The Future of the AIIB

Given What the UK and Germany Wanted Out of the AIIB and Considering What the AIIB Accomplished During the First Year What Does This Mean for the Future of the AIIB?

Due to the Recency of the AIIB only just being developed in 2013, there was hardly any sign that the multilateral bank was easing into the game,  but through its accomplishments it can be seen that it is pushing full steam ahead. As of June 2017, the AIIB has approved of 2.49 billion U.S. dollars in order to finance 16 infrastructure projects in nine Asian countries (Xinhua, 2017). Since its creation Germany and the UK have become beneficial members of this Asian economic system as they lay out their hopes for the growing institution. In this short time they have indeed accomplished as they and the AIIB continue to progress into their first successful first year.

Just some of accomplishments and major loans the AIIB has invested in their first year, 2016, are as follow;

• Loaned to Indonesia, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Pakistan for programs such as
• expansion programs and border improvement projects
• In September 2916, the AIIB “committed $301 billion to Oman for the construction for maritime infrastructure at Duqm Port and preparation of the country’s first railway system”(Hsu, 2017).
• $300 million loan for a hydropower project in Pakistan and a $20 million loan to a power plant in Myanmar.
• Loan partnership with the World Bank to construct the Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline (TANAP) which will connect Azerbaijan to Europe
• Attention to the environment and human rights through investigations (Hsu, 2017)
• maintain a high standard for environmental and social safeguard for projects that we support, and our policies are binding (Elen, 2017).

Loan strategies:

• Increase interconnectivity between nations
• Easier access to specific destinations, such as the Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea

United Kingdom: Trend Setter

The United Kingdom (UK) was the first western power to join the AIIB, through their involvement with the AIIB they hoped to “be able to shape the new institution.”(Watt, Lewis, Branigan, 2015). In 2015 upon joining the AIIB, George Osborne, the Chancellor Exchequer of the UK announced his hopes that, “joining the AIIB at the founding stage would create an unrivalled opportunity for the UK and Asia to invest and grow together.” (Watt, Lewis & Branigan, 2015). In joining the AIIB it can be notated that the UK hopes to use this to their advantage in obtaining, “favorable treatment on big infrastructure deals funded by the new bank” (Runde, 2015). The AIIB is not the only the only regional development bank that the UK is a part of, but also the Caribbean development bank. In joining the AIIB the UK has set momentum for other European nations such as France and Germany to follow suit, due to the role that the UK has in the world economy and in the IMF. This lowers the risk factor of investment associated with the AIIB, such that borrowers will not be able to pay back loans. By ensuring those investments, the joining of leading European countries who then strengthen the AIIB’s implicit loan guarantees (Tombe, 2016). Since joining the AIIB, the UK has not only been able to increase the bank’s membership but also made it more organized in “setting out the governance and accountability arrangements that underpin the AIIB’s operating practices” (Osborne, 2015).

Germany: the Monetary Power Bank

Despite the apprehensions felt by the United States of America (USA) in regards to the AIIB, Germany sees it as an opportunity to instill  “a new kind of international institution” (Mahbubani, 2015) that incorporates a variety of economic perspectives that western institutions such as the IMF and World Bank seem to lack. Often, the World Bank and IMF have imposed conditionalities that have been harmful to interested entities (Weisbrot, 2009). Whereas in the AIIB, these conditionalities are not an explicit means of attaining infrastructural assistance and funds (Ellen, 2017).  Like the UK,  Germany understands that their involvement with the AIIB will elevate the institution's credibility as an  “international” one instead of one with “chinese characteristics” (Stanzel, 2017).  Since Germany’s association with the AIIB, the country is properly represented within the bank, holding one of three European deputy positions.  Deputy Joachim von Amsberg of Germany is responsible for policy and strategy, which includes developing the AIIB’s portfolio (Stanzel, 2017).  By participating/funding AIIB projects in Asia, EU members are given an opportunity to increase Europe's overall involvement in Asia.  "Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake, and will likely be involved in decisions that shape the overall organization - this is what the major European nations are looking for” says Thomas Koenig, a policy analyst at the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (Dominguez, 2015).  These implications only seem positive for Germany as it gives them an opportunity to have a hand in Asian development, in turn increasing their influence on Asia countries. German participation also presents the opportunity to build stronger relations with China and other participating members who strive to achieve one thing—prosperity.

What Does This Mean for the Future?

The creation of the AIIB by China initially was revered only as a minor threat to the World Bank and IMF. In its initial stages it only consisted of Asian countries and even then its membership was limited to those nations who had a direct interest in being in the AIIB to partake in their own development. However, the joining of the UK changed this perception of the AIIB as it brought well sustained nations into the bank such as Germany, who has the highest GDP in the Europe. Making the AIIB a legitimate threat to the World Bank and IMF being that these two institutions were institutionalize by the Bretton Woods System (Edkins, Zehfuss, 2014). The success of the AIIB could mean an alternative to the way development has previously worked under the Bretton woods system. As well as providing these developing nations more options in deciding how and who they want to be involved in their development, as the AIIB creates competition that can only benefit these nations.

Since its development the AIIB has been controversial in the international community due to the world’s current structure of power. The United States (US) who currently has the world’s largest economy also happens to be the dominant backer of the World Bank and IMF, so it has always been sensitive to the creation of another global bank. Therefore, it is no surprise that when China who has the second largest world economy decided to create the AIIB the US was against it. As there was already tensions between the two nations due to competition for economical power and differing ideologies. What remained then was the middle countries, the developed countries who though independent still needed to choose one of the superpowers (Mahbubani, 2015).  The UK has been in a long time alliance to the US, so it was expected that the UK would not join the AIIB, however in joining the AIIB it can be seen that there is a power struggle in the world structure. In realigning themselves into both camps AIIB and World Bank is them sensing that power struggle and wanting to ensure that their position does not change if the world structure does.

AIIB prospective membership in (blue) in 2015 after UK joined

Some critics have argued that the addition of the UK into the AIIB “puts Asian democracies on the back foot and helps Beijing in these negotiations. It sends a message that China can set the rules unilaterally and Britain will follow” (Wright, 2016). This is in fact the opposite as without the intervention of the UK into the AIIB, the momentum that the AIIB gained during its first year in membership and revenue may have not even been possible. 

UK officials have even said that in joining the bank as a founding member, “Britain will be able to shape the new institution” (Watt, Lewis, Branigan, 2015). Despite this minor controversy in the international community the real benefactors still remain to be the developing Asian countries who now have multiple institutions where they can receive loans from. As time goes on the AIIB membership will continue to grow larger, already Canada has joined as well as South Korea and Australia who initially did not join the AIIB due to careful diplomatic meetings with China related to the bank (Qiu & Desk, 2017). The AIIB president Jin Liqun remarks being, “very proud that AIIB now has members from almost every continent [and that they] anticipate further applications being considered by our Board of Governors later this year (Qiu & Desk, 2017). ”
For now what remains is the growing tensions between these two superpowers– the US and China, as they race to grasp unilateral power using their banking institutions as a mechanism.

Bibliography

Dominguez, G. (2015, March 18). Why Europe defies the US to join a China-led bank. DW.com.  18.03.2015. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.dw.com/en/why-europe-defies-the-us-to-join-a-china-led-bank/a-18322773

Elen, M. (2017, April 08). AIIB Official: Regional Integration Creates Much Richer ASEAN. Diplomat.com. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/aiib-official-regional-integration-creates-much-richer-asean

Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (2014). How Does Colonialism Work? In Global Politics: A New Introduction (pp. 338-358). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hsu, S. (2017, January 14). How China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Fared Its First Year. Forbes.com. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/01/14/how-chinas-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-fared-its-first-year/#68c264bc5a7f

Mahbubani, K. (2015, March 16). Why Britain Joining China-Led Bank Is a Sign of American    Decline. HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from   https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kishore-mahbubani/britain-china-bank-america-decline_b_6877942.html

Osborne, G. (n.d.). UK announces plans to join Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Gov.uk. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-plans-to-join-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

Qiu, S., & Desk;, B. M. (2017, March 23). China-led AIIB approves 13 new members, Canada joins. Reuters.com. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aiib/china-led-aiib-approves-13-new-members-canada-joins-idUSKBN16U0CG

Stanzel, A. (2017, April 21). A German view of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. ECFR.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_a_german_view_of_the_aiib_7275

Tombe, T. (2016, September 08). How much Will the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Cost Canada? Macleans.ca. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/how-much-will-the-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-cost-canada/

Watt, N., Lewis, P., & Branigan, T. (2015, March 12). US anger at Britain joining Chinese-led investment bank AIIB. The Guardian.com. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/13/white-house-pointedly-asks-uk-to-use-its-voice-as-part-of-chinese-led-bank

Weisbrot, M. (2009, May 13). The IMF is hurting poor countries | Mark Weisbrot. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/13/imf-us-congress-aid

Wright, T. (2016, July 29). A special argument: The U.S., U.K., and the AIIB. Brookings.edu. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/03/13/a-special-argument-the-u-s-u-k-and-the-aiib/

Xinhua, J. (2017, June 18). AIIB wins achievements in short time despite challenges: S. Korean deputy minister. ChinaDaily.com. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2017-06/18/content_29788767.htm  

Yueh, L. (2015, March 13). Why does the UK Want to Join the China-led Development bank? BBC.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31867934

Is France Being Anti-Terror or Anti-Muslim?

After 130 people died in the Paris attacks in 2015, France declared a nationwide state of emergency in which stricter security provisions were implemented with the aim of preventing future terrorist attacks. Although the state of emergency was only supposed to be for a few months, subsequent terror attacks led the French government to extend the state of emergency six times. Finally, on November 1st, 2017, President Emmanuel Macron ended the two-year long state of emergency and replaced it with a strong security law. Although the state of emergency is over, many critics have argued that the new security law makes many parts of the state of emergency permanent and will trample on civil liberties. In particular, this is especially concerning for France’s Muslim populations, who were disproportionately targeted under the state of emergency and will continue to be oppressed by the new law.

France’s state of emergency dates back to the country’s colonial period, specifically the Algerian Revolution in the 50’s and 60’s. At the time, France wanted to curb the bloody revolution going on in Algeria and argued that “it required additional powers to safeguard the nation, including the power, as it turned out, to sanction torture by the military” (Zaretsky 2016). Although the circumstances are different now, nonetheless, under a state of emergency, more powers are granted to police forces and the state to do the most they can to protect their citizens and in turn, some civil liberties are given up for the greater security of a nation. Under the most recent state of emergency, it “grants the government powers to shut down demonstrations, impose curfews, confiscate weapons, and put people under house arrest” without a warrant, and eavesdrop on calls, among numerous other provisions (Zaretsky 2016). Unfortunately, it is often Muslims, especially those of Arab and African descent, that are disproportionately targeted by these measures. In a 2016 Human Rights Watch report, all of the cases of police raids they documented were “Muslims, Muslim establishment, and halal restaurants” (France: Abuses under State of Emergency). According to the Interior ministry, since the State of Emergency went into force, it has prevented 32 terror attacks, 13 in 2017 alone (Nordstrom 2017). It has failed in some instances nonetheless, as 239 people have been killed in Islamic-related terrorist attacks over the past two years (Nordstrom). On top of that, of the 4,457 house raids that took place under the state of emergency, only 23 ended up being taken to trial. In particular, the capital of France is the main target for Islamic terrorists in Western Europe, as it has seen now 12 major terrorist attacks since 2012 (Telegraph, 2017).

On November 1, 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron replaced the two year state of emergency with a new anti-terrorism law (Vinocour, 2017). This controversial law aims to coordinate the actions of both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies by bulking up security, with daytime military patrols in major cities, and establishing a new anti-terrorism task force directly under Macron’s authority. The law also permits the restriction of the flow of people if they are considered to be a security threat and expands the areas for checkpoints. This law, hopefully will prevent slip-ups, such as their failure to prevent the three attacks carried out in 2012 by Mohammed Merah, an Islamist militant (Donadio, 2017).  In a recent poll by Le Figaro newspaper, 57% of the French public backs the new law, although 62% believes it to be a restriction of basic freedoms (DW, 2017). Critics argue that the law will be used to persecute minorities with impunity because the new measures allow security services to “shut places of worship deemed to be fostering extremism,” confine the movements of terror suspects, and search the homes of terror suspects without warrants (DW, 2017).  In addition to the concern expressed by the French citizens, UN experts warned that the new anti-terrorism bill had a “vague definition of terrorism”, which exacerbated concern that “emergency powers could be used in an arbitrary way” (Chrisafis, 2017).

The anti-terrorism law comes into effect as an effort by President Macron to remain strong and appear forceful in light of the events over the past years. However, the law’s extension of many of the strict security measures of the state of emergency, which have persisted since November 2017, are controversial to many human rights groups, some even considering it to be rather draconian in nature (“France approves tough new anti-terror laws” 2017). By granting local authorities the power to search homes and arrest people without a warrant, racial profiling will continue to persist and many innocent Muslims will fall victim to these raids. As France is adjusting to a new presidency with Emmanuel Macron, the reminisce of the “country that practiced religious and ethnic profiling on an industrial scale against suspected terrorist sympathizers” (Vinocour) under former President Hollande, who served during the spike in terror attacks between 2012-2017, remains.

Muslim immigrants and refugees in France are in a sensitive place in the nation, as many are there seeking refuge from conflict in their home states, but are also being openly targeted by the nation’s police and political forces. As opposed to Marine Le Pen, an explicitly Islamophobic and xenophobic candidate, Macron promised to be more tolerant of France’s Muslim population. However, given how discriminatory these emergency powers have been in the past, the new law will allow Muslim communities to remain targeted and profiled. These practices undeniably have a profound impact on Muslim communities in France, as they feel that France hates them and that they do not belong there. Furthermore, these policies have counterproductive consequences – as reported by the Human Rights Watch, “this abuse has traumatized families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens” (Human Rights Watch, 2016). Such treatment has been shown to breed greater distrust in law enforcement and hinder positive relations between Muslim communities and local law enforcement from being formed, which creates a sense of ‘otherism’, further alienating French Muslims from non-Muslims, and “undermining cooperation between Muslim communities and law enforcement efforts that could assist in identifying local terrorism threats based on radical Islam” (Human Rights Watch, 2016).  

While it is important for France to work to protect their citizens, this law will simply perpetuate the conditions of the state of emergency and fails to uphold civil liberties. In particular, France’s Muslim communities will continue to face discriminatory raids and arrests. The question must be asked: is this controversial law, which effectively targets Muslims living in France, beneficial in protecting the nation against terrorist attacks?

References:

Chrisafis, Angelique. “Macron’s counter-terror bill risks France’s human rights record, say UN experts.” (2017, Sept 28). Retrieved November 19, 2017 from, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/28/macrons-counter-terror-bill-risks-frances-human-rights-record-says-un

Donadio, Rachel. “A Terrorist’s Brother- and France- on Trial” (2017, Nov 4). Retrieved November 18 2017 from,  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/abdelkader-merah-toulouse-terrorist-brother-trial-france/544961/

DW. “French President Emmanuel Macron signs controversial anti-terror law” (2017, Oct 30). Retrieved November 19 2017 from, http://www.dw.com/en/french-president-emmanuel-macron-signs-controversial-anti-terror-law/a-41178081

“France approves tough new anti-terror laws” (2017, October 04). Retrieved November 20, 2017,

from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41493707

France's state of emergency laws explained in 90 seconds. (2015, November 19). Retrieved November 19, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-34852916/france-s-state-of-emergency-laws-explained-in-90-seconds

“France: Abuses Under State of Emergency.” Human Rights Watch, 4 Feb. 2016. Retrieved November 19 2017 from, www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/03/france-abuses-under-state-emergency.

Local, T. (2017, October 31). This is what happened during France's state of emergency. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from https://www.thelocal.fr/20171031/what-exactly-happened-during-frances-state-of-emergency

Rubin , A. J., & Peltier, E. (2017, October 03). French Parliament Advances a Sweeping Counterterrorism Bill. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/world/europe/france-terrorism-law.html

Vinocour, Nicholas. “New French anti-terror law to replace 2-year state of emergency” (2017, Oct 31). Retrieved November 17 2017 from,

https://www.politico.eu/article/new-french-anti-terror-law-to-replace-2-year-state-of-emergency/

Zaretsky, R. (2016, July 16). France's Perpetual State of Emergency. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/16/frances-perpetual-state-of-emergency/

Trump's Tweets on The Wall and Immigration

Twitter Diplomacy

Donald Trump has been a vocal and outspoken critic of United States Immigration policy even before he took office in January of 2017. Three main items on Donald Trump’s agenda have been the wall, the ban on predominantly Muslim refugees, and the reversal of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. All these actions have been extremely controversial, and have shifted the image of the United States in the world. The use of twitter by our current president has only fueled tensions and created a further divide on the issue of immigration policy, while simultaneously using immigrants as scapegoats, often times justifying White Supremacist groups to use intimidation and terror as an acceptable platform for expression, as shown in the Charlottesville White terror events.

In the summer of 2015 when Donald Trump announced his campaign for presidency, he made a complete racist and stereotypical remark about our southern neighbors saying “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” It was clear even before his presidential campaign and presidency that Donald Trump was anti-immigrant. The use of twitter, and his impressive following has allowed Donald Trump to have his rhetoric heard and seen by millions of people. Nevertheless, Trump’s xenophobic rants have turned into more concrete policy affecting predominantly immigrants of color through his ban on people coming into the country from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen., and his tightening restrictions H-1B Visa Program in which only the highest skilled and paying workers who would receive work visas.

Donald Trump has repeatedly implemented Pathos in his argument to justify him scapegoating immigrants for internal problems in the United States. He appeals to middle class White Americans, using the motto “Make America Great Again” to envision a normative conventional American society freed from the evils outside our borders. His motto to “Put America First” has encroached into economic, social, and institutional policy, often times reversing much of any Obama-era progress made. Through his tweets, and mega online presence, Donald Trump has effectively carried out immigration policy.

Six days after taking office, President Donald Trump faced the first international crisis of his administration, and it unfolded on Twitter. On social media, President Trump has always insisted Mexico would pay for The Wall. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, and former president Vicente Fox, have been equally insistent Mexico will not. Trump claims the total cost of The Wall will be around $10bn to $12bn. But, the report, prepared by the Democratic staff of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, stated that the border wall could cost nearly $21.6bn, not including maintenance. Enacting on his campaign promises and tweets, for immigration reforms, Trump signed executive orders to begin the construction of a border wall with Mexico and block federal grants for sanctuary cities, which areas that offer safety for undocumented immigrants. After signing the orders, Trump justified spending this US taxpayer money on The Wall, by insisting that Mexico would pay for these construction expenses “at a later date.” “A nation without borders is not a nation,” Trump said. “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.”

Tweet Translation: I repeat what I said personally, Mr. Trump: Mexico would never pay for that wall

Social media platforms, especially Twitter, are alight in response in Mexico. Denise Dresser, a professor and political analyst in Mexico, stated that although Donald Trump’s presidency may last two terms, Mexico has existed for thousands of years. The historian Rafael Estrada Michel has asked Mexico to renegotiate not NAFTA but the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty, which established the current border after the Mexican-American war. If US-Mexico relations continue on like this, Mexicans will be left without their largest trade partner and the US without their third largest partner. Mexico will have to entirely change its global alliances and economic structure. Although, Mexico has repeatedly refused to pay for Trump’s Wall, President Trump continues to tell his supporters, the wall is still being paid for by Mexico.

If the Trump administration continues with its proposed plan to build the wall and fund it by imposing a 20% tax on Mexican imports, Peña Nieto’s government has expressed options for retaliation. It could implement a crackdown on American citizens in Mexico, many of them retirees, who overstay their tourist visas in Mexico, or impose reciprocal tariffs on American exports. As Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray Caso stated, “You don’t ask your neighbor to pay for your home’s wall.” Recently, Mexico has repeatedly insisted it will not pay for the wall, a signature Trump campaign promise and rallying call. During a campaign rally in Arizona, Trump threatened a government shutdown, if Congress did not allocate taxpayer funding for the wall, essentially acknowledging that Mexico will not pay for it.

Immigration, as already noted both throughout this post and previous blogs, has been a defining factor in the Mexican-United States relationship. Indubitably a defining factor in President Donald Trump’s election, it has also been a topic he has consistently tweeted about since (and prior to) announcing he would run for office, and this has not changed in the first 10 months of his presidency.  While the wall has been a prominent feature of rhetoric throughout this period, aligned with the notion of reducing undocumented immigration, there have also been other elements existent, being additional prominent features (although not as large as the concept of the wall) in his campaign, or even unintended consequences of the President's actions; his reform to ‘legal immigration’, and what is now being labeled as the “Trump Effect’, are two of these notions.

‘Legal immigration’, in hand with undocumented immigration, has been a major target of the Trump administration – both in monitoring it, and essentially redefining it. Supporting a bill that will cut legal immigration in half, President Trump has argued through twitter and other means that these new “merit based” rules for immigration – which include preference for those able to speak English and high education level – will “protect US workers and taxpayers”, as well as reduce poverty and reduce wages. However, while on face these reforms may sound to have some type of value, they have the potential to be detrimental to all types of domestic and international politics - in addition to interior problems, such as the fact immigrants make up approximately half of U.S. population growth in an ageing population, international consequences include the separating of families between nations, and a further widening in the political rift between the United States and Mexico, and other nations which these policies clearly target. President Trump’s rhetoric through means such as twitter, inclusive even of the perhaps more innocent example below, which subtly suggests that current immigrants are inherently a threat to the American citizens, exacerbate this, leading both American citizens, and the rest of the world, to see two side; America, and the other.

The ‘Trump effect’, often claimed as a victory by the current administration (as seen below), is the notion that illegal immigration into the United States, and even a back peddling of undocumented immigrants, has been reduced simply as a result of Donald Trump’s election as president. Traceable back perhaps to President Trump’s rhetoric in itself, made easily accessible to the international community through means such as twitter, this idea can be backed, at least on initial reports, by sources in both the United States and Mexico, which show crossing of the United States southern border lowering, cross of the Mexican southern border lowering, and applications for asylum in Mexico rising significantly.   

In addition to the international relations crisis that erupted between Mexico and the United States in early 2017, which was driven by immigration based policy and his twitter use in relation to it, President Trump’s social media use and action towards Muslim migrants has caused controversy, international relations consequences, and, perhaps most of all, affected every day people – the often forgotten about extra element of international politics. On a global scale, Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the wall has caused protests all around the world, but particularly in Mexico City, Mexico. On February 12 of 2017, 20,000 protesters gathered, holding effigies of Donald Trump and waving Mexican flags. In London, demonstrators gathered outside of the United States embassy shortly after the inauguration of Donald Trump, shouting “Dump Trump!” and other similar sentiments. Regardless of these protests by the international community, few world leaders have actually ceased cooperating with the United States, causing extreme concern for the international community as these international leaders are expected to speak out when certain values are disregarded in the political sphere.

Bibliography

account, Enrique Peña NietoVerified. “Enrique Peña Nieto (@EPN).” Twitter, Twitter, 19 Nov.

2017, twitter.com/EPN.

Ahmed, Azam. “As Trump Orders Wall, Mexico’s President Considers Canceling U.S. Trip.”

The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/world/americas/trump-mexico-border-wall.html.

Amadeo, K. (2017, November 20). How Do Trump's Immigration Plans Affect You?

Retrieved from

https://www.thebalance.com/donald-trump-immigration-impact-on-economy-4151107

Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca

Domm, Patti. Trump supports immigration bill that could have negative impact on his own agenda. 2 Aug. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/trump-supports-immigration-bill-that-could-have-negative-impact-on-agenda.html. Accessed 20 Nov. 2017.

Fredericks, Bob. Trump’s new bill makes legal immigration even harder. New York Post, New York Post,  2 Aug. 2017, nypost.com/2017/08/02/trumps-new-bill-makes-legal-immigration-even-harder/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2017.

Heim, J. (2017, August 14). How a rally of white nationalists and supremacists at the University

of Virginia turned into a. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/charlottesville-timeline/?utm_term=.4d423b239d09

Keohane, Joe, et al. “The Cry-Bully.” POLITICO Magazine,

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/2016-donald-trump-politics-campaign-twitter-social-media-213827.

Nixon, Ron. “Border Wall Could Cost 3 Times Estimates, Senate Democrats’ Report Says.” The

New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/senate-democrats-border-wall-cost-trump.html.

Reilly, K. (2016, August 31). Donald Trump: All the Times He's Insulted Mexico. Retrieved

from http://time.com/4473972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/

Romm, T. (2017, April 19). Trump signed an executive order to review high-skilled H-1B

immigration visas. From

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/17/15334662/trump-h1b-visa-immigration-order

Santiago, Leyla. The 'Trump effect' looms large at Mexico's southern border. CNN, 24 July 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/americas/trump-effect-mexico-southern-border/index.html.

Semple, Kirk. A Flawed Asylum System in Mexico, Strained Further by U.S. Changes.  New York Times , New York, 5 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/americas/mexico-central-america-migrants-refugees-asylum-comar.html?_r=0.

Quesada, Vicente Fox. “Hello, @RealDonaldTrump, It's Me with a Small Reminder for You:

We're Still NOT Paying for Your #FuckingWall. Https://T.co/RDlaifwPr1.” Twitter, Twitter, 7 June 2017, twitter.com/vicentefoxque/status/872467686357434369?lang=en.

Trump, Donald J. “Mexico Will Pay for the Wall!” Twitter, Twitter, 1 Sept. 2016,

twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/771294347501461504?lang=en.

“Trump Twitter Archive.” 20 Nov. 2017, www.trumptwitterarchive.com.