foreignpolicy--2020-08-25--The Obscure Constitutional Loophole That 2020 Is Blowing Wide Open

The Obscure Constitutional Loophole That 2020 Is Blowing Wide Open When U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on July 30 his suggestion to delay the presidential election—and questioned whether the November vote ’ s results would be known for “ months , or even years ” —the response by political experts and observers was both an overreaction and an underreaction .
As many quickly pointed out , it takes a lot more than presidential whim to delay an election .
The president ’ s and vice president ’ s terms end at noon on Jan. 20 whether their successors have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictates what happens next , putting the speaker of the House of Representatives first in line for the presidency , followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate .
The law , then , is clear about how to handle the failure to decide an election on time .
But applying the law is another matter—and there ’ s reason to fear the United States could find itself with precisely what the existing law was intended to prevent : an acting president of disputed legitimacy .
Unless Congress quickly rethinks its existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take an already bad situation of a delayed , disputed presidential election and make it even worse .
The problem centers on the reliance on Congress for the line of succession .
Having the speaker first in line fails to account for the fact that the terms for all 435 House members expire on Jan. 3 .
If a presidential election is delayed and unresolved because of disputes over the validity and timing of mail-in ballots , many individual House elections—decided by those same ballots—would probably be delayed and unresolved too .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swaths of the House ’ s membership .
Majority control could change chaotically from day to day as a partially filled House wrestled over each new batch of individual election results , amid a fog of state recounts and litigation .
Without at least 218 seats filled , there would not even be a quorum , meaning there would be no speaker at all .
The backup is the Senate side , where the terms of only about one-third of the senators will expire on Jan. 3 .
The other two-thirds of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quorum and choose a president pro tempore .
But just like in the House , delayed election results could lead to intense political combat over the 30-odd seats up for grabs , with majorities shifting daily .
Complicating matters , governors in some states might try to appoint people to fill vacant seats temporarily—assuming it ’ s clear after the election who the governors even are .
As such , the president pro tempore could be chosen by a majority of questionable legitimacy , formed through a combination of confusion , litigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have to be this disorderly , though .
Indeed , the Constitution suggests that it isn ’ t supposed to be .
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment , ratified in 1933 , addresses the problem of unresolved presidential elections .
Before the 20th Amendment , there simply would have been no president in such a situation—a fate that was avoided very narrowly in 1877 , when the presidential election disaster was settled just two days before the start of the term .
The 20th Amendment authorizes Congress to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that someone can act as president until an elected president can be chosen .
For midterm crises ( when something happens to both an elected president and vice president ) , Congress had already been authorized by Article 2 of the Constitution to predefine a line of succession , listing “ what Officer shall then act as President.
” But the 20th Amendment gives Congress an additional option for Inauguration Day succession : predefining a process instead of a list .
In other words , Inauguration Day succession could be figured out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , the 20th Amendment opens Inauguration Day succession to any “ person , ” not just the limited class of “ officers ” allowed by Article 2 .
Congress has never taken its new , broad 20th Amendment powers seriously , however .
For 14 years Congress took no action at all .
When it finally did act , in 1947 , it just lumped Inauguration Day succession and midterm succession into the same system ( speaker , then president pro tempore , then members of the cabinet ) , instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succession .
This one-size-fits-all approach is still the law today .
But there are good reasons the 20th Amendment allowed for Inauguration Day succession to be distinct from midterm situations .
One is that while continuity is ordinarily a key concern for a succession law , on Jan. 20 continuity is barely a factor at all .
The start of a new presidential term is the only time when turning over power to a completely different team is supposed to happen .
The very premise of Inauguration Day succession is that control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air .
As such , a more wide-open process makes more sense .
Relatedly , in the middle of the term , if something sudden happens to both the president and vice president , it will be well-settled and obvious who the speaker and president pro tempore are .
But as noted earlier , on Inauguration Day , if there is no new president or vice president yet because the elections are in chaos , the selection of the speaker and president pro tempore likely will be in chaos as well .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on fire , and handing over the decision of who is in charge of it to the people in the next building… which is also on fire .
The current system also produces skewed incentives .
The basic minimum requirement of a democratic republic is to have timely elections .
When elections are delayed or disputed , there should be incentives for resolving the situation swiftly and fairly .
But while both sides would want a disputed or delayed election to be resolved in their favor , one side—the side poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay .
The portion of the country that supports the speaker ’ s or president pro tempore ’ s party would have less reason to work ardently toward a fair resolution .
And if the chaos was such that in the days leading up to Jan. 20 nobody knew which side would choose the speaker or president pro tempore , it would make things even worse .
Both sides would have an incentive to prolong the delay , to buy more time to win the fight for control of the House or Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers to create a more open and flexible process , it could avoid these problems .
First , it could seek out someone to act as president who does not have a direct stake in the outcome—unlike congressional leaders , who would be playing current , prominent political roles .
One obvious set of people who are on the sidelines , but who would still be capable temporary caretakers , are former presidents .
Barack Obama , George W. Bush , and Bill Clinton all have the background to handle the task ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old by that point , would be less suitable ) .
To be sure , Obama , Bush , and Clinton would each be objectionable to tens of millions of Americans for sincere political reasons .
But the same would be true of the speaker and president pro tempore .
( And , of course , it would also be true of whoever eventually wins the election . )
The point is not to choose someone acceptable to all Americans—no such person exists .
The point is to have an experienced hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helm during a tumultuous , uncertain , but ideally brief time .
The “ other than the departing incumbent ” part is important .
The problem with letting the incumbent stay on past their term is obvious if the incumbent president is one of the candidates in the delayed election .
But it would be unseemly even if the incumbent were playing no role in the election or its resolution .
In fact , in December 2000 , a New York Times op-ed suggested taking time to carefully resolve the Florida recount and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks .
This suggestion fell flat , despite Clinton ’ s mid-60 percent approval ratings .
Combining “ no election result ” with “ the current president stays in power indefinitely ” sends an unacceptable message in a democratic republic .
While the 22nd Amendment bars Presidents Obama , Bush , and Clinton from ever being elected again , its terms do not disqualify them from temporarily acting as president .
Indeed , the inability of two-termer presidents to run again makes them more desirable for this short-term role—one-term presidents might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making them less suitable to be a placid caretaker .
But even one-termers could be suitable , so long as they left office in dignified defeat like Carter , Gerald Ford , and George H.W .
Bush .
Less appropriate would be a president who , whether elected once or twice , left in disgrace like Richard Nixon .
If Congress wanted to put ex-presidents in the mix to be acting president , it could legislate the criteria—how old is too old , how defeated or disgraced is too defeated or disgraced , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always be a stocked stable of ex-presidents .
It might therefore make sense to expand the list to include other experienced and widely respected elder statesmen and stateswomen , like former vice presidents or secretaries of state .
These are just suggestions .
There is nothing magical about these lists ; there might be other capable figures who would be worth considering , including current members of Congress .
The point is that a 20th Amendment process could choose an acting president from lists of people like these , and that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
That leaves the question of what selection procedures Congress should enact .
In addition to expanding the list of candidates as described above , the process could require bipartisan consensus .
Instead of selecting the acting president by a bare majority of a rump House or Senate with a disputed membership , three of the four party leaders in the House and Senate would need to agree .
If Nancy Pelosi , Kevin McCarthy , Chuck Schumer , and Mitch McConnell ( or whomever the leaders are after the next election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that bipartisan stamp of approval would give the acting president substantial legitimacy .
Moreover , requiring such a consensus would make the choice more moderate—a Colin Powell type rather than a Pelosi or McConnell type—and would reduce the number of Americans who find the acting president objectionable .
In normal times , the U.S. electoral system is not really aimed at choosing the most unobjectionable-but-competent candidate , but when it comes to choosing a short-term caretaker president that criterion has much to recommend it .
Consensus might not be a realistic expectation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose party leaders if congressional elections are still up in the air .
And regardless , the two parties have become so polarized in Congress that we can not take it for granted that they could reach a consensus , let alone that they would do so quickly in the midst of election delays and disputes .
This is where randomness could be useful .
A new law could predefine a pool of qualified , legitimate potential acting presidents , with an equal handful from both parties .
A neutral figure ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the random selection from that pool .
To balance things further , the acting president ’ s term could be time-limited ; if the dispute over the presidential election went on too long , another drawing could be held to pick a different acting president .
And so on .
Again , these are just ideas .
Regardless of what method is chosen , having some system in place—so that there is always somebody in control of the presidency—is key .
In the 87 years since the 20th Amendment was ratified , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about unresolved presidential elections of the sort that may now be on the horizon .
Now is the time to have it , if it is not too late already .

When U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on July 30 his suggestion to delay the presidential election—and questioned whether the November vote’s results would be known for “months, or even years”—the response by political experts and observers was both an overreaction and an underreaction. As many quickly pointed out, it takes a lot more than presidential whim to delay an election. The president’s and vice president’s terms end at noon on Jan. 20 whether their successors have been elected yet or not—and the line-of-succession statute dictates what happens next, putting the speaker of the House of Representatives first in line for the presidency, followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate.
When U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on July 30 his suggestion to delay the presidential election—and questioned whether the November vote’s results would be known for “months, or even years”—the response by political experts and observers was both an overreaction and an underreaction. As many quickly pointed out, it takes a lot more than presidential whim to delay an election. The president’s and vice president’s terms end at noon on Jan. 20 whether their successors have been elected yet or not—and the line-of-succession statute dictates what happens next, putting the speaker of the House of Representatives first in line for the presidency, followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate.
The law, then, is clear about how to handle the failure to decide an election on time. But applying the law is another matter—and there’s reason to fear the United States could find itself with precisely what the existing law was intended to prevent: an acting president of disputed legitimacy. Unless Congress quickly rethinks its existing succession laws, the current system could take an already bad situation of a delayed, disputed presidential election and make it even worse.
The problem centers on the reliance on Congress for the line of succession. Having the speaker first in line fails to account for the fact that the terms for all 435 House members expire on Jan. 3. If a presidential election is delayed and unresolved because of disputes over the validity and timing of mail-in ballots, many individual House elections—decided by those same ballots—would probably be delayed and unresolved too. The result would be fierce fighting over huge swaths of the House’s membership. Majority control could change chaotically from day to day as a partially filled House wrestled over each new batch of individual election results, amid a fog of state recounts and litigation. Without at least 218 seats filled, there would not even be a quorum, meaning there would be no speaker at all.
The backup is the Senate side, where the terms of only about one-third of the senators will expire on Jan. 3. The other two-thirds of the Senate will be able to form a quorum and choose a president pro tempore. But just like in the House, delayed election results could lead to intense political combat over the 30-odd seats up for grabs, with majorities shifting daily. Complicating matters, governors in some states might try to appoint people to fill vacant seats temporarily—assuming it’s clear after the election who the governors even are. As such, the president pro tempore could be chosen by a majority of questionable legitimacy, formed through a combination of confusion, litigation, and partisan shenanigans.
Inauguration Day succession doesn’t have to be this disorderly, though. Indeed, the Constitution suggests that it isn’t supposed to be.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, addresses the problem of unresolved presidential elections. Before the 20th Amendment, there simply would have been no president in such a situation—a fate that was avoided very narrowly in 1877, when the presidential election disaster was settled just two days before the start of the term. The 20th Amendment authorizes Congress to pass a law to fill this gap, so that someone can act as president until an elected president can be chosen. For midterm crises (when something happens to both an elected president and vice president), Congress had already been authorized by Article 2 of the Constitution to predefine a line of succession, listing “what Officer shall then act as President.” But the 20th Amendment gives Congress an additional option for Inauguration Day succession: predefining a process instead of a list. In other words, Inauguration Day succession could be figured out more flexibly, on the spot. Moreover, the 20th Amendment opens Inauguration Day succession to any “person,” not just the limited class of “officers” allowed by Article 2.
Congress has never taken its new, broad 20th Amendment powers seriously, however. For 14 years Congress took no action at all. When it finally did act, in 1947, it just lumped Inauguration Day succession and midterm succession into the same system (speaker, then president pro tempore, then members of the cabinet), instead of defining a separate process for Inauguration Day succession. This one-size-fits-all approach is still the law today.
But there are good reasons the 20th Amendment allowed for Inauguration Day succession to be distinct from midterm situations. One is that while continuity is ordinarily a key concern for a succession law, on Jan. 20 continuity is barely a factor at all. The start of a new presidential term is the only time when turning over power to a completely different team is supposed to happen. The very premise of Inauguration Day succession is that control of the presidency would be up in the air. As such, a more wide-open process makes more sense.
Relatedly, in the middle of the term, if something sudden happens to both the president and vice president, it will be well-settled and obvious who the speaker and president pro tempore are. But as noted earlier, on Inauguration Day, if there is no new president or vice president yet because the elections are in chaos, the selection of the speaker and president pro tempore likely will be in chaos as well. It’s like having a building that is on fire, and handing over the decision of who is in charge of it to the people in the next building… which is also on fire.
The current system also produces skewed incentives. The basic minimum requirement of a democratic republic is to have timely elections. When elections are delayed or disputed, there should be incentives for resolving the situation swiftly and fairly. But while both sides would want a disputed or delayed election to be resolved in their favor, one side—the side poised to control the acting presidency—would more easily tolerate delay. The portion of the country that supports the speaker’s or president pro tempore’s party would have less reason to work ardently toward a fair resolution. And if the chaos was such that in the days leading up to Jan. 20 nobody knew which side would choose the speaker or president pro tempore, it would make things even worse. Both sides would have an incentive to prolong the delay, to buy more time to win the fight for control of the House or Senate.
If Congress used its 20th Amendment powers to create a more open and flexible process, it could avoid these problems. First, it could seek out someone to act as president who does not have a direct stake in the outcome—unlike congressional leaders, who would be playing current, prominent political roles. One obvious set of people who are on the sidelines, but who would still be capable temporary caretakers, are former presidents. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton all have the background to handle the task (Jimmy Carter, who would be 96 years old by that point, would be less suitable).
To be sure, Obama, Bush, and Clinton would each be objectionable to tens of millions of Americans for sincere political reasons. But the same would be true of the speaker and president pro tempore. (And, of course, it would also be true of whoever eventually wins the election.) The point is not to choose someone acceptable to all Americans—no such person exists. The point is to have an experienced hand other than the departing incumbent at the helm during a tumultuous, uncertain, but ideally brief time.
The “other than the departing incumbent” part is important. The problem with letting the incumbent stay on past their term is obvious if the incumbent president is one of the candidates in the delayed election. But it would be unseemly even if the incumbent were playing no role in the election or its resolution. In fact, in December 2000, a New York Times op-ed suggested taking time to carefully resolve the Florida recount and letting Bill Clinton stay on for a few weeks. This suggestion fell flat, despite Clinton’s mid-60 percent approval ratings. Combining “no election result” with “the current president stays in power indefinitely” sends an unacceptable message in a democratic republic.
While the 22nd Amendment bars Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton from ever being elected again, its terms do not disqualify them from temporarily acting as president. Indeed, the inability of two-termer presidents to run again makes them more desirable for this short-term role—one-term presidents might have designs on returning to office someday, making them less suitable to be a placid caretaker. But even one-termers could be suitable, so long as they left office in dignified defeat like Carter, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. Less appropriate would be a president who, whether elected once or twice, left in disgrace like Richard Nixon.
If Congress wanted to put ex-presidents in the mix to be acting president, it could legislate the criteria—how old is too old, how defeated or disgraced is too defeated or disgraced, and so on. But there will not always be a stocked stable of ex-presidents. It might therefore make sense to expand the list to include other experienced and widely respected elder statesmen and stateswomen, like former vice presidents or secretaries of state.
These are just suggestions. There is nothing magical about these lists; there might be other capable figures who would be worth considering, including current members of Congress. The point is that a 20th Amendment process could choose an acting president from lists of people like these, and that this would have many advantages over the current law.
That leaves the question of what selection procedures Congress should enact. In addition to expanding the list of candidates as described above, the process could require bipartisan consensus. Instead of selecting the acting president by a bare majority of a rump House or Senate with a disputed membership, three of the four party leaders in the House and Senate would need to agree. If Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and Mitch McConnell (or whomever the leaders are after the next election) can agree on an acting president, that bipartisan stamp of approval would give the acting president substantial legitimacy.
Moreover, requiring such a consensus would make the choice more moderate—a Colin Powell type rather than a Pelosi or McConnell type—and would reduce the number of Americans who find the acting president objectionable. In normal times, the U.S. electoral system is not really aimed at choosing the most unobjectionable-but-competent candidate, but when it comes to choosing a short-term caretaker president that criterion has much to recommend it.
Consensus might not be a realistic expectation, though. It might be hard to choose party leaders if congressional elections are still up in the air. And regardless, the two parties have become so polarized in Congress that we cannot take it for granted that they could reach a consensus, let alone that they would do so quickly in the midst of election delays and disputes. This is where randomness could be useful. A new law could predefine a pool of qualified, legitimate potential acting presidents, with an equal handful from both parties. A neutral figure (say, the chief justice) could make the random selection from that pool. To balance things further, the acting president’s term could be time-limited; if the dispute over the presidential election went on too long, another drawing could be held to pick a different acting president. And so on.
Again, these are just ideas. Regardless of what method is chosen, having some system in place—so that there is always somebody in control of the presidency—is key. In the 87 years since the 20th Amendment was ratified, Congress has never had a careful debate about unresolved presidential elections of the sort that may now be on the horizon. Now is the time to have it, if it is not too late already.


foreignpolicy--2020-08-25--U.S. and Sudan Near Pact to Compensate American Terrorism Victims

U.S. and Sudan Near Pact to Compensate American Terrorism Victims The Trump administration has reached an agreement in principle with Sudan ’ s new transitional government to settle a series of long-standing claims by American terrorism victims , laying the groundwork for the country ’ s removal from the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism , officials and congressional aides familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy .
The deal—which has yet to be finalized—requires Sudan ’ s fledgling civilian-led government to deposit $ 335 million in an escrow account for the families of victims of terrorist attacks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in supporting two decades ago .
The attacks covered in the agreement are the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 terrorist attack against the USS Cole .
It would not address claims of families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Washington and New York .
If finalized , the arrangement would help restore Sudan ’ s standing in the international community and allow for outside investment and aid for the country ’ s ailing economy .
It would also pave the way for further normalization of U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political victory for Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok , whose fragile transitional government faces mounting pressure since the 2019 revolution that ousted the longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir .
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Hamdok in Sudan on Tuesday to discuss Khartoum ’ s transition to democracy and efforts to remove the country from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list .
The Trump administration has also quietly pressured Sudan to normalize relations with Israel , several U.S. officials told Foreign Policy , though Hamdok ’ s office said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the authority to do so .
The officials said such a move could help expedite the lifting of the terrorism designation , given the Trump administration ’ s close relationship with Israel .
But officials in Washington caution that other significant hurdles remain before the deal can be finalized .
The settlement proposal and directive to lift Sudan ’ s terrorism designation would have to be approved by Pompeo and then President Donald Trump before being sent to Congress for review .
Lawmakers would have to agree to formally remove Sudan from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass legislation that would restore the country ’ s sovereign immunity before U.S. courts .
The preliminary pact caps months of grueling legal and political discussions aimed at boosting the political prospects of Sudan ’ s civilian leader , Hamdok , who is leading the country ’ s difficult transition from decades of military dictatorship to civilian rule .
One sticking point was how U.S. citizens versus foreign nationals would be compensated by the Sudanese government .
In the two decades since the attacks , some foreign nationals have become U.S. citizens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compensated based on their current or former citizenship .
The agreement calls on Sudan to pay up to $ 10 million for each U.S. government official killed in the U.S. Embassy bombings and $ 800,000 for foreign nationals who worked at the embassies and were killed , according to U.S. officials and congressional aides familiar with the matter .
Americans injured in the attack could get anywhere from $ 3 million to $ 10 million in compensation , while foreign nationals injured would receive up to $ 400,000 .
This plan has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign citizens injured or killed in the attack , who said the United States shouldn ’ t place a higher or lower value on the victims based on their country of birth .
U.S. officials familiar with the negotiations countered that the State Department is following the precedent set by the claims agreements with Libya in 2008 during negotiations to lift the country from the terrorism list , though lawyers representing the victims who oppose the deal dispute that narrative .
“ A deal that defines American citizens not born in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lives of foreign national embassy employees at less than 10 % that of the American colleagues they sacrificed themselves to save betrays everything we stand for as a nation , ” Doreen Oport , a former U.S. embassy employee and naturalized American citizen who was severely injured in the 1998 attack , told Foreign Policy in an email statement .
Yet other victims and their family members , including Americans and Tanzanians , have asked Congress to support the agreement .
“ For more than two decades , we have waited for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the settlement agreement , while far from perfect , provides justice and accountability , ” reads one letter to Congress signed by more than 80 family members .
“ The new government in Sudan has promise , but it is fragile .
If Congress fails to act and pass this legislation this year , a real opportunity for justice for American families may be lost , possibly forever , as the negotiated agreement between Sudan and the United States would likely collapse , ” the letter adds .
“ Please don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family members of 9/11 victims have pressed Congress in recent months to oppose the deal because it does not address their claims .
“ We want our day in court because we believe that Sudan ( in addition to other nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran ) played a key role in the 9/11 attacks , ” read a note sent to congressional offices by family members and obtained by Foreign Policy .
“ Our State Department shouldn ’ t be destroying our legal rights to justice abroad particularly when those rights involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the State Department should be our biggest proponent abroad , not pushing last minute sweetheart deals to prop up troubled foreign regimes that spent years targeting and killing innocent Americans.
” Some experts pushed back on the claims laid out by these families , saying there has not been enough evidence produced in the decades since 9/11 that would directly tie the former Sudanese regime to the attacks .
The 9/11 Commission produced hundreds of thousands of documents , but “ no smoking gun that pointed back to Khartoum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fishing expedition [ underway ] , ” said Cameron Hudson , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who studies Sudan .
“ They would like to reopen these documents and pore through them looking for Sudan ’ s culpability.
” Hudson said lawyers of the 9/11 victims had nearly two decades to search the commission ’ s findings , but they “ haven ’ t pursued this case until now .
The problem is it could take absolutely years to pore through these documents and Sudan doesn ’ t have years.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erb of the law firm White & Case , confirmed to Foreign Policy that Khartoum and Washington “ have reached an agreement in principle ” to resolve the victim claims over the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania , as well as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole .
“ This agreement would resolve the default judgments entered against Sudan in U.S. litigations concerning the 1998 Embassy bombings in Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole attack , ” she told Foreign Policy in an email .
“ Sudan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgments from the prior regime , which had not appeared in the U.S. courts to defend Sudan against the claims against it.
” Erb said that while the claims by victims of the 9/11 attack are “ not part of the ongoing bilateral claims settlement process , Sudan ’ s transitional government is fully committed to the U.S. judicial process and to litigating these cases in an adversarial context to clear Sudan ’ s name.
” “ Sudan ’ s role in the attacks was proven during a 3-day bench trial in U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a multi-year Court review of each individual ’ s loss to establish specific judgment amounts , ” said Mike Miller , attorney for a large group of embassy bombing victims , in an email response .
“ The Supreme Court summarized the entire process well in their unanimous judgment against Sudan : ‘ After more than a decade of motions practice , intervening legislative amendments , and a trial , the plaintiffs proved Sudan ’ s role in the attacks and established their entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages.
’ ” The U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders from Carlos the Jackal to Osama bin Laden , has been complicated for decades .
In 1993 , Washington placed Sudan on its list of state sponsors of terrorists , alongside Libya , North Korea , and other countries .
Five years later , President Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. cruise missile attack against al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in retaliation for al Qaeda ’ s Aug. 7 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania , which killed 224 people , including 12 Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feared U.S. military retaliation and scaled back its support for terrorist organizations .
In recent years , beginning under Bashir , Sudan stepped up counterterrorism cooperation with Washington , which continues to this day , U.S. officials say .
But the relationship remained strained as Washington led negotiations that split Sudan into two countries , ushering in the independence of South Sudan in 2011 .
Bashir ’ s regime also orchestrated the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese citizens in the country ’ s western region of Darfur , which resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Criminal Court on charges of genocide .
The new transitional Sudanese government includes civilian leaders such as Hamdok , as well as members of the country ’ s powerful security services who were implicated in crimes in Darfur .
Gen. Mohamed Hamdan “ Hemeti ” Dagalo , who once ran the janjaweed militias that carried out widespread atrocities in Darfur , is considered the most powerful member of the transitional government .
Senior Trump administration officials said they hope to finally settle the decades-old claims against Sudan and help cement democratic reforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month , said the new government in Sudan presents “ an opportunity that doesn ’ t come along often.
” “ I think lifting the state sponsor of terrorism designation there if we can … take care of the victims of those tragedies would be a good thing for American foreign policy , ” he said .
Both countries have taken steps to thaw relations in recent months .
Sudan this year appointed its first full-fledged ambassador to the United States in over two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more diplomatic and economic ties between Sudan and the rest of the world , and open the door to private investment and assistance programs from the World Bank , the International Monetary Fund , and other institutions .
It remains unclear how Sudan , which is in dire financial straits , would finance the settlement .
Khartoum has been rife with rumors about support from wealthy Persian Gulf countries—or the possibility that Sudan would sell its gold reserves to raise the money .
But officials familiar with the negotiations said those options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 : This article was updated to include comments from Doreen Oport , a U.S. embassy employee injured in the embassy bombings and Mike Miller , an attorney for embassy bombing victims .

The Trump administration has reached an agreement in principle with Sudan’s new transitional government to settle a series of long-standing claims by American terrorism victims, laying the groundwork for the country’s removal from the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism, officials and congressional aides familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy.
The Trump administration has reached an agreement in principle with Sudan’s new transitional government to settle a series of long-standing claims by American terrorism victims, laying the groundwork for the country’s removal from the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism, officials and congressional aides familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy.
The deal—which has yet to be finalized—requires Sudan’s fledgling civilian-led government to deposit $335 million in an escrow account for the families of victims of terrorist attacks that the former Sudanese regime played a role in supporting two decades ago. The attacks covered in the agreement are the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 terrorist attack against the USS Cole. It would not address claims of families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Washington and New York.
If finalized, the arrangement would help restore Sudan’s standing in the international community and allow for outside investment and aid for the country’s ailing economy. It would also pave the way for further normalization of U.S. relations with Sudan and amount to a political victory for Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, whose fragile transitional government faces mounting pressure since the 2019 revolution that ousted the longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Hamdok in Sudan on Tuesday to discuss Khartoum’s transition to democracy and efforts to remove the country from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The Trump administration has also quietly pressured Sudan to normalize relations with Israel, several U.S. officials told Foreign Policy, though Hamdok’s office said in a statement on Tuesday his transitional government did not have the authority to do so. The officials said such a move could help expedite the lifting of the terrorism designation, given the Trump administration’s close relationship with Israel.
But officials in Washington caution that other significant hurdles remain before the deal can be finalized. The settlement proposal and directive to lift Sudan’s terrorism designation would have to be approved by Pompeo and then President Donald Trump before being sent to Congress for review. Lawmakers would have to agree to formally remove Sudan from the list of state terrorism sponsors and pass legislation that would restore the country’s sovereign immunity before U.S. courts.
The preliminary pact caps months of grueling legal and political discussions aimed at boosting the political prospects of Sudan’s civilian leader, Hamdok, who is leading the country’s difficult transition from decades of military dictatorship to civilian rule.
One sticking point was how U.S. citizens versus foreign nationals would be compensated by the Sudanese government. In the two decades since the attacks, some foreign nationals have become U.S. citizens, raising questions on whether they should be compensated based on their current or former citizenship.
The agreement calls on Sudan to pay up to $10 million for each U.S. government official killed in the U.S. Embassy bombings and $800,000 for foreign nationals who worked at the embassies and were killed, according to U.S. officials and congressional aides familiar with the matter. Americans injured in the attack could get anywhere from $3 million to $10 million in compensation, while foreign nationals injured would receive up to $400,000.
This plan has already drawn sharp criticism from some families of foreign citizens injured or killed in the attack, who said the United States shouldn’t place a higher or lower value on the victims based on their country of birth. U.S. officials familiar with the negotiations countered that the State Department is following the precedent set by the claims agreements with Libya in 2008 during negotiations to lift the country from the terrorism list, though lawyers representing the victims who oppose the deal dispute that narrative.
“A deal that defines American citizens not born in this country as ‘non-American’ and that values the lives of foreign national embassy employees at less than 10% that of the American colleagues they sacrificed themselves to save betrays everything we stand for as a nation,” Doreen Oport, a former U.S. embassy employee and naturalized American citizen who was severely injured in the 1998 attack, told Foreign Policy in an email statement.
Yet other victims and their family members, including Americans and Tanzanians, have asked Congress to support the agreement. “For more than two decades, we have waited for justice and accountability. We believe that the settlement agreement, while far from perfect, provides justice and accountability,” reads one letter to Congress signed by more than 80 family members.
“The new government in Sudan has promise, but it is fragile. If Congress fails to act and pass this legislation this year, a real opportunity for justice for American families may be lost, possibly forever, as the negotiated agreement between Sudan and the United States would likely collapse,” the letter adds. “Please don’t let that happen.”
Meanwhile, some family members of 9/11 victims have pressed Congress in recent months to oppose the deal because it does not address their claims.
“We want our day in court because we believe that Sudan (in addition to other nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran) played a key role in the 9/11 attacks,” read a note sent to congressional offices by family members and obtained by Foreign Policy. “Our State Department shouldn’t be destroying our legal rights to justice abroad particularly when those rights involve a State Sponsor of Terrorism like Sudan. In fact, the State Department should be our biggest proponent abroad, not pushing last minute sweetheart deals to prop up troubled foreign regimes that spent years targeting and killing innocent Americans.”
Some experts pushed back on the claims laid out by these families, saying there has not been enough evidence produced in the decades since 9/11 that would directly tie the former Sudanese regime to the attacks.
The 9/11 Commission produced hundreds of thousands of documents, but “no smoking gun that pointed back to Khartoum. I think there is something of a fishing expedition [underway],” said Cameron Hudson, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who studies Sudan. “They would like to reopen these documents and pore through them looking for Sudan’s culpability.”
Hudson said lawyers of the 9/11 victims had nearly two decades to search the commission’s findings, but they “haven’t pursued this case until now. The problem is it could take absolutely years to pore through these documents and Sudan doesn’t have years.”
Sudan’s counsel, Nicole Erb of the law firm White & Case, confirmed to Foreign Policy that Khartoum and Washington “have reached an agreement in principle” to resolve the victim claims over the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
“This agreement would resolve the default judgments entered against Sudan in U.S. litigations concerning the 1998 Embassy bombings in Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole attack,” she told Foreign Policy in an email. “Sudan’s transitional government inherited these default judgments from the prior regime, which had not appeared in the U.S. courts to defend Sudan against the claims against it.”
Erb said that while the claims by victims of the 9/11 attack are “not part of the ongoing bilateral claims settlement process, Sudan’s transitional government is fully committed to the U.S. judicial process and to litigating these cases in an adversarial context to clear Sudan’s name.”
“Sudan’s role in the attacks was proven during a 3-day bench trial in U.S. District Court, which was followed by a multi-year Court review of each individual’s loss to establish specific judgment amounts,” said Mike Miller, attorney for a large group of embassy bombing victims, in an email response. “The Supreme Court summarized the entire process well in their unanimous judgment against Sudan: ‘After more than a decade of motions practice, intervening legislative amendments, and a trial, the plaintiffs proved Sudan’s role in the attacks and established their entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages.’”
The U.S. relationship with Sudan, which hosted terrorist leaders from Carlos the Jackal to Osama bin Laden, has been complicated for decades.
In 1993, Washington placed Sudan on its list of state sponsors of terrorists, alongside Libya, North Korea, and other countries. Five years later, President Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. cruise missile attack against al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in retaliation for al Qaeda’s Aug. 7 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.
Following the 9/11 attacks, Sudan feared U.S. military retaliation and scaled back its support for terrorist organizations. In recent years, beginning under Bashir, Sudan stepped up counterterrorism cooperation with Washington, which continues to this day, U.S. officials say.
But the relationship remained strained as Washington led negotiations that split Sudan into two countries, ushering in the independence of South Sudan in 2011. Bashir’s regime also orchestrated the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese citizens in the country’s western region of Darfur, which resulted in an indictment against Bashir in the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide.
The new transitional Sudanese government includes civilian leaders such as Hamdok, as well as members of the country’s powerful security services who were implicated in crimes in Darfur. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan “Hemeti” Dagalo, who once ran the janjaweed militias that carried out widespread atrocities in Darfur, is considered the most powerful member of the transitional government.
Senior Trump administration officials said they hope to finally settle the decades-old claims against Sudan and help cement democratic reforms in the country.
Pompeo, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month, said the new government in Sudan presents “an opportunity that doesn’t come along often.”
“I think lifting the state sponsor of terrorism designation there if we can … take care of the victims of those tragedies would be a good thing for American foreign policy,” he said.
Both countries have taken steps to thaw relations in recent months. Sudan this year appointed its first full-fledged ambassador to the United States in over two decades.
Lifting the terrorism designation would allow for more diplomatic and economic ties between Sudan and the rest of the world, and open the door to private investment and assistance programs from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other institutions.
It remains unclear how Sudan, which is in dire financial straits, would finance the settlement. Khartoum has been rife with rumors about support from wealthy Persian Gulf countries—or the possibility that Sudan would sell its gold reserves to raise the money. But officials familiar with the negotiations said those options were unlikely.
Update, Aug. 27, 2020: This article was updated to include comments from Doreen Oport, a U.S. embassy employee injured in the embassy bombings and Mike Miller, an attorney for embassy bombing victims.


foreignpolicy--2020-08-25--Defunding the Police Might Leave Americans More Surveilled and Less Secure

Defunding the Police Might Leave Americans More Surveilled and Less Secure Over the summer , while announcing the disbanding of a controversial plainclothes unit of the New York City Police Department after weeks of Black Lives Matter protests , Police Commissioner Dermot Shea referred to the need for “ 21st-century policing ” that would use a range of technological tools—ShotSpotter ( a sensor system that estimates the location of gunfire ) , video , DNA , and more—instead of “ brute force.
” Reliance on such technologies could become the norm as calls for police reform—in particular , the defunding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , making such changes without adequate public oversight could result in Black people being surveilled and controlled even further .
To see the effects of surveillance technology on societies , look to the experiences of both authoritarian regimes such as China and North Korea and democracies such as Mexico and Israel .
Although authoritarian governments with little or no commitment to political rights may appear best poised to deploy sophisticated surveillance technology on a large scale , many nations deployed surveillance systems after 9/11 , ostensibly for national security purposes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found , liberal democracies and many developing countries have continued racing to implement technological solutions to make their borders “ smarter , ” policing “ safer , ” and their citizens better monitored .
Put together , new technologies can track an individual ’ s location and movements , shopping habits , political persuasions , religious affiliation , sexual preferences , social networks , participation in protests , social media posts , residence and workplace , and more .
During street protests , surveillance centers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including iris recognition , tracking of cellphones of individuals and groups of people , automatic license plate readers , drone footage , and geospatial tracking to identify , surveil , and detain or arrest individuals .
These systems , in effect , allow policing to occur “ without the flesh and blood presence of actual police , ” the Princeton University professor Ruha Benjamin has said .
Take China , the world ’ s leading driver of artificial intelligence-powered surveillance .
Its sophisticated surveillance technology is used to monitor all citizens ( eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for each person ) , including Uighurs who are held in mass detention camps .
In Xinjiang , the home of many camps , such technologies don ’ t just create a composite of Uighurs ’ daily activities ; they are also used for “ predictive policing ” —that is , flagging individuals for suspicious behavior , such as storing large amounts of food or using unusual amounts of electricity , which can lead to indefinite detention without charges or trial .
China has exported its surveillance technology around the world .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights violator , has used Chinese surveillance technology and know-how to develop and implement a “ fatherland card ” to track citizens ’ voting patterns , political activities , social media networks , and access to subsidized food programs .
And Uganda has used Chinese technology and technicians to surveil political opponents by intercepting encrypted communications and social media and using their cellphone data for tracking purposes .
It isn ’ t just dictatorships that are experimenting with such technologies .
In 2016 , international experts investigating the disappearances and likely killings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were sent text messages on a cellphone belonging to the investigation that included a link .
Those who clicked on the link would have installed spyware on their phone that could have allowed the message sender access to all their data .
It is unclear who sent the message , but the spyware program , Pegasus , was originally developed and sold by an Israeli company , NSO Group , to the Mexican government for security purposes .
It has since been misused to track dissidents , anti-corruption advocates , journalists , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States already track the social media feeds and posts of Black Lives Matter activists and in some instances have created false accounts to befriend and monitor certain individuals and their networks .
As in China , many U.S. cities also already use predictive policing .
For example , police in Tacoma , Washington ; Atlanta ; and at the University of California , Berkeley have used such analysis of historical big data to predict and prevent future crimes .
That might seem like a neat technocratic solution to the crisis in policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bias , given the fact that historical criminal justice data relies on racially biased inputs , such as prior arrests .
Contracts with private technology companies , lack of transparency on data sets used to construct algorithms , inadequate policies on data storage and sharing across government agencies , and use of historical data that overrepresents members of overpoliced communities all perpetuate racial harm .
Such algorithms are also used in sentencing .
A 2016 ProPublica investigation into risk assessment scores found rampant racial bias , with Black defendants being “ 77 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher risk of committing a future violent crime.
” Of course , technology could be a tool for racial reckoning .
The author Allissa Richardson has spoken of the phenomenon of “ Black witnessing , ” whereby Black people use smartphones to capture , document , and livestream for the world to see the truth behind modern-day lynchings at the hands of police and armed white vigilantes .
Advocacy groups from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Electronic Frontier Foundation have likewise called for Americans to exercise their First Amendment “ right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address underlying systems , inputs , laws , and policies to make sure those solutions don ’ t just reinforce racism .
But as cities , municipalities , and other places shuffle funds away from police departments and potentially invest in technological solutions instead , they will need to address underlying systems , inputs , laws , and policies to make sure those solutions don ’ t just reinforce racism .
Thanks to pressure from advocacy groups and even their own employees , some technology companies , such as Amazon and Microsoft , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies on the use of facial recognition technology systems for surveillance .
Others , such as Palantir , are under pressure from both racial justice and immigrant rights ’ groups for their role in partnering with government agencies including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and police departments .
Meanwhile , some cities—including New York City—have passed legislation requiring police departments to disclose contracts with technology companies and data collection practices .
Others should follow suit .
And efforts to reform the police need to be complemented by efforts to reimagine other public agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the pernicious policies surrounding fines , fees , and cash bail—all of which keep poor people trapped in a vicious cycle of debt , incarceration , probation , parole , and , very often , reincarceration .
Over the summer , Los Angeles started to channel funds away from policing toward community programs .
It has also started a program to demilitarize the police , due to pressure from voters and activists .
This is long overdue : A report analyzing the budgets of 12 major cities and counties in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that overinvestments in policing and incarceration were met by underinvestment in public infrastructure , such as youth , mental health , and food access programs , with 41 percent of Oakland ’ s budget dedicated to policing .
Social movement campaigns around the world have mobilized successfully to hold governments accountable , and their strategies can provide insights for racial justice movements in the United States .
According to the author Keisha Blain , the fight against racism has always been global , and “ people all over the world see their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BLM movement.
” The struggle against surveillance technology and digital policing must also be global .

Over the summer, while announcing the disbanding of a controversial plainclothes unit of the New York City Police Department after weeks of Black Lives Matter protests, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea referred to the need for “ 21st-century policing ” that would use a range of technological tools—ShotSpotter (a sensor system that estimates the location of gunfire), video, DNA, and more—instead of “brute force.” Reliance on such technologies could become the norm as calls for police reform—in particular, the defunding of the police—take root around the country. However, making such changes without adequate public oversight could result in Black people being surveilled and controlled even further.
Over the summer, while announcing the disbanding of a controversial plainclothes unit of the New York City Police Department after weeks of Black Lives Matter protests, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea referred to the need for “21st-century policing” that would use a range of technological tools—ShotSpotter (a sensor system that estimates the location of gunfire), video, DNA, and more—instead of “brute force.” Reliance on such technologies could become the norm as calls for police reform—in particular, the defunding of the police—take root around the country. However, making such changes without adequate public oversight could result in Black people being surveilled and controlled even further.
To see the effects of surveillance technology on societies, look to the experiences of both authoritarian regimes such as China and North Korea and democracies such as Mexico and Israel. Although authoritarian governments with little or no commitment to political rights may appear best poised to deploy sophisticated surveillance technology on a large scale, many nations deployed surveillance systems after 9/11, ostensibly for national security purposes. And since then, a 2019 study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found, liberal democracies and many developing countries have continued racing to implement technological solutions to make their borders “smarter,” policing “safer,” and their citizens better monitored.
Put together, new technologies can track an individual’s location and movements, shopping habits, political persuasions, religious affiliation, sexual preferences, social networks, participation in protests, social media posts, residence and workplace, and more. During street protests, surveillance centers can quickly combine information from facial recognition systems including iris recognition, tracking of cellphones of individuals and groups of people, automatic license plate readers, drone footage, and geospatial tracking to identify, surveil, and detain or arrest individuals. These systems, in effect, allow policing to occur “without the flesh and blood presence of actual police,” the Princeton University professor Ruha Benjamin has said.
Take China, the world’s leading driver of artificial intelligence-powered surveillance. Its sophisticated surveillance technology is used to monitor all citizens (eventually contributing to a planned social credit score for each person), including Uighurs who are held in mass detention camps. In Xinjiang, the home of many camps, such technologies don’t just create a composite of Uighurs’ daily activities; they are also used for “predictive policing”—that is, flagging individuals for suspicious behavior, such as storing large amounts of food or using unusual amounts of electricity, which can lead to indefinite detention without charges or trial.
China has exported its surveillance technology around the world. For example, Venezuela, a notorious human rights violator, has used Chinese surveillance technology and know-how to develop and implement a “fatherland card” to track citizens’ voting patterns, political activities, social media networks, and access to subsidized food programs. And Uganda has used Chinese technology and technicians to surveil political opponents by intercepting encrypted communications and social media and using their cellphone data for tracking purposes.
It isn’t just dictatorships that are experimenting with such technologies. In 2016, international experts investigating the disappearances and likely killings of 43 college students in Mexico in 2014 were sent text messages on a cellphone belonging to the investigation that included a link. Those who clicked on the link would have installed spyware on their phone that could have allowed the message sender access to all their data. It is unclear who sent the message, but the spyware program, Pegasus, was originally developed and sold by an Israeli company, NSO Group, to the Mexican government for security purposes. It has since been misused to track dissidents, anti-corruption advocates, journalists, and others.
Similarly, police in the United States already track the social media feeds and posts of Black Lives Matter activists and in some instances have created false accounts to befriend and monitor certain individuals and their networks. As in China, many U.S. cities also already use predictive policing. For example, police in Tacoma, Washington; Atlanta; and at the University of California, Berkeley have used such analysis of historical big data to predict and prevent future crimes. That might seem like a neat technocratic solution to the crisis in policing, but it merely amplifies existing racial bias, given the fact that historical criminal justice data relies on racially biased inputs, such as prior arrests. Contracts with private technology companies, lack of transparency on data sets used to construct algorithms, inadequate policies on data storage and sharing across government agencies, and use of historical data that overrepresents members of overpoliced communities all perpetuate racial harm. Such algorithms are also used in sentencing. A 2016 ProPublica investigation into risk assessment scores found rampant racial bias, with Black defendants being “77 percent more likely to be pegged as at higher risk of committing a future violent crime.”
Of course, technology could be a tool for racial reckoning. The author Allissa Richardson has spoken of the phenomenon of “Black witnessing,” whereby Black people use smartphones to capture, document, and livestream for the world to see the truth behind modern-day lynchings at the hands of police and armed white vigilantes. Advocacy groups from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Electronic Frontier Foundation have likewise called for Americans to exercise their First Amendment “right to record.”
Cities will need to address underlying systems, inputs, laws, and policies to make sure those solutions don’t just reinforce racism.
But as cities, municipalities, and other places shuffle funds away from police departments and potentially invest in technological solutions instead, they will need to address underlying systems, inputs, laws, and policies to make sure those solutions don’t just reinforce racism.
Thanks to pressure from advocacy groups and even their own employees, some technology companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, are putting moratoriums on partnering with police agencies on the use of facial recognition technology systems for surveillance. Others, such as Palantir, are under pressure from both racial justice and immigrant rights’ groups for their role in partnering with government agencies including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and police departments.
Meanwhile, some cities—including New York City—have passed legislation requiring police departments to disclose contracts with technology companies and data collection practices. Others should follow suit. And efforts to reform the police need to be complemented by efforts to reimagine other public agencies such as child welfare, as well as the pernicious policies surrounding fines, fees, and cash bail—all of which keep poor people trapped in a vicious cycle of debt, incarceration, probation, parole, and, very often, reincarceration.
Over the summer, Los Angeles started to channel funds away from policing toward community programs. It has also started a program to demilitarize the police, due to pressure from voters and activists. This is long overdue: A report analyzing the budgets of 12 major cities and counties in the United States over the past three decades found that overinvestments in policing and incarceration were met by underinvestment in public infrastructure, such as youth, mental health, and food access programs, with 41 percent of Oakland’s budget dedicated to policing.
Social movement campaigns around the world have mobilized successfully to hold governments accountable, and their strategies can provide insights for racial justice movements in the United States. According to the author Keisha Blain, the fight against racism has always been global, and “people all over the world see their own struggles for rights and dignity reflected in the BLM movement.” The struggle against surveillance technology and digital policing must also be global.


foreignpolicy--2020-08-28--Russia and the West Eye Montenegro; Abe Resigns in Japan

Russia and the West Eye Montenegro ; Abe Resigns in Japan Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Decisive elections take place in Montenegro on Sunday , Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigns , and violence continues to sweep Colombia .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Voters will head to the polls in Montenegro on Sunday to cast their ballots for the country ’ s 81-seat legislature in an election that could have significant geopolitical implications for the increasingly hostile tug-of-war between Russia and the West .
Longtime Montenegrin leader Milo Djukanovic and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DPS ) will be fighting for their political lives .
The country has been gripped in recent months by mass protests against Djukanovic ’ s rule , in large part due to the passage of a controversial religious law last year that Serbian Orthodox Church officials claim would transfer ownership of church properties to the state .
But the presence of the national flag of Serbia—Montenegro ’ s former ruler and one of Russia ’ s closest allies in the region—has given the protests strong nationalist overtones .
The Church cuts its political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest religious institution in the country , has taken the unusual step of intervening in domestic politics .
Although it isn ’ t running any candidates of its own , it has helped organize the protests against Djukanovic and has firmly thrown its weight behind the opposition .
“ That is why we need to go to these elections—to vote against those who rule with false laws , ” said leading Serbian Orthodox Bishop Amfilohije Radovic .
Accusations of meddling and fraud on both sides .
The right-wing populist Democratic Front alliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pro-Russian parties , leads the opposition and is poised to be the greatest beneficiary of anti-government sentiment .
Opinion polls suggest it will make solid gains on Sunday .
Djukanovic has accused Russia and Serbia of meddling in the election campaign to boost the opposition and prevent the country from moving closer to the West .
Opposition parties , meanwhile , are already accusing the DPS of fraud and election rigging .
Looking to Brussels .
Djukanovic is a strong supporter of his country ’ s accession to the European Union , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a battle between his pro-Western party and the Russia-aligned theocratic opposition .
But his future—and the future of the country—looks increasingly precarious .
Polls suggest his party will still be the largest in the legislature but without enough support to govern on its own .
The resulting uncertainty could throw the country into a political crisis , which could put its EU membership bid in serious doubt .
Hitting back ?
It is unclear how Russia and Serbia would respond , but they could be willing to take extralegal action .
Djukanovic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the eve of the last parliamentary elections in 2016 , which officials blamed on Russia and Serbia .
Montenegro formally joined NATO shortly thereafter , a move Moscow strenuously opposed .
Abe resigns in Japan .
Shinzo Abe—the country ’ s longest serving prime minister—announced his resignation for health reasons on Friday .
Abe suffers from ulcerative colitis , an inflammatory bowel disease , and rumors began to swirl after he made two recent visits to the hospital .
Abe apologized to Japanese citizens for failing to complete his term in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 2021 .
His departure will trigger a leadership battle within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party ( LDP ) and the winner , once formally elected in parliament , will hold the post for the remainder of Abe ’ s term .
Whoever wins the internal LDP race is likely to keep the outgoing leader ’ s “ Abenomics ” policies in place .
Trump accepts the Republican nomination .
U.S. President Donald Trump accepted the Republican Party ’ s nomination for president on the last night of the Republican National Convention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country faces a fresh wave of racial unrest .
Trump cited the peace agreement with the Taliban , the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi , the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani , and the recent Israeli-UAE peace deal as among his top foreign-policy achievements .
Although the party itself stands firmly behind him , Trump is facing a significant challenge from among Republican supporters .
More than 100 former staffers of the late Republican Sen. John McCain endorsed Democratic nominee Joe Biden for U.S. president on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans who are uniting behind Biden against Trump .
Russian military at the ready .
Russian President Vladimir Putin turned up the heat in Belarus , saying in an interview that he has formed a special police unit and that he informed embattled Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko that he is prepared to send it to Belarus if the current crisis turns violent .
Lukashenko has been facing massive protests against his 26-year presidency since claiming a landslide victory in the country ’ s presidential elections earlier this month amid widespread accusations of electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously hinted at Russian military intervention , telling reporters that Putin offered to give him military backing if he needed it , but the Kremlin dismissed that claim at the time .
Mali junta frees deposed president .
On Thursday , Mali ’ s newly-formed junta released deposed President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita , who had been ousted in a military coup last week along with the rest of the Malian government .
Representatives of the 15-member Economic Community of West African States ( ECOWAS ) were dispatched to Mali earlier this week to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilian rule .
They had demanded Keita ’ s release .
But ECOWAS members have already determined that Keita won ’ t form part of the transition back to civilian rule , and Keita himself is unlikely to seek a return to power .
“ If today , certain elements of our armed forces want this to end through their intervention , do I really have a choice ?
” he said after he announced his resignation .
Mediators from ECOWAS and the African Union have not made much headway toward the larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the reason is that these organizations and their leaders lack credibility with average citizens , Adem K. Abebe argued in Foreign Policy earlier this week .
That ’ s because they are seen as hypocritical for protecting unpopular incumbents who abuse power while denouncing military coups with widespread support .
“ The AU and ECOWAS have a credibility problem , ” Abebe wrote .
“ They are not denouncing those who flout laws to hold on to power ; they complain only when the military seizes it.
” Military buildup in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to worsen as EU foreign ministers meet in Berlin to find a way out of the crisis .
On Thursday , Turkey announced it would hold military exercises in the region next week , matching joint exercises conducted by Greece and France this week and making a military confrontation increasingly likely .
Greece and Turkey , both NATO allies but historic rivals , have overlapping maritime claims in the eastern Mediterranean , where large reserves of oil and gas were recently discovered .
Michaël Tanchum recently wrote for Foreign Policy explaining how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geopolitical standoff .
Violence in Colombia .
At least 39 people have been killed in a wave of violence across Colombia , adding to growing concerns that the country has yet to move past its decades-long civil war despite the government reaching an historic peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia ( FARC ) in 2016 .
Despite the end of large-scale warfare , groups including dissident FARC factions , smaller left-wing guerrillas , right-wing paramilitaries , drug cartels , and the Colombian military continue to fight over territory in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen 46 massacres so far this year , according to local watchdog Indepaz .
Some observers say the blame falls on President Iván Duque , who was always skeptical of the peace deal signed by his predecessor , saying he hasn ’ t done enough to implement its provisions .
Mosquito remedy .
Researchers in Indonesia have discovered that infecting mosquitoes with a naturally occurring bacteria could dramatically reduce their ability to transmit dengue , a mosquito-transmitted viral infection that has already infected 70,000 people and killed 500 since January .
Conducting tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers found that the presence of mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia bacteria in parts of the city reduced the number of dengue infections by 77 percent compared to untreated areas .
Researchers are still uncertain why Wolbachia inhibits the transmission of dengue , but the results are astonishing and trials have already begun in other tropical and subtropical countries where dengue is common .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections @ @ @ @ @

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Decisive elections take place in Montenegro on Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigns , and violence continues to sweep Colombia .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Decisive elections take place in Montenegro on Sunday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigns, and violence continues to sweep Colombia.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
Montenegro’s Future Hangs in the Balance
Voters will head to the polls in Montenegro on Sunday to cast their ballots for the country’s 81-seat legislature in an election that could have significant geopolitical implications for the increasingly hostile tug-of-war between Russia and the West.
Longtime Montenegrin leader Milo Djukanovic and his ruling pro-Western Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) will be fighting for their political lives. The country has been gripped in recent months by mass protests against Djukanovic’s rule, in large part due to the passage of a controversial religious law last year that Serbian Orthodox Church officials claim would transfer ownership of church properties to the state. But the presence of the national flag of Serbia—Montenegro’s former ruler and one of Russia’s closest allies in the region—has given the protests strong nationalist overtones.
The Church cuts its political teeth. The Serbian Orthodox Church, the largest religious institution in the country, has taken the unusual step of intervening in domestic politics. Although it isn’t running any candidates of its own, it has helped organize the protests against Djukanovic and has firmly thrown its weight behind the opposition. “That is why we need to go to these elections—to vote against those who rule with false laws,” said leading Serbian Orthodox Bishop Amfilohije Radovic.
Accusations of meddling and fraud on both sides. The right-wing populist Democratic Front alliance, a coalition composed mainly of pro-Serbian and pro-Russian parties, leads the opposition and is poised to be the greatest beneficiary of anti-government sentiment. Opinion polls suggest it will make solid gains on Sunday. Djukanovic has accused Russia and Serbia of meddling in the election campaign to boost the opposition and prevent the country from moving closer to the West. Opposition parties, meanwhile, are already accusing the DPS of fraud and election rigging.
Looking to Brussels. Djukanovic is a strong supporter of his country’s accession to the European Union, and he has framed the current campaign as a battle between his pro-Western party and the Russia-aligned theocratic opposition. But his future—and the future of the country—looks increasingly precarious. Polls suggest his party will still be the largest in the legislature but without enough support to govern on its own. The resulting uncertainty could throw the country into a political crisis, which could put its EU membership bid in serious doubt.
Hitting back? It is unclear how Russia and Serbia would respond, but they could be willing to take extralegal action. Djukanovic’s government thwarted a coup attempt on the eve of the last parliamentary elections in 2016, which officials blamed on Russia and Serbia. Montenegro formally joined NATO shortly thereafter, a move Moscow strenuously opposed.
What We’re Following Today
Abe resigns in Japan. Shinzo Abe—the country’s longest serving prime minister—announced his resignation for health reasons on Friday. Abe suffers from ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, and rumors began to swirl after he made two recent visits to the hospital. Abe apologized to Japanese citizens for failing to complete his term in office, which was due to end in September 2021.
His departure will trigger a leadership battle within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the winner, once formally elected in parliament, will hold the post for the remainder of Abe’s term. Whoever wins the internal LDP race is likely to keep the outgoing leader’s “Abenomics” policies in place.
Trump accepts the Republican nomination. U.S. President Donald Trump accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for president on the last night of the Republican National Convention, as COVID-19 deaths continue to mount and the country faces a fresh wave of racial unrest. Trump cited the peace agreement with the Taliban, the death of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, and the recent Israeli-UAE peace deal as among his top foreign-policy achievements.
Although the party itself stands firmly behind him, Trump is facing a significant challenge from among Republican supporters. More than 100 former staffers of the late Republican Sen. John McCain endorsed Democratic nominee Joe Biden for U.S. president on Thursday, adding to a growing chorus of Republicans who are uniting behind Biden against Trump.
Russian military at the ready. Russian President Vladimir Putin turned up the heat in Belarus, saying in an interview that he has formed a special police unit and that he informed embattled Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko that he is prepared to send it to Belarus if the current crisis turns violent. Lukashenko has been facing massive protests against his 26-year presidency since claiming a landslide victory in the country’s presidential elections earlier this month amid widespread accusations of electoral fraud and irregularities.
Lukashenko had already previously hinted at Russian military intervention, telling reporters that Putin offered to give him military backing if he needed it, but the Kremlin dismissed that claim at the time.
Mali junta frees deposed president. On Thursday, Mali’s newly-formed junta released deposed President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, who had been ousted in a military coup last week along with the rest of the Malian government. Representatives of the 15-member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) were dispatched to Mali earlier this week to help find a way to return to civilian rule. They had demanded Keita’s release.
But ECOWAS members have already determined that Keita won’t form part of the transition back to civilian rule, and Keita himself is unlikely to seek a return to power. “If today, certain elements of our armed forces want this to end through their intervention, do I really have a choice?” he said after he announced his resignation.
Mediators from ECOWAS and the African Union have not made much headway toward the larger goal of restoring civilian rule. Part of the reason is that these organizations and their leaders lack credibility with average citizens, Adem K. Abebe argued in Foreign Policy earlier this week. That’s because they are seen as hypocritical for protecting unpopular incumbents who abuse power while denouncing military coups with widespread support. “The AU and ECOWAS have a credibility problem,” Abebe wrote. “They are not denouncing those who flout laws to hold on to power; they complain only when the military seizes it.”
Keep an Eye On
Military buildup in the eastern Mediterranean. The eastern Mediterranean dispute continues to worsen as EU foreign ministers meet in Berlin to find a way out of the crisis. On Thursday, Turkey announced it would hold military exercises in the region next week, matching joint exercises conducted by Greece and France this week and making a military confrontation increasingly likely.
Greece and Turkey, both NATO allies but historic rivals, have overlapping maritime claims in the eastern Mediterranean, where large reserves of oil and gas were recently discovered. Michaël Tanchum recently wrote for Foreign Policy explaining how this local dispute developed into a major geopolitical standoff.
Violence in Colombia. At least 39 people have been killed in a wave of violence across Colombia, adding to growing concerns that the country has yet to move past its decades-long civil war despite the government reaching an historic peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016. Despite the end of large-scale warfare, groups including dissident FARC factions, smaller left-wing guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries, drug cartels, and the Colombian military continue to fight over territory in some parts of the country. Colombia has seen 46 massacres so far this year, according to local watchdog Indepaz.
Some observers say the blame falls on President Iván Duque, who was always skeptical of the peace deal signed by his predecessor, saying he hasn’t done enough to implement its provisions.
Odds and Ends
Mosquito remedy. Researchers in Indonesia have discovered that infecting mosquitoes with a naturally occurring bacteria could dramatically reduce their ability to transmit dengue, a mosquito-transmitted viral infection that has already infected 70,000 people and killed 500 since January. Conducting tests in the Indonesian city of Yogyakarta, researchers found that the presence of mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia bacteria in parts of the city reduced the number of dengue infections by 77 percent compared to untreated areas.
Researchers are still uncertain why Wolbachia inhibits the transmission of dengue, but the results are astonishing and trials have already begun in other tropical and subtropical countries where dengue is common.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.