The World and Everything in It: March 18, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. March 18th is Trisomy 18 Awareness Day. My name is Beverly Jacobson.. Our daughter Verity just celebrated her seventh birthday with Trisomy 18, a condition sometimes deemed as incompatible with life. Thank you WORLD journalists for covering pro-life issues. I hope you enjoy today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Debit card fees are set by government which is blocking challenges to those fees. And the chief justice wants to know, how’s that fair?

JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: You have an individual that is harmed by something the government is doing, and you're saying, well, that's just too bad.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. Also today: the Monday Moneybeat, We’ll talk about the buying and selling of Tik Tok. And the WORLD History Book: 10 years ago, sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.

OBAMA: We have been guided by a fundamental principle: the future of Ukraine must be decided by the people of Ukraine.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 18th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time now for news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Netanyahu answers criticism » Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu is firing back over remarks by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who suggested last week that Netanyahu was unfit to lead and called for new elections in Israel.

NETANYAHU: I think Schumer’s statements are wholly inappropriate. We’re not a banana republic. The people of Israel will choose when they’ll have elections, who to elect, and it’s not something that will be foisted upon us.

President Biden did not expressly endorse Schumer’s remarks, but he told reporters on Friday …

BIDEN: I’m not going to elaborate on his speech. He made a good speech, and I think he expressed a serious concern shared not only by him but by many Americans.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell condemned Schumer’s remarks, calling it “grotesque and hypocritical” to interfere with the elections of a sovereign ally.

Netanyahu general defense, Rafah » Netanyahu also had a message for all of the critics of Israel’s war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

NETANYAHU (translated): To our friends in the international community I say: Is your memory so short? So quickly you forgot about October 7, the worst massacre committed against Jews since the Holocaust? 

With thousands of civilians killed since the start of the war, many world leaders have urged Israel to call off a planned ground invasion in the city of Rafah.

But Netanyahu says the city is the last remaining Hamas stronghold in Gaza and terrorist forces cannot be allowed to survive and regroup.

Gaza relief » Meantime, the founder of the World Central Kitchen relief group, José Andrés says he’s hopeful that a new maritime corridor for relief supplies will help to ease the humanitarian crisis within Gaza.

ANDRES: I hope that we can build a bigger system to bring huge quantities of food daily into the shores of Gaza.

A ship delivered nearly 200 tons of food and water to Gaza on Friday.

Border / drones » The Pentagon says drone incursions at the U.S.-Mexico border have soared recently to an alarming degree with more than 1,000 drones crossing into U.S. airspace each month.

Cartels use drones to surveil the Border Patrol as they traffick both drugs and people across the border.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday:

PAXTON: Look, I’m not surprised that this is going on now — that they’re sending drones across is no surprise. And it’s no surprise that Joe Biden is not going to do anything about it.

President Biden claims House Republicans are to blame for the border crisis for rejecting a Senate border bill.

Trump campaign remarks » Former President Trump stirred up controversy in Ohio over the weekend. Rallying supporters in Dayton, he called for a 100 percent tariff on imported vehicles vowing to go to bat for U.S. auto workers. But he added …

TRUMP: If I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.

The Biden campaign quickly condemned those remarks, accusing him of calling for an uprising, should he lose in November. GOP Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio shot back saying Democrats are deliberately taking his remarks out of context.

TURNER: The president’s statements concerning bloodbath were about what would happen in the auto industry if actually the Chinese manufacturers who are coming into Mexico were permitted to import into the United States.

But Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he thinks it would be best for the former president to choose his words more carefully.

Pence won't endorse Trump » Meantime, former Vice President Mike Pence says it will likely come as no surprise that he is not endorsing Trump in this year’s election.

He said he’s very proud of the record of the Trump-Pence administration.

PENCE: But as I look at what Donald Trump is running on now, I simply cannot in good conscience endorse his candidacy this year.

Pence said he believes the former president has started shying away from a commitment to the sanctity of human life and from confronting the national debt.

But Pence also added, “I would never vote for Joe Biden.”

TikTok bill latest » On Capitol Hill the Senate is dragging its feet on a new TikTok bill, just passed by the House, even as the White House urges action on the measure.

The bill cruised through the House last week in a rare show of bipartisan harmony. It would force the Chinese owners of the social media app TikTok: Sell the platform or face a nationwide ban in the United States.

GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy:

CASSIDY: I’d like to see the final language, but I’m certainly predisposed to vote for it. Anyone that doesn’t think the Chinese Communist Party would like to influence what we think in our country just doesn’t understand what they do.

But the Senate is not nearly as lockstep on this matter as the House with some members expressing concern about possibly running afoul of First Amendment liberties.

Polls also suggest the move could be unpopular with voters. And that too could be a factor in an election year.

Haiti latest » The situation in Haiti continues to spiral out of control as violent gangs increasingly seize power from outgunned security forces and a government in disarray.

Resident of Haiti: [Speaking Creole]

One woman in the capital city of Port-Au-Prince said, Last night, gang members stormed into our home with heavy firearms. They looted and vandalized our home. She said they returned again later to assault them and steal more of their belongings.

In Washington, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul says he has serious concerns about a State Department request for relief funds.

MCCAUL: What they’re asking me to do is release $50 million dollars of cash and weapons to go into Haiti with no governance. And the worst thing we could do is arm the very warlords that are threatening the people of Haiti.

But the United States has committed $300 million dollars to a multinational Kenyan-led mission that would help restore order and pave the way for new elections in Haiti.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: A fight over debit card fees on Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 18th day of March, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Well, we’re now in the part of the Supreme Court’s term when opinions will start to come more frequently.

On Friday, a unanimous decision gave the courts a new test to determine when social media use by a public official is subject to liability under the First Amendment.

Two disputes with similar facts arose when public officials deleted comments from citizens (or completely blocked a citizen) on social media sites.

They sued claiming those public officials violated their first amendment rights. Different circuit courts came to opposite conclusions, so the Supreme Court stepped in.

REICHARD: The high court’s new test requires lower courts to ask two questions: One, does a public official possess authority to speak for the government? For example, it doesn’t really matter what a city alderman might think about interest-rate policy by the Federal Reserve; it’s clearly out of his lane. The second question: was that public official speaking in his or her public capacity? When the county executive says online she’s shutting down businesses because of Covid. That would certainly seem to qualify as an official pronouncement.

But it’s going to require a different sort of fact finding in each case, so the justices remanded both to lower courts to find those facts and apply the new test.

EICHER: One other opinion came down in a dispute over the First Step Act. That’s a law President Donald Trump signed in 2018 to reduce mass incarceration of people convicted of low-level drug crimes. It came down to the meaning of the word “and,” and it occurred in a series of requirements to qualify for a lesser sentence.

Bottom line? Six justices declined to let more nonviolent drug offenders qualify for lesser sentences.

And not the six you might expect.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, joined by five conservatives. Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the minority opinion, with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

REICHARD: Didn’t see that one coming!

Now onto our two oral arguments for today. The first is a copyright dispute called Warner Chappell Music versus Nealy. It involves the song we played a few minutes ago:

MUSIC: [Pretty Tony version of “Jam the Box”]

It’s from 1984, called “Jam the Box” by Tony Butler, also known as Pretty Tony.

That song was produced by a rapper by the name of Sherman Nealy. Nealy owned a music production company back then. And the song was one of many that his company released. Nealy says he owns the rights.

But Nealy went to prison for several years starting in 1989. His company stopped operations.

When he got out of prison, Nealy learned that music publisher Warner Chappell and another publisher put out a song called “In the Ayer” by an artist known as Flo Rida. The song hit the top 10. Here’s a little of that:

MUSIC: [Flo Rida (2008 Samples) “In the Ayer”]

EICHER: You can hear the clear similarity, and there’s no dispute that Flo Rida “intTERpolated” the original, meaning he inserted elements of that song and put them into his.

But Nealy says that the original was used without his permission, and he wants money damages for that.

REICHARD: For the other side, music publisher Warner Chappell argues the way to deal with this dispute is to just follow the statute. And the Copyright Act gives three years to sue after a claim “arises.”

Doing the math, Flo Rida’s song came out in 2008. So under the law, Nealy had to sue by 2011. Which he didn’t do. He sued in 2018, a decade later.

Here’s Warner Chappell’s lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam:

KANNON SHANMUGAM: Under the applicable statute of limitations, a civil action must be brought within three years after the claim accrued. A claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete cause of action.

EICHER: Going on to explain that a “complete cause of action” arose when someone used the song without Nealy’s permission.

But Nealy’s lawyer pointed to something else that gives his client more time to sue: the “discovery rule.”

EARNHARDT: It has to be actual notice. And it has to be a particular type of actual notice and express repudiation. All of those things can only delay the statute of limitations running, but it's a discovery rule. It turns on what the plaintiff knows, not on what the defendant did.

REICHARD: So which is it? When Nealy found out? Or when Flo-Rida did it?

The circuit courts are split on the answer, which is why the high court stepped in. The justices accepted the case to answer a specific question. Does the discovery rule allow for damages outside the three-year statute of limitation?

EICHER: But the argument veered into something else: whether copyright law should even use the discovery rule in the first place.

That rabbit hole led to some judicial head scratching.

Here’re Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, let me map out what would happen if, we were to dismiss this petition as improvidently granted.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That wasn’t what we granted cert on.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: If it's a bad vehicle, does that not suggest we should dismiss this as improvidently granted?

REICHARD: “Dismissed as improvidently granted.” Known as a “DIG.” Sometimes the justices accept disputes for review that wind up a bad fit for the court. Sometimes, as happened here, the petitioner switched legal theories.

Maybe the justices will find a way to resolve the circuit split on how to handle damages in copyright cases.

Or maybe they’ll just DIG the whole thing.

EICHER: Even if they dig the song.

This next dispute also deals with time limits. This one involves debit card fees.

The facts revolve around a convenience store and truck stop in North Dakota called the Corner Post. It opened for business six years ago.

Corner Post accepts debit card payments, and therefore pays the fees banks charge for those transactions. But, of course, not before passing them along to customers in the form of higher prices.

The Federal Reserve bank sets those fees, having that authority from the Dodd-Frank Act of 2011. Dodd-Frank said the Fed can fix the maximum fee banks can charge for debit card transactions.

Banks earn billions of dollars off these transactions 21 cents at a time.

REICHARD: Trade associations representing retailers (among others) brought a challenge against the Board of Governors of the Fed. These associations argue the fees are too high, they’re arbitrary and capricious, and they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

The core dispute bounced around for a while before lead petitioner Corner Post joined the litigation in 2021.

Here’s its lawyer, Bryan Weir:

BRYAN WEIR: Corner Post opened for business in 2018. Since then, it's paid several hundred thousand dollars in debit card fees that it thinks are unlawful. But the government says that Corner Post's clock to challenge those fees actually started in 2011, seven years before Corner Post pumped a single gallon of gas. The government is wrong. Corner Post's clock started when it swiped its first debit card and paid its first fee. That is the right outcome here for three main reasons.

EICHER: Reason one, the text of the law. Two, good policy. And three, Congress.

The Administrative Procedure Act says the time period to challenge an agency regulation starts when a “claim first accrues.” Then you have six years to act.

Weir for Corner Post argued that first accrual came with its first customer. There’s no good policy argument for this or that fee, either.

Besides, if there’s a problem, it’s up to Congress to fix it.

REICHARD: But the Federal Reserve argues this lawsuit was filed much too late. Here’s its lawyer, Benjamin Snyder:

BENJAMIN SNYDER: Here, Congress's standard practice when it's focused on the time for challenging agency action has been to run the limitations period for that type of claim from the date of the agency action at issue.

Standard practice or not, Chief Justice John Roberts had a fundamental question for Snyder:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: You have an individual or an entity that is harmed by something the government is doing, and you're saying, “Well, that's just too bad, you can't do anything about it because other people had six years to do something about it and maybe another person, a business organization or whatever, did do something about it. I -- I mean, your friend on the other side said everybody is entitled to their day in court, and it doesn't say unless somebody else had a day in court or unless the government gave other people or anybody six years, but you didn't -- you weren't injured in six years, you were injured -- injured in seven years.” I -- I just -- I guess I am -- must be missing something because I don't understand why this wasn't settled 60 years ago.

EICHER: Snyder answered that’s how Congress does things, and he pointed to 29 other time limitations that are pretty much the same.

So Congress doesn’t share the chief’s thinking.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay, yeah, Congress doesn't share it, but, I mean, it has -- it's not exactly an uninterested party. It has set up an agency and they'd just as soon not -- it not be challenged. We don't say when there's a legal challenge to something else that Congress is happy with it, so go home.

REICHARD: Snyder argued Corner Post could have brought a lawsuit using some other part of the APA. Their back-and-forth continued:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but they weren't -- they weren't in existence six years after the regulation was adopted.

SNYDER: So that's true. It's also true in the Hobbs Act context, it's true in dozens of other contexts as well --

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, we have a whole bunch of things that are illegal.

SNYDER: I -- I don't think anyone has suggested that those are illegal, I mean --

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I –

SNYDER: -- except for the Chief Justice of the United States. (Laughter)

This case has blockbuster potential. Several justices worried about the implications of deciding to end Chevron deference. That’s a doctrine affirmed forty years ago by the high court. It says courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation where a statute leaves room for an agency to fill in details or is somehow ambiguous.

Justice Elena Kagan tackled that worry head on:

JUSTICE KAGAN: There is obviously another big challenge to the way courts review agency action before this Court….And, …if Chevron were reinforced, were affirmed, if Chevron were reversed, how does that affect what you're talking about here?

SNYDER: I think what I'd say is that a decision for Petitioner here would magnify the effect of any other decisions changing the way that this Court or other courts have approached administrative law questions, because it would -- it would potentially mean that those changes would then be applied retroactively to every regulation that an agency has adopted in the last, I don't know, 75 years or something.

Whether the court unsettles years of administrative law or not, a decision here has broader implications for all of us -far beyond paying “swipe fees” to use our debit cards.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm, the Bahnsen group. And he’s here now, David. Good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN, HOST: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, I’d like to talk about the story of the week. The funny thing is, it seemed to come a little bit out of nowhere. This was not on the legislative calendar, talking about, of course, the forced sale of TikTok. And I realized that there’s some legal process to play out. We’re just assuming that this gets approved in the Senate and signed by the president. But I’m curious, can you speak to the mechanics of a big sale like this? If this were to go forward, how would a thing like this even work?

BAHNSEN: Well, there’s so much complexity here. But let’s start with that legal side first and the political, I would not assume it’s going to get out of the Senate, but it is going to be very, very close. But if it’s blocked in the Senate, it’s going to be Republican led blocking, where you have people like Rand Paul fighting against it. And people like Josh Hawley, and Ted Cruz fighting for it. So this is some of the strangest political bedfellows I’ve ever seen. And there are different, you know, pragmatic considerations at play, I won’t get into.

But what I will say is that the irony, in my opinion will be that you could very well end up with a legislatively driven—okay, a congressional bill, which is how last I checked, we’re supposed to make laws in this country—you could have a legislative effort, blocking it, signed into law by the President (and it’s not blocking it. It’s saying they must sell), then have a federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission FTC, under the executive branch, led by Lina Khan, who will not let any of the potential buyers buy it. Who are the potential buyers that have the pockets, and a strategic interest, synergistically? Apple, Amazon, Facebook with Meta, [the FTC’s] not going to let any of those three buy it.

And so who are the potential buyers? I think it probably ends up being a financial consortium of private equity lead. You know, there’s still a few players in this country that can write a nine-figure check—with two commas. But it’s not a lot. And this FTC has been so antitrust driven, that I just don’t believe they’re gonna let some of the other big players take this on.

Your question is really interesting, which is what would end up happening. And that actually meets the goal they have here, if all they do is sell the brand and hold to the algorithm, I’m not sure that does what they’re looking for. What they want is to not have access of the data that is traded and used and floating around on TikTok accessed by the Communist Chinese party. I don’t know that they’re going to get to a solution where CCP and Byte Dance part with the data. I don’t know that they’re gonna get the solution where the brand has any value apart from the algorithm. And so there is a lot of TBD here.

I am sympathetic to the argument that giving a tool for propaganda to CCP is outside the U.S. interest, and I’m incredibly sympathetic to the argument that giving them access to data. Now, I do think that both those things could be theoretically satisfied with adequate regulatory oversight and imposition. They haven’t been. And I don’t think they’re going to be, but in theory, I think they could be. But merely blocking a country’s company from buying another, I think it has a lot of implications for the U.S. dollar. And I think it has a lot of implications for ongoing trade. So we will see what comes of this, but it is a real strange political, not to mention financial situation.

EICHER: Let’s talk about the possible effect on foreign investment in the U.S. There was a pretty long and complicated piece in The New York Times DealBook about what might become of investment from China or elsewhere, if they have to worry about forced sales and things like that. I mean, what kind of distortion do you think might occur if this does go through?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, there’s a lot of things that could happen. You could see investors look for other deals. You can see a premium in deals. It distorts cost, because people then have to start to worry about the regulatory minefields. This is a very difficult situation because I think they could end up doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Or they could do the wrong thing for the right reason. I said before, Nick, I am sympathetic to the fact that we do not want to give our enemies a propaganda tool. I am not sympathetic at all to the argument of just general opposition to foreign ownership. Our capital markets have always been open to freely trade. People can move, capital can move, labor can move. That is a fundamental part of the American experiment for almost 250 years. This particular rationale is different. And I’m acknowledging that with TikTok that there is an argument to be made. And then there are some people I am sympathetic to that are making. But then you get into other cases like this Nippon steel with U.S. Steel. And I would add, do they really want to keep U.S. companies from being able to buy foreign companies, because reciprocity as assured here, and what they would do to job creation and competitiveness? If we start saying that U.S.-based companies can’t acquire foreign companies, which is of course what sorts of retaliatory response you would expect here, it’s not good.

EICHER: Yeah. It’s interesting that you brought that up, because I saw the story, this was what back in December, when we heard of the possibility or the interest of Nippon Steel in acquiring U.S. Steel. And it just seemed to be ticking along just fine. And then all the sudden, President Biden came out and said he was against that. Now saying you’re against it and actually blocking the sale are two different things. Does that just kind of fall into the bucket of protectionism? Or is there something else at work here? Do you know?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I know very much what’s going on here. What’s happened between then and now is a President Biden is is tight or losing and polls in Pennsylvania, and he believes that there’s some argument here to be made, that makes him sympathetic with more economic nationalism. But far more importantly, as he has been lobbied like crazy by Cleveland Cliffs, which is a competitor of U.S. Steel, and is looking for their own kind of crony intervention. Now, as far as I know, President Biden has not said he’ll block, and he doesn’t have any authority to block it. He could try to get the FTC to block it, but this is not what’s happening with TikTok. With TikTok, it’s an act of Congress. They have the authority in the constitution to make law. We’re not talking about that here.

You’re talking about the use of the U.S. government, which is traditionally uses something called CFIUS from the State Department, to whenever they want to block a deal to pretend or to really believe that there is national security risk. Nobody believes that Nippon Steel and Japan—the great military threat of Japan!—is going to try to steal secrets. They’re already eating our lunch with this, this gives us greater advantage I feel very strongly. There’s been some good things written that one who is … and this is the thing about protectionism, it will cost jobs. You need a better-capitalized, better competitively positioned steel company for U.S. Steel to do better. This deal is additive. And so it doesn’t even scratch the itch of protectionism. It’s just rank, cosmetic politics.

EICHER: So David, I just threw that phrase out, “protectionism.” Why don’t we do that as Defining Terms this week? Talk about what historically protectionism is and what it means economically.

BAHNSEN: So historically, the term is a reference to government policies that seek to protect the domestic industry. And it’s largely been affiliated with attempts to restrict free trade. That by having less free global trade, it could better position our own domestic manufacturers. But philosophically, protectionism could be broader than trade protectionism. Things like imposing tariffs is really any policy that seeks to protect a certain sector. And so it’s not always been referred to in a complimentary sense, historically. The way I grew up, it was meant to be a pejorative. That the idea that the government would use policy to protect one sector or industry or economic actor, inferred that it was doing so because, you may have heard, Nick, there’s no free lunch. It may have done so by hurting another sector. What many will say now—which I disagree with, but I want to be charitable to my opponents— is that they’re protecting U.S. interest against the person who loses is a non-U.S. actor. And that ends up being more politically and emotionally sympathetic. But I also would argue that there is always a U.S. actor who benefits in protectionism and a U.S. actor who doesn’t. Another competitive company? Sometimes it pits producers versus consumers, but they’re both U.S.. So protectionism comes at a cost. But at a high level, that’s what it is, is government policy to protect some actor in the economy.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David’s latest book is Full Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. He also wrote the book, There’s No Free Lunch. But you can find out more about Full Time by visiting fulltimebook.com. David, I hope you have a great week. We’ll talk to you next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday March 18. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next: the WORLD History Book. Today a reminder that there is nothing new under the sun. 10 years ago, U.S. President Barack Obama announces sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine. 20 years ago, Israel kills the founder of Hamas.

EICHER: But first, 30 years ago, the U.S. hosts a ceasefire signing ceremony in Washington. Here’s WORLD Radio executive producer Paul Butler.

SOUND: [PHOTOGRAPHS, APPLAUSE]

PAUL BUTLER: On this day in 1994, representatives from Bosnia, Croatia, and Herzeg-Bosnia gather to sign a ceasefire agreement in the old executive office of the White House. U.S. President Bill Clinton looks on:

CLINTON: We have come to bear witness to a moment of hope. For 33 months the flames of war have raged through the nations of the former Yugoslavia.

Two years earlier, war broke out between Herzeg-Bosnia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The conflict in the former kingdom of Yugoslavia was much like a Russian nesting doll…as both Bosnian factions were supported by surrounding states and militaries—creating a localized war within the greater Bosnian war, and that within the yet larger Yugoslavian war.

CLINTON: Around the globe, the tension between ethnic identity and statehood presents one of the great problems of our time, but nowhere have the consequences been more tragic than in the former Yugoslavia.

Under the terms of the Washington Agreement, the combined territory of the Croat and Bosnian government forces is divided into ten autonomous cantons—or governing states. That’s in hopes of preventing dominance of one ethnic group over another. The agreement establishes the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina …at least in principle.

CLINTON: While documents like these can define the parameters of peace, the people of the region themselves must create that peace, economic, political and security arrangements for the new federation must be given a chance to work.

In 1994, NATO countries hope that the Washington Agreement will be a significant first step toward a peaceful solution to the ethnic and religious wars across Yugoslavia. But 30 years on, while the agreement has proven to be effective in stopping the war, it has done little to encourage reconciliation and healing.

Next, March 22nd, 2004…

Israeli Air Force Apache helicopters launch Hellfire missiles into a car traveling in the Gaza Strip. Inside the vehicle is Ahmed Yassin, co-founder and leader of the Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant group Hamas. Yassin and his bodyguards are killed in a ball of fire.

Senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi immediately condemns the attack—promising Hamas will respond…not just in kind… but all out war:

RANTISI: The war is opened. There will be no one (not only one) revenge, no one revenge. It's an opened war.

Yassin’s fiery rhetoric inspired many acts of terror…and Israeli intelligence connected him directly to many attacks—leading Israeli Defence Forces to insist the assassination was warranted. Major Ruthi Yaron:

YARON: This is a man who is actively engaged in terrorism and his killing and us taking him out of the way is actually a life saving action for the rest of the Israelis who were actually his target.

In 2004, Yassar Arafat is the face of the Palestinian Authority but Ahmed Yassin is the powerful spiritual leader of Hamas…

One Knesset member worries that the assassinated Yassin will be venerated as a religious martyr, increasing the specter of greater vengeance:

CHOEN: I think that now it (the killing) will be repaid by many people in Israel will be killed and I think it was not reasonable for the government to decide to do it.

SOUND: [FUNERAL PROCESSION]

Tens of thousands fill the street during Yassin’s funeral march through the Gaza Strip. The assassination may have played a part in Hamas’s 2006 election victory two years later. And the horrific events of October 7th, 2023.

And finally today, we end with March 17th, 2014 U.S. President Barack Obama announces sanctions against Russia after it sent troops into the Crimea region of Ukraine:

OBAMA: Today, I'm announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the costs on Russia and on those responsible for what is happening in Ukraine.

Two weeks earlier, Obama had signed an executive order restricting travel of Russian military and political officials as well as freezing their assets in the U.S. Now, the President announces stiffer sanctions:

OBAMA: As an initial step, I'm authorizing sanctions on Russian officials, entities operating in the arms sector in Russia, and individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the Russian government.

Three days after this speech, the Obama administration issues even more sanctions—and declares the annexation of Crimea as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

OBAMA: And as we go forward, we'll continue to look at the range of ways we can help our Ukrainian friends achieve their universal rights and the security, prosperity and dignity that they deserve. Thanks very much.

Nine months later, Obama levies broader sanctions against six of Russia’s largest banks and four energy companies. Then over the next two years, the White House issues a few more executive orders sanctioning Russia and its allies…

Raising the question: “Do sanctions work?” According to professor James Galbraith of the University of Texas at Austin, sanctions are rarely effective against nations the size of Russia. He suggests that the U.S. sanctions beginning in 1994 have actually provided Russia an opportunity to eliminate its dependence on Western imports. It also allowed them to buy up Western companies operating in Russia that were forced to leave under the sanctions.

Audio here from a recent New Economic Thinking video:

JAMES GALBRAITH: So again, I characterize the effect of the sanctions, in fact as being in certain respects, a gift to the Russian economy. And this is, I think, quite different from what the authors of the sanctions expected.

With the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the recent death of Alexey Navanly, the U.S. and its Western Allies continue to threaten further sanctions. But if 2014 is any indication, the sanctions may be mostly symbolic—at least as long as Russia has partners around the world who are willing to do business with them, like China, Iran, and North Korea.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Oregon reverses course on drugs, adding new penalties for possession. We’ll hear what led to the change.

And, another in our occasional series What Do People Do All Day: this time, a high school basketball referee who models faith in enforcing rules. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible records that Thomas said to [Jesus], “‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” —John 14:5, 6

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.