take part in policy-shaping, a country can grow together and mitigate inequality. Furthermore, when every voice is involved in decision making there is less chance for discontentment and violent revolt.

As Kerry points out, “A free, fair and peaceful presidential election does not guarantee a successful democracy, but it is one of the most important measuring sticks for progress in any developing nation.” The coming months’ elections will be a giant leap toward democracy and development in Africa.

Celestina Radogno

Sources: Al Jazeera, BBC, The Brookings Institute, The Guardian, U.S. Department of State
Photo: Wikimedia

Saudi Arabia’s municipal elections will be held on December 12 and for the first time, women will be allowed to vote for municipal council leaders.

Municipal council elections occur every four years in Saudi Arabia. Two-thirds of the council members must be voted in and the Minister of Municipal and Rural Affairs must appoint the other third.

The late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud granted women the right to vote as well as run as candidates in 2011. Approximately 70 women are intending to register as municipal council leader candidates. Another 80 women are planning on registering as campaign managers.

The Baladi (My Country) campaign is a political campaign run by Saudi women activists. The campaign was planning to bring in teachers and trainers from different Arab countries as well as the United Nations for campaigning workshops.

The Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs stopped Baladi from holding the training workshops in an attempt to unify the election programme.

Women and men will have separate polling centers for voting. In Makkah, there will be 40 polling centers with 14 set aside for women.

Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia have gradually increased and a royal decree issued by Abdullah in 2013 required the Consultative Council to be at least 20 percent women. The Consultative Council is an advisory body that is royally appointed.

Although these rights have made improvements for women in Saudi Arabia, they are still far from equal. A male guardian must accompany the women when they travel or go to school. They are not permitted to drive.

Voter registration for the municipal council elections began on August 22 and will end on September 14. Candidate registration runs from August 30 until September 17.

Iona Brannon

Sources: Al Arabiya News, Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, CNN, Saudi National Portal, Time
Photo: Google Images

Mounting Anger over Trash Build-up in Beirut
In early Aug. 2015, protesters stood outside Beirut’s government building demanding that officials deal with the thousand tons of trash piling up on the city’s streets. The most frustrated of the crowd accused the government of acting like a regime, ignoring the city’s demands for change.

Beirut’s former public landfill was based in the village of Naameh. It opened in 1997 and was only built to withstand a few years and about two million tons of rubbish. After 18 years and 10 million tons of trash, Beirut officials shut down Naameh.

The current issue is because the government failed to build a new one. “Everyone knew for the last six months that the landfill would close, but the government did nothing about it,” says one resident. With nowhere to dump it, trash collection for Beirut and its suburbs just stopped.

The city and its surrounding neighborhood generate 2,000 to 3,000 tons of trash each day and it is now cumulating into mounds on the streets. Many people have started wearing face masks. Others are setting fire to the filth, creating pillars of foul smoke and causing temperatures to climb above 90 degrees.

Lebanon rules with a very laissez-faire attitude. In lieu of recent unrest in the Middle East and problems within the country, the government has been unable to elect a new president and remains without a political figurehead that can pass legislation and finalize laws.

The Cabinet is reportedly near collapsing. Terms in office are being extended and elections for new leaders are put off. “The political deadlock is a huge contributing factor to the issue because there is no strong central government who can look at the options and find the most feasible one,” speculates Lama Bashour, director of an environmental consultancy agency called Eccocentra.

Residents claim that the government’s latest decisions have been undemocratic and unconstitutional, and have just exacerbated the country’s problems. “I’m angry, not just this, but at the general dysfunction of the country,” explains one of the city’s entrepreneurs. Some speculate that only radical actions could push the government to rule more effectively. All of the frustration and outrage surrounding this latest trash issue might be enough.

Some trash in rural areas has been removed but people report that it was just dumped somewhere else nearby. Sahar Atrache is an analyst that works for the International Crisis Group. She says that this half-hearted attempt is characteristic of Lebanon’s current government.

It is true that Lebanon’s resources and political power have been strained lately with the 1.3 million refugees estimated to pour into the country as a result of the Syrian crisis. The ICG recently published a report called Lebanon’s Self-Defeating Survival Strategies that explains, “Lebanon is surviving internal and regional strains remarkably well, but this resilience has become an excuse for tolerating political dysfunction.”

The city has been trying to deal with the matter on its own and has been starting to compost and recycle to keep waste build-up down. Some residents have begun their own local trash-pick up service.

Lillian Sickler

Sources: NPR, Crisis Group, UNHCR, LA Times, WSJ, ABC News, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera
Photo: NPR

G.O.P._debate

While the potential Republican presidential candidates wasted no time discussing illegal immigration and the Clinton Administration at this Thursday’s GOP debate, one topic was noticeably absent from the table: global poverty.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the United States alone there are around six million more people living below the poverty line than there were in 2008. About 45 million Americans are registered as poor—around 15 percent of the country’s total population.

On a more global scale, according to UNICEF, 22,000 children die worldwide every day due to poverty-related causes. In 2014 alone, 98,000 died in India due to a lack of sanitation, clean drinking water and nutrition. In 2014, over 82 million people in China lived on less than $1 a day.

Still, even in the face of such pressing issues, the GOP candidates chose to spend their allotted speaking time by further alienating women, immigrants and the poor. According to The Huffington Post, the words “immigration” and “illegal” were spoken around 40 times during the debate, while “poverty” and “poor” chalked up only three and four mentions, respectively.

Presidential campaign debates should be a platform for discussing the country and the world’s most prominent issues. If this GOP debate was any indication, the current Republican Party presidential candidates care little about the world’s poor.

Alexander Jones

Sources: Deutsch, McCoy, Redden
Photo: Flickr

Cruelest_Dictators

10. Vladimir Putin

Putin is the current president of Russia and has been in power since 1999. He spent four years as Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012, though most experts believe he was still calling the shots. Putin is a strong man and one of the cruelest dictators, ruling Russia with a fierce grip. His presidency has been lamented by human rights groups and Western governments. Putin maintains a terrible domestic civil rights policy and viciously puts down political dissent and free speech. Not to mention, under his command Russia has engaged in military action in Georgia, Chechnya, and most notably the invasion and annexation of Crimea, thus violating Ukrainian sovereignty.

9. Robert Mugabe

Now in his seventh term of office as president of Zimbabwe is Robert Mugabe. Many political scientists and experts have cited massive electoral fraud and rigging in Mugabe’s favor during the 2013 election. According to both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Mugabe’s government systematically violates the right to shelter, food, freedom of movement and political expression. In addition, Mugabe made all acts of homosexuality illegal in Zimbabwe.

8. Muammar Gaddafi

Self-proclaimed “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution” of Libya for more than 50 years, Gaddafi was, at first, a widely supported leader after he led the September Revolution in 1969. However, as he consolidated power his regime became more authoritarian. His calls for Pan-Africanism were greatly overshadowed by his pitiful human rights record. During the Arab Spring, Gaddafi ordered his forces to fire on unarmed protesters calling for his resignation. The UN Human Rights Council called for an investigation into war crimes. Gaddafi was deposed and killed at the end of the Libyan Civil War.

7. Idi Amin

Amin’s paranoid administration was marred by rampant violence to his political enemies. UN observers estimate that 100,000 to 500,000 were persecuted and killed in Uganda under his reign. Amin’s victims were originally his direct political opponents and those who supported the regime that he fought to overtake. However, extrajudicial killings began to include academics, lawyers, foreign nationals and minority ethnic groups within the country.

6. Kim Jong Il

Kim Jong Il continued his father’s fearsome policy of official party indoctrination. North Korea currently ranks as one of the poorest nations on the planet, with millions facing starvation, disease and lack of basic human needs. Under Kim’s reign, North Korean military spending quadrupled, yet he refused foreign aid and did not invest in his country’s farms, thereby indirectly killing millions. Kim’s policy of mass internment through the use of labor camps and virtually no political debate makes him on of history’s worst despots.

5. Pol Pot

Pot was the dictator of Cambodia for 20 years from 1961 to 1983 as the leader of the Khmer Rouge government. His regime is characterized by the Cambodian genocide and the infamous “killing fields.” Pol Pot began a program of severe nationalization whereby he forced millions from urban areas into the countryside to farm and work on forced labor projects. Due to the forced labor, poor food and medical conditions, and the addition of massive amounts of state-sponsored killings, nearly 25 percent of Cambodia’s population died under Pol Pot’s rule.

4. Bashar al-Assad

As the current president of Syria, Assad’s authoritarian regime was called into question during the Arab Spring and cited for numerous civil rights violations including suppression of free speech, corruption and political freedom. Assad ordered massive crackdowns and thus triggered the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Government forces only grew more violent toward protesting Syrian citizens, and there have been allegations of chemical warfare. Assad has been accused of numerous human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

3. Joseph Stalin

Stalin was the second leader of the Soviet Union. Though part of the original seven Bolshevik leaders, Stalin quickly consolidated sole power and became a tyrant. In the 1930s he pursued a policy of political upheaval known as “the Great Purge.” From 1930 to 1934, millions of Soviet citizens were imprisoned, exiled or killed. Stalin also pursued a policy of massive economic reforms that led to the deaths of millions due to famine and forced labor in Gulag camps.

2. Mao Zedong

Zedong was the first chairman of the Communist Party of China, and in terms of numbers of deaths during his reign, he tops the list. Nearly 70 million Chinese died during his rule. Zedong systematically broke down Ancient Chinese culture and nearly ended political dissent and freedom in China. His revolutionary economic policies during “the Great Leap Forward” resulted in one of the worst famines in modern history. In addition, Mao also implemented forced labor and public executions.

1. Adolf Hitler

Hitler was the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. Hitler tops the list of cruelest dictators because of his disturbingly systematic genocidal policies. A total of 5.5 million Jews and other “unwanteds” were deliberately targeted and executed in sanctioned ghettos, work camps and extermination camps. Hilter’s foreign policy and unrelenting desire to give the German people “room to live” was the major cause of World War II. Hitler also put down political dissenters and enemies as well as banning non-government sanctioned art, film, literature and teaching methods.

Joe Kitaj

Sources: Forbes, List 25, The Atlantic
Photo: Flickr

South_Sudan
Representative Thomas Rooney of Florida recently introduced the South Sudan Peace Promotion and Accountability Act of 2015, urging U.S. leaders to recognize their leadership failure in the war-torn nation.

Specifically, the bill states that the United States will recognize that there has been a failure of leadership in South Sudan that has left the country’s civilians in a state of suffering, and will urge all parties to find a peaceful resolution. The bill furthers calls for the President of the United States to submit to Congress a strategy for further engagement with South Sudan.

South Sudan, a ascent nation that arose in 2011 from the civil unrest that had divided Sudan for years, has been plagued by conflict since it gained independence. In 2013, tensions between new political leaders sparked a civil upheaval that killed tens of thousands, displaced an estimated two million people, and left nearly five million needing food and other humanitarian assistance.

In 2005, the United States helped broker the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which would ultimately set the framework for South Sudan establishing their independence. Since the separation, the United States, along with the United Nations, has worked to help the new nation establish itself.

However, despite the outpouring of international support and its integral role in the new nation, in 2015, the government of South Sudan expelled the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in charge of overseeing the massive humanitarian effort in the country. Since then, the South Sudanese government has continued to place restrictions on foreign aid workers in the country, calling for the majority of humanitarian aid to come from within the country.

The South Sudan Peace Promotion and Accountability Act of 2015 urges the administration to prioritize promoting peace and human rights, as well as establishing freedom of association and expression.

Gina Lehner

Sources: Congress, Wikipedia
Photo: UN Multimedia