The Death of Qassim Soleimani

Alex Jain vs. Mustafa Master

ALEX JAIN

The American Airstrike in Baghdad was a Huge, Costly, Pointless Mistake.

On January 3, 2020, a US airstrike in Baghdad’s capital killed ten people, including Qassim Soleimani, in retaliation for the death of an American contractor by Irani forces. Soleimani, leader of the Quds force, the military intelligence faction of the Iranian army, was often considered as the second most powerful man his homeland. The airstrike was a debilitating mistake. It sparked a mass diplomatic crisis between the US and Iran, retaliatory Iranian airstrikes on American bases in Iraq, and numerous riots in the region. It also destabilized America’s already fragile international relations with Iraq, who banned all foreign armies (Hubbard et al., 2020).

Imagine if peace in the Middle East is a tower of wooden blocks that you make while playing Jenga as a child. The airstrike in Baghdad is that one piece that, if removed, will result in a loss of stability and will lead to the tower crashing down; game over. The following reasons highlight this logic:

1. Violence is not the answer. It is so easy to be violent. It is so hard to be peaceful. But if we look at examples in recent history, like America’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, both were colossal failures. Increased aggression with Iran will lead to many losers and no winners.

2. Questionable timing. There is much speculation that Trump launched the airstrike to draw attention away from the media circus discussing his impeachment proceedings, and for a boost towards his reelection campaign (Stanage, 2020).

3. Questionable motive. Various reasons were given by the Trump administration for the airstrike: from Soleimani being a grave threat to an attempt for world peace to deterring Iranian military action; these ranging responses suggest that the motivating factor was what many have speculated already, Trump’s ticket to a 2020 reelection (Cohen, 2020).

4. Nine other individuals died alongside Soleimani (Hubbard et al.). The assassination of Soleimani should have only killed him and should have been more covert. It was far too publicised.

5. Disproportionate response. The airstrike in Baghdad was not merely an eye for an eye but rather an eye for two eyes, a nose, a mouth, a face, two hands and two feet. The US response to the death of a contractor did not warrant the death of the second most powerful man in Iran (Hubbard et al.).

6. The US aggravated the situation by exiting the Iran nuclear deal. It was spearheaded by Obama in the hopes of curbing Iran’s nuclear program, in exchange for looser trade restrictions by the US and European countries towards Iran. This deal helped foster a period of stability quite alien to the region in recent years. When Trump decided to remove the US from the agreement in May 2018, reinstating hefty sanctions, the regional instability largely returned. Eventually, after the airstrike, Iran left the deal (Laub and Robinson, 2020). The point made here is that the US airstrike was the wrong direction that American-lranian relations went in, when another way, one involving diplomacy, was viable but was inevitably overlooked by Trump and eventually Khamenei.

7. Obama and Bush avoided it. While other presidents discussed Soleimani’s assassination, it was deemed too controversial and problematic to the region's stability (Panetta, 2020). What has changed now? The ego of the president.

8. The US should be an example to the world as a hegemon, not a tyrant or a fool. Obama's presidency personified the US as batman. Trump’s presidency has personified the US as the joker. The US should not be encouraging conflict but rather pushing towards peaceful diplomatic solutions, whether in Iran, Israel and Palestine or North and South Korea.

9. No briefing was given to Congress. Before the airstrike, legally, Trump should have notified the top eight members of Congress. By not doing this, he acted unethically and also highlighted the insecurities he has with members of the American government who disagreed with his rash decision (Wolf, 2020).

An important follow-up point which further proves how misjudged this act of violence was can be found in the way Trump reacted to the airstrike; in the midst of the destructive aftermath, Trump threatened to destroy Iranian cultural heritage, which was not only entirely unnecessary but was simply an atrocious comment to make. From medieval Islamic cities like Isfahan to ancient ruins like Persopolis, the heritage of Iran is precious and a pivotal testament to history, religion, and the human experience (Silkes, 2020). Imagine if Iran destroyed the Statue of Liberty, the Hollywood sign, or 70 other American cultural sights? It would be vile and a complete loss.

As such, the reasons listed above highlight why the US airstrike in Baghdad was immoral and unnecessary. Above all, the Baghdad airstrike seems like a step towards violence and destruction between Iran and America instead of one of diplomacy and tolerance.

MUSTAFA MASTER

The US Responded Justly to an Aggressor

We believe that there is appropriate and weighted reasoning for the airstrike attack in Baghdad that killed Iranian General, Qaseem Suleimani. Occurring on January 3rd, 2020 — executed by President Donald Trump, this act was the only viable option after Iran’s attack on US Iraq bases. Further, the assassination of Suleimani has prevented further airstrikes on bases housing Americans. The threat to American lives in lraq and the threat of Suleimani are two main reasons we believe justify the airstrike, further, supporting and justifying the decision made by President Trump.

Iran launched more than 10 airstrikes on bases housing American soldiers, blaming militant Kataib Hezbollah, member of the Mobilization Forces. Kataib and Suleimani have also interacted to further coordinate attacks on the United States. Moreover, on December 27th, Kataib launched more than 30 strikes at an lraqi base in Kirkuk, wounding 4 US service members and the life of a US contractor. With constant aggression towards the US militant bases in Iraq, a justified retaliation by President Trump involved 5 airstrikes in Kataib locations, with 3 in Iraq, to gain control of his sites. Further, officials reported that Suleimani planned to attack the US embassy in Baghdad and 4 other locations.

President Trump, who was initially against the assassination executed the operation to assassinate Suleimani after the killing of an American life, which thereby justified a threat to American lives in Iraq.

With regards to Suleimani being a threat to the world, if not the US, he was responsible for lran’s building and implementation of explosive devices to militants which targeted US troops in Iraq, and killed several service members, causing a quarter of the combat deaths in Iraq. He was also involved in the Syrian Civil War, providing forces to boost the corrupt regime at the time. He has armed and dealt with several non-state acting organizations like the Militants in Gaza and Houthi’s of Yemen. Lastly, he never followed his diplomatic duties, for example, despite signing the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, he continued pursuing nuclear weapons.

The above reasons and evidence justify the actions of the United States in response to the aggressor — Iran. In hindsight, this airstrike has greatly benefited Iran: loss of an attack-minded general from the military, less hostile environments post surrendering to the US, and a chance to move away from the corrupt foundations of the government. From killing American lives to posing a threat to the Middle East — especially Iraq, this provides enough rationale and basis for the assassination of Suleimani. An action so severe is bound to have rippling consequences, but the action was necessary.

References

Cohen, Z. (2020, January 14). Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from imminent’ threat to deterrence.

Hubbard, B., Fassihi, F., & Specia, M. (2020, January 3). The Killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani: What We Know Since the U.S. Airstrike.

Laub, Z., & Robinson, K. (2020, January 7). What Is the Status of the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

Mcintyre, Jamie. “Pentagon Vigorously Defends Trump's Decision to Kill Top Iranian General, and the Intelligence behind It.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 7 Jan.

Panetta, G. (2020, January 4). Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an airstrike.

Rivers, Bill. “Trump's Assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani Was the Smart Thing to Do.”

NBCNews.com, NBC Universal News Group, 7 Jan. 2020,

Silkes, E. (2020, January 10). Why Threats Against Iranian Cultural Sites Threaten Humanity.

Stanage, N. (2020, January 7}. The Memo: Will Iran crisis sideline impeachment process?

Wolf, Z. B. (2020, January 11). Why Trump's changing Iran story is costing him support in Congress.

The Rise of the Guest Worker

By Paras Kapoor

The world is in the midst of a guest worker programs boom, a boom exemplified and defined by changes taking place in countries like China, America, and Japan. These case studies can be used to explain what this trend is, the factors fuelling this trend, and their implications on the rest of the world. Guest worker programs are defined as visas that allow foreign workers to temporarily reside and work in a host country. These workers are typically hired to perform low or semi-skilled agricultural, industrial, or domestic labor. Their primary use is to address skill shortages in various industries and help firms fill vacancies in a tight labor market.

To give you a sense of the scale of change that this trend brings about, consider America. It has in the past decade quadrupled the number of visas issued under its various guest worker programs. This has proved true even under an administration that is openly hostile to immigrants. Not only has this administration increased the number of visas issued, but also pushed through rule changes using executive action to make the process easier for employers. Japan has _ similarly enacted legislation to issue visas to some 345,000 individuals for unskilled work over the next 5 years; a radical change in a country that has, for most of its history, refused to accept any immigrants. China, though not as radical in its opening up as the previous two countries, has taken important steps in liberalizing its immigration regime. It has set up a new body called the State Immigration Administration, making it easier for foreigners to work legally in border areas as well as poorer provinces, in an attempt to easily modify the controls on immigration to meet the needs of the Chinese economy as it changes.

A common factor stimulates guest worker programs in these countries: labor shortages. Witnessing a booming economy, the United States has been unable to find enough workers to fill industry openings. This is not a surprise considering unemployment is near a 50 year low, with physically-demanding industries being hit hardest by vacancies.

Japan, with its ageing population, faces even more severe shortages. Despite its recent attempts to increase the retirement age, the government has tried to encourage female participation in the labor force and automation industry which are both confronted with a huge labor shortage. Meanwhile, China's demand for unskilled immigrants has been driven by a shrinking as well as hollowing out of the labor force in poorer areas, caused by citizens in these areas leaving to work in more prosperous provinces.

The increasing importance of guest worker programs thus leads us to question whether they are exploitative in their nature, as they place two countries in an unequal relationship? Do they contribute positively to the economies of the host and sending nation? And lastly do they compromise working conditions and undercut wages for domestic workers?

It is at the same time important to question whether such programs deprive sending-nations of valued skilled labor, and thus robs them of potential economic growth. It's easy to see why skilled workers are attracted to these opportunities, lured by higher wages and the chance to live a better life. Such programs also act to reduce the pressure on governments to improve economic conditions at home, which are responsible in the first place for such outflows. Remittances can also result in a strengthening of the local currency, rendering exports uncompetitive, preventing the kind of industrialization required to remedy the situation.

Meanwhile, host-nations get access to cheaper labor pools. Such visas are also typically linked to a_ specific employer, increasing the hold firms have on workers. Workers find it hard to protest against or complain about bad working conditions and low wages, as they are threatened with being fired which would result in deportation. This curtailment of human rights is certainly chilling. Sending-nations meanwhile find it particularly hard to advocate for their workers, fearing that they will be replaced by another country. Host-countries also tend to have extensive trading relationships — with sending-nations which they can threaten to jeopardize, to coerce sending-nations into silence.

A loosening of the labor market due to the influx of immigrants can hurt domestic workers as well. Whereas a tight labor market naturally forces wages to go up, the option of hiring foreign workers can keep wages stagnant by broadening the labor pool. Foreign workers are often preferred over domestic workers: they accept lower wages, and employers are not required to contribute to their pensions and other welfare schemes. Combining these facts with their inability to protest makes foreign workers the preferred employee. The ease with which firms can hire foreign labor under guest worker programs is also weaponized as a threat against domestic workers, and used to keep wages low. A fundamental question thus arises: is the expansion of guest worker programs driven by a genuine labor shortage, or an unwillingness by firms to pay the higher wage required to attract sufficient labor?

Furthermore, in conservative societies like Japan, the acceptance of guest workers will necessarily lead to a move away from the intense uniform culture present today to a more diverse culture in the future. It is yet to be seen how these societies will respond to such changes, and whether the resulting backlash will be severe enough to result in the end of guest worker programs altogether. We have already seen, what are traditionally considered to be, more open nations like America and Britain face a backlash in recent times over their immigration policies.

There are genuine problems posed by the recent expansion of guest worker programs. Countries will have to walk a fine line between protecting domestic workers and encouraging economic growth, and more will need to be done regarding the rights and protections offered to workers under these programs. Action must also be taken by sending-nations to fix the root cause of the current outflow, and create greater opportunities back home. Countries will also have to grapple with the culture changes such programs will naturally provoke and the resulting anger over it. At the same time, sending-nations will need to become more competitive in order to keep their own workers satisfied working in their native country.

Sources

The Economist, America’s Guest Worker Boom

New York Times, H2B Visa

Bloomberg, Japan Has a New Guest Worker Program

The Economist, A Chinese Boarder Town Officials Try a New Approach to Immigration

CFR, Temporary Foreign Worker Programs

DW, Japan's New Visa Regulation Opens A Door To Foreign Labor

White House, US Unemployment Rate Falls to a 50-Year Low

Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

It brings me great pleasure to bring you the second-ever hard copy edition of The Emissary. This project was first brought to life last year in an effort to provide delegates and staff with a unique token to remember their experience by. It was an absolute pleasure to be a part of the process in bringing this vision into reality. I can only imagine how far this publication will go in the future.

To our amazing Emissary staff - thank you for all the time and effort you put into this project. You all handled the pressure of a fast-paced publication with grace and professionalism far beyond your years. I am glad to say that I loved working with each and every one of you. To our Senior-Copy-Editor, Tasmiyah - your job was the toughest of all, yet you handled it perfectly. I could not have asked for a better person for this role.

To the Secretariat - thank you for all your hard work and dedication in bringing this conference together. The all-nighters were tough, but certainly worth it! To the delegates - on behalf of the Communications and Design team, I would like to thank you all for choosing to spend the past week with us. We hope you come again in 2021 to collect the third edition of The Emissary! I wish you all safe travels home.

Natalie Liu, Editor-in-Chief

2020: A Talk with Mr. Selvakumaran Ramachandran

By Radmila Yarovaya

Hands shaking and voice recorder turned on, I punched in the last few digits of a familiar number and waited for someone to pick up the phone. Without a doubt the Head of United Nations Development for South Sudan is a hard person to get a hold of, even if his daughter is your roommate. Having never come in contact with, let alone have the opportunity to interview a person in such a notorious line of work I’m expecting a pessimistic prognosis, an oversimplification of statecraft and polity for the sake of my underdeveloped undergraduate mind, a magisterial parable on the current state of international affairs - not that we need to be reminded of how fragile our system of international cooperation is already. Instead, what I encounter is a vision of hope from a man deeply passionate about his work and committed to building a future for a world that most of us have already given up on; what I encounter is an individual who, despite committing his life to diplomacy and foreign service, is open to an honest and equal conversation and not afraid to give idealism a shot at changing the world.

My first realization of the gravity of the work that my best friend’s father did was during the spring of 2019 when tensions in South Sudan reached their breaking point. While we were all busy discussing the political and human rights implications of what was going on as well as trying to spread awareness through instagram posts in order to feel like we were contributing to some semblance of order in our unravelling world, my friend was worried about her father who had to fly out to South Sudan to deal with the crisis on the ground. Thus, when I had an opportunity to write a piece for the Emissary, I simply couldn’t pass up doing an interview with such an enigmatic figure who does work that we often hear about but understand little of.

To start, I jumped to the basics, namely Mr.Selvakumaran’s daily duties and the implication of his work. I was instantly corrected by the reminder that every country is different in its stages of development and thus has different needs and goals that must be achieved. With regards to South Sudan, a war-torn country in a post revolution period, it is on the lower end of the spectrum of developing countries, thus “its needs are different when compared to Malaysia, Thailand, or the Philippines”. The UNDP looks at the context of a region and develops programs to help the government establish a civil society. In the case of South Sudan, the main goal is to aid the transition government in institution-building after 30 years of a dictatorship, in order to set up a functioning democratic government and the development of a reliable constitution and system of justice. Another goal is hosting peace talks and most importantly sustaining peace after the negotiations, which requires setting up programs for various groups such as women and youth and creating employment at the local level. Naturally, the issue of climate change spreads its tentacles to this part of the world and has manifested as the conflict between farmers and herders, which the UNDP has to mitigate.

As the head of the organization, Mr. Selvakumaran spends most of his time in meetings with the government, from the prime minister to cabinet ministers to various donor agencies. The biggest challenge in this dynamic environment is the unpredictability of what the next hurdle might be on any given day. For example, as Mr. Selvakumaran postulates, if experts are invited and don’t have visas to get into the country, the focus must now be on how to get them into the country. As he points out, “challenges are always unexpected, if it’s expected then it’s not a challenge”.

What pushed Mr. Selvakumaran to pursue his line of work is the need to escape the marginalized community in Malaysia that he grew up in. Not only did he want to escape himself, but he also felt an obligation and duty to help others escape poverty as well. During the course of his university studies, he realized that his mission was to help others and looked at avenues to make that possible. The options he had were to work for an NGO, stay in the academic field to focus on research, or join the UN and be hands-on. Getting more satisfaction from the latter option, his path was set for him.

When asked about the danger of being in a conflict area, Mr. Selvakumaran pointed out that first and foremost it is paramount to do a conflict sensitivity assessment so as to ensure that your intervention doesn’t cause more conflict, thus doing more harm than good. It’s all about weighing the risks and mitigation measures needed to be taken, and once again Mr. Selvakumaran points out the importance of, working with local NGOs and communities in order to implement programs on the local level so they can be most effective and suit the community directly involved in the conflict.

When asked about the biggest problems that we are currently facing in the world, Mr. Selvakumaran said that the biggest, unsurprisingly, is climate change, which not only threatens our environment but also acts as a cause of various conflicts. Second on the list was rampant inequality which leads to mass migration, something that can only be described as another global crisis. If young people have aspirations and no opportunities to realize them in their home country, they will naturally seek them out in other places. Thus, reducing inequality is “the way to move forward in the world in a peaceful manner.”

After getting a feel of the realities Mr Selvakumaran Ramachandran has to contend with in his job, I couldn’t help but wonder how a single person dealing with so much responsibility and who is sometimes forced to see the world at its worst, doesn’t lose faith in humanity. My interlocutor answered in the same careful and wise fashion I’ve come to expect but with words that struck me to the core: “Hope is the key. If you do not have hope and aren’t optimistic and positive then you cannot do this kind of work”. As a sceptic of the goodness of human nature, I was surprised to hear such candid and unashamedly idealistic words applied to the paramount and real work that is being done. Mr.Selvakumaran went on to say, “you need to have a bigger vision of tomorrow and believe that the work you are doing will end up bettering the world.” If you are result driven, you will never be satisfied in this line of work as it requires, first and foremost, persistence, adaptability, and perseverance in the face of great obstacles. As for the future generations of foreign service workers and diplomats, Mr.Selvakumaran emphasizes the need to face the current environmental crisis by each acting as an agent of change in our own way. no matter the line of work we are in. Whether you decide to do this by pursuing work in the foreign service, the UN or within your own community, it doesn’t matter. What is important is that we all contribute, even if it’s in a small way, to making the world better: “A single individual can be a change agent”.

What we need to remember is the fact that all human beings want the same things in life and there is much more that unites us than divides us. According to Mr.Selvakumaran, in order to embrace this, one needs to be open and expose oneself to various cultures and societies in order to understand our common goals.

Without a doubt, our world is a scary place - from NRO MMB NIN oNmoMs Nene RoetKmiert is becoming criminal to ignore to the juvenile flexing of heads of state that threaten to speed up our already ultimate demise to the lack of choice and meaning in a late stage capitalist society. Talking to a person so closely involved with the political and bureaucratic functioning of the global community, I was expecting to hear a eulogy to cooperation, good governance, and the idea of a functioning global community in general. Instead what I found in Selvakumaran Ramachandran is an unrelenting optimist in spite, or maybe even because of the realities that he witnesses on a daily basis, a person who believes in the triumph of humanity and human goodness, who offered the most surprising gift to a nihilistic gen zero: hope and the possibility to maybe make the world just a little bit better, which frankly is not a popular point of view for our enlightened and disillusioned youth.

So while we sit in our committees and try to come up with the most eloquent arguments, let’s remember what we are in this world for. Let’s remember what unites us, and maybe then we can be just a step closer to being the type of singular person the Head of United Nations Development for South Sudan - Selvakumaran Ramachandran - is.